Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Humes claimed possibility of an ice bullet?

138 views
Skip to first unread message

John King

unread,
Sep 1, 2012, 7:14:10 PM9/1/12
to
As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. On page
6 this is said:

**********

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A
general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck
JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could
have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
caused by the same kind of bullet.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md47/html/Imag
e6.htm

**********

I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
specifically to Humes. In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to
the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
three autopsists. Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this
meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
necessarily initiated by any one particular person. Is there some other
original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
specifically to Humes? The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims
here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
speculation to Humes specifically by name.

Thanks.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 2, 2012, 9:43:13 PM9/2/12
to
You are so naive that you expect to find a signed confession from Humes?
O'Neill's only job there was to write down what he HEARD Humes say, not
to make up his own speculation.


Bud

unread,
Sep 2, 2012, 9:47:42 PM9/2/12
to
On Sep 1, 7:14 pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47.  On page
> 6 this is said:
>
> **********
>
> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet.  A
> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck
> JFK.  There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could
> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> contact.  There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md47/html/...
> e6.htm
>
> **********
>
> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> specifically to Humes.  In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to
> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> three autopsists.  Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this
> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> necessarily initiated by any one particular person.  Is there some other
> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> specifically to Humes?  The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims
> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>
> Thanks.

Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
Humes.

Bud

unread,
Sep 3, 2012, 9:03:23 AM9/3/12
to
On Sep 2, 9:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/1/2012 7:14 PM, John King wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
> > similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
> > Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47.  On page
> > 6 this is said:
>
> > **********
>
> > Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet.  A
> > general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck
> > JFK.  There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could
> > have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
> > contact.  There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
> > caused by the same kind of bullet.
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md47/html/...
> > e6.htm
>
> > **********
>
> > I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
> > specifically to Humes.  In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even to
> > the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
> > three autopsists.  Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if this
> > meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
> > necessarily initiated by any one particular person.  Is there some other
> > original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
> > specifically to Humes?  The reason I ask is that I am coming across claims
> > here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
> > But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
> > his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
> > autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
> > speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>
> > Thanks.
>
> You are so naive that you expect to find a signed confession from Humes?
> O'Neill's only job there was to write down what he HEARD Humes say, not
> to make up his own speculation.

O`Neill didn`t say he HEARD Humes say this.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 3, 2012, 6:03:09 PM9/3/12
to
O'Neill only wrote down what Humes said. That was his job there.


Herbert Blenner

unread,
Sep 3, 2012, 7:36:52 PM9/3/12
to
Were you they Marsh when O’Neill wrote down what Humes told him?

Bud

unread,
Sep 3, 2012, 7:38:57 PM9/3/12
to
Proven wrong by the fact that he made note of a general discussion.

>That was his job there.

Support that. Show that O`Neill`s was sent there for the sole purpose
of recording Humes` words.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 3, 2012, 10:58:23 PM9/3/12
to
> Were you they Marsh when O�Neill wrote down what Humes told him?
>


Was I who?
I did not say that O'Neill wrote down what Humes told him. You have a
history of twisting my words. I said that O'Neill wrote down what he
heard Humes say.


Bill Clarke

unread,
Sep 3, 2012, 10:58:53 PM9/3/12
to
In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Sep 1, 7:14=A0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a claim
>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA by
>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =A0On p=
>age
>> 6 this is said:
>>
>> **********
>>
>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. =
>=A0A
>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struc=
>k
>> JFK. =A0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet co=
>uld
>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after
>> contact. =A0There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were
>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md47/html/...
>> e6.htm
>>
>> **********
>>
>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bullet
>> specifically to Humes. =A0In fact, he does not seem to attribute it even =
>to
>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides the
>> three autopsists. =A0Instead, he described a "general feeling," as if thi=
>s
>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that was not
>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =A0Is there some othe=
>r
>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>> specifically to Humes? =A0The reason I ask is that I am coming across cla=
>ims
>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated this.
>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man himself in
>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during the
>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute this
>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
>Humes.
>

I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had much
penetration ability either.

Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?

Bill Clarke


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 12:34:39 PM9/4/12
to
Fun to guess, isn't it?
Why do you refuse to watch the Mythbusters episode where they actually
made them and fired them into targets?
This is not about whether ice bullets exist or if anyone had ever used
them. This is only about how stupid Humes was to propose the idea that
an ice bullet accounted the the shallow back wound.
If you think the idea is impossible I suggest that you offer your neck
as the target and tell me how it felt after I fire an ice bullet into
your neck. Assuming you can still speak.
Instead of ricin I'll use liquid Ibuprofen.

>


Bud

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 12:38:21 PM9/4/12
to
On Sep 3, 10:58 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
As I understand it the people conducting the autopsy were unaware
that the tracheotomy incision in Kennedy`s throat was a bullet wound.
So they had a wound they thought was a shallow bullet wound in the
back with no bullet. This led to someone speculating that an ice
bullet was used. Might have been a joke that O`Neill took as serious.
In any case Marsh has taken it upon himself to attribute the idea of
an ice bullet to Humes, but like a lot of his ideas he can`t support
it. But it`s hard to imagine that there is anyone here that gives any
weight to anything Marsh says by now anyway.

John Reagor King

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 12:39:07 PM9/4/12
to
In article <k23kv...@drn.newsguy.com>,
Bill Clarke <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
> going down the barrel and hot ice melts.

More of a problem would be the ice fragmenting under the sudden pressure
of discharge from the barrel or muzzle of the gun. Also, in 1963, how
would the ice be kept frozen long enough, most especially when no one
could know exactly what time the motorcade would pass? ;-)

> I wouldn't think they had much
> penetration ability either.
>
> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?

Heh. When another poster here a few weeks ago claimed that Kennedy's
throat wound had been caused by an ice bullet, I decided to look on the
Internet, doing a simple search on the phrase "ice bullet." In the
first ten pages of matches I did not find even one credible, documented
account of any person in any country in any year in any decade being
shot and wounded with such a projectile. There were many references,
however, to an episode of Mythbusters in which an ice bullet was fired
from a sort of a "gun," with underwhelming results. I think the problem
was that it fragmented immediately upon being discharged, and hardly
penetrated the target. Nearly all other matches were either of
references to a movie with "ice bullet" somewhere in the title, or "ice
bullets," simply pieces of ice shaped rather like bullets, being used in
cocktails.

*snicker*

JRK

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 4:40:38 PM9/4/12
to
On Sep 3, 10:58 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a equivalent MC
bullet. Ever worse the deceleration of the ice bullet would be 11 times
the deceleration of the equivalent MC bullet. This means that if air
friction slowed a MC bullet by 1 fps per foot then the ice bullet would
slow by 11 fps per foot. Under these conditions the ice bullet would be
subsonic at a 35-yard range.


>
> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?

Yes, hail driven by a tornado make ice bullets.

Herbert

Bill Clarke

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 4:43:20 PM9/4/12
to
In article <504584cd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
With your lack of knowledge of ballistics and marksmanship I doubt you
could hit my neck.

Bill Clarke


Bud

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 4:45:18 PM9/4/12
to
On Sep 4, 12:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 10:58 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
You haven`t shown that he did.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 7:35:48 PM9/4/12
to
No one offered an ice bullet as an equivalent to a MC bullet.
You don't even understand the concept of an ice bullet and you refused
to watch the Mythbusters episode.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 7:36:24 PM9/4/12
to
On 9/4/2012 12:39 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <k23kv...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Bill Clarke <Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. He is very often wrong. Now I don't
>> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get pretty hot
>> going down the barrel and hot ice melts.
>
> More of a problem would be the ice fragmenting under the sudden pressure
> of discharge from the barrel or muzzle of the gun. Also, in 1963, how
> would the ice be kept frozen long enough, most especially when no one
> could know exactly what time the motorcade would pass? ;-)
>
>> I wouldn't think they had much
>> penetration ability either.
>>
>> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
>
> Heh. When another poster here a few weeks ago claimed that Kennedy's
> throat wound had been caused by an ice bullet, I decided to look on the
> Internet, doing a simple search on the phrase "ice bullet." In the
> first ten pages of matches I did not find even one credible, documented
> account of any person in any country in any year in any decade being
> shot and wounded with such a projectile. There were many references,

Silly you. No one claimed that an ice bullet was actually used.
And the throat wound is not what started it. Humes made it up to explain
the shallow back wound.

> however, to an episode of Mythbusters in which an ice bullet was fired
> from a sort of a "gun," with underwhelming results. I think the problem
> was that it fragmented immediately upon being discharged, and hardly
> penetrated the target. Nearly all other matches were either of

Then you really didn't watch the episode. They produced two weapons,
both of which fired ice bullets which penetrated into ballistics gel a
couple of inches.

> references to a movie with "ice bullet" somewhere in the title, or "ice
> bullets," simply pieces of ice shaped rather like bullets, being used in
> cocktails.
>

Yes, if you search with Google there is no longer any easy way to remove
the extraneous matches. Not even using "-movie" will do it.
In the old days there used to be a search engine which would allow you
to use Boolean terms like AND OR NOT NEAR.

> *snicker*
>
> JRK
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 7:37:05 PM9/4/12
to
Yes, you are on the right track. Humes did not say it was an ice bullet.
He speculated and wondered if such a thing was even possible. So he asked
the FBI agent and about and the FBI agent called the FBI lab to ask them
if such a thing was possible.

> bullet was used. Might have been a joke that O`Neill took as serious.

It was no joke. It was pure speculation to try to explain the the
shallow back wound.

Bud

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 7:37:26 PM9/4/12
to
On Sep 4, 12:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 10:58 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
The myth of ice bullets was busted by Mythbusters. Twice.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode1

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Sep 4, 2012, 11:14:04 PM9/4/12
to
The statement, “An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a
equivalent MC bullet.” refers to an ice bullet with the same shape, size
and speed of a MC bullet and differs only by the explicitly stated
characteristic of composition, which implies a difference in mass.

Herbert

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 9:39:08 AM9/5/12
to
> The statement, �An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a
> equivalent MC bullet.� refers to an ice bullet with the same shape, size
> and speed of a MC bullet and differs only by the explicitly stated
> characteristic of composition, which implies a difference in mass.
>
> Herbert
>

Which is ridiculous on its face because no one proposed that. It is what
is known in the trade as a Straw Man Argument. If you can't beat the
argument as it stands change it to something which you can easily beat.


Why do you keep refusing to watch the Mythbusters epsisode? What are you
so afraid of?



Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 9:39:13 AM9/5/12
to
Straw man argument. What they busted was the proposition that
An assassin can fire an ice bullet to kill someone without leaving a trace.

That is not what Humes was theorizing. He was trying to explain the
shallow wound in the back. That wound did not kill Kennedy.


Again, why do you refuse to actually WATCH those episodes and instead
misrepresent their experiments?

John Reagor King

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 9:41:04 AM9/5/12
to
In article
<fe609daf-e791-4d19...@z4g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:

> An ice bullet would have 1/11 of the kinetic energy of a equivalent MC
> bullet. Ever worse the deceleration of the ice bullet would be 11 times
> the deceleration of the equivalent MC bullet. This means that if air
> friction slowed a MC bullet by 1 fps per foot then the ice bullet would
> slow by 11 fps per foot. Under these conditions the ice bullet would be
> subsonic at a 35-yard range.

Ah yes, physics, I love it. Mr. Blenner, you are da bomb in this area,
as I've long thought. I am presuming that what you say above has
something to do with the specific gravity of the water molecule when
frozen?

> > Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
>
> Yes, hail driven by a tornado make ice bullets.

I would instead describe that as tornado-driven hail, period. YMMV.

:P

JRK

caeruleo

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 5:22:02 PM9/5/12
to
I will break my long-standing practice to ignore you, Mr. Marsh, only
this once, and only because I am able to see your articles on Google
through which I am (ugh) currently posting, but thank goodness not on
my newsreader. You have just confirmed, yet again, that my 2005
decision to never again take you seriously was the correct one.

Are you so naive as to possibly believe that it is necessary to have
any such silly thing as a "signed confession" from Humes to have some
sort of confirmation of what he said? As you ought to have known
years (plural) before you posted that utterly ridiculous question, it
would obviously have been at least somewhat satisfactory for O'Neill
to have produced what he claimed to be a verbatim quote of Humes, or
even to attribute a paraphrased version to Humes by name. But O'Neill
did not do that in that document. Nothing about the ice bullet is
attributed by O'Neill to Humes specifically in that document. Since
O'Neill was quite obviously writing down what was said by more people
than just Humes, it was rather obviously not his "only" job, as you
have so erroneously claimed, to write down what he heard Humes say,
but rather to write down what he heard *anybody* at the autopsy say.

I will remind you, yet again, Mr. Marsh, why I put you on permanent
killfile on my newsreaders (by now on three different computers) in
2005, after first putting you on killfile for 30 days, then 60 days,
then 90 days. It never had anything at all to do with anything I have
ever seen you say about the JFK assassination itself. It had solely
to do with you claiming, over and over and over, that I had said
things I never said, and then ABSOLUTELY REFUSING, over and over and
over, to admit, even once, that you had made a single mistake even
AFTER I had quoted myself VERBATIM from my previous articles, proving
beyond all possible doubt that I had not said what you erroneously
claimed I said.

Now, everybody, watch this:

Mr. Marsh, I now challenge you to a REAL-LIFE debate, you and me, face
to face, in front of live witnesses, about the JFK assassination. It
is my suspicion that you will never, ever, ever agree to such a
debate, even though I *will* agree to such a debate, if I have the
money to travel to wherever the debate is held. Oh yes, I am once
again, after the posting of this article, going to start ignoring your
articles in this newsgroup or any other newsgroup again. But I guess
you know how to send an email. My email address, caer...@yahoo.com,
displayed on the From line of all my articles, still continues to be
valid, just as it was valid in my first article to this newsgroup in
October, 2002, despite the unsuccessful attempt of another poster here
(not you) to have the address terminated by means of a false
complaint. Thus you know how to email me to arrange this debate.

Do be certain, Mr. Marsh, that in this live debate, if you agree to
it, I will bring up numerous examples of you claiming I said things I
never said, and numerous examples of you failing to admit your errors
when I pointed them out to you. I will also not be at all hesitant to
tell the audience that, if you refuse to admit your errors regarding
me personally, this might be indicative of you also refusing to admit
your errors regarding the JFK assassination.

(Watch everyone, he'll never, ever, ever agree to any live debate with
me. Rather obviously, it will be because he knows his credibility
will be catastrophically demolished in front of a live audience.)

John Reagor King

caeruleo

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 5:23:16 PM9/5/12
to
Oh. It's you again. This is one of the handful of occasions that I
have read your articles since 2005, Bud, and only because I'm looking
on (ugh) Google Groups at the moment, and most times even when I do
look on Google Groups, I almost always skip right past your articles.
I find you to be absolutely no better than Marsh, ever since on
September 9, 2005, you said this to me:

**********

I will do everything I can to cause you to relapse. I think I`ll take
to naming you in everything I post. Maybe I`ll say things like
"Caeruleo says this..." or "Caeruleo thinks this...", even if you
never said or thought such things as I intend to relate. I have no
qualms regarding my credibility. I know what bait to use, we`ll see if
I can get you to bite. (that oughta be good for a killfiling).

**********

It certainly was good for a killfiling, Bud, a killfiling that has
lasted for almost seven years on three different computers. Not once
here, not once, have I ever threatened another poster that I would
claim the poster said things that were actually never said. You will
be helplessly unable to locate a single reply by my to you between
9-9-05 and today. Almost seven years later, have you reconsidered
your credibility? Are you ready to discuss the JFK assassination with
me again, finally? I am willing to at long last take you off killfile
on my newsreader program. But that depends on how you respond to
this.

Never once have I killfiled anyone because of anything they've ever
said about the JFK assassination itself, no matter what it was, no
matter how strongly I disagreed with it. But I have little tolerance
for people who make false claims about me personally, or even threaten
to make false claims, even when those threats are not actually carried
out, since I have not once made such a threat. The question that
immediately comes to my mind is this: if the person makes false claims
about me, or threatens to, how many false claims has the person made
about the assassination?

John Reagor King

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 5:23:28 PM9/5/12
to
In article <504671bc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Wrong.



>> *snicker*
>>
>> JRK
>>
>
>


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

Bud

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 5:24:00 PM9/5/12
to
It`s only your unsupported theory that Humes theorized about an ice
bullet at all.

> He was trying to explain the
> shallow wound in the back.

Which was deep enough to be potentially fatal in many parts of the
body.

> That wound did not kill Kennedy.

You don`t know that. Kennedy had some signs of life at the hospital,
you don`t put him over the top. He might have went longer if it was
only the headwound he suffered.

> Again, why do you refuse to actually WATCH those episodes and instead
> misrepresent their experiments?

You misrepresented Mythbusters to have supported the idea of an ice
bullet. They actually busted the idea.

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Sep 5, 2012, 5:26:10 PM9/5/12
to
“The bullet was simply too brittle to be used.”

Were Mythbusters too stupid to use a lower power rifle to prevent the
ice bullet from shattering during firing or did they engineer another
deception?

Herbert

Bud

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 12:11:21 AM9/6/12
to
They even tried CO2, Herbert. Heres a portion of the episode...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x0Y9PeIUo0


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 4:15:53 PM9/6/12
to
> �The bullet was simply too brittle to be used.�
>
> Were Mythbusters too stupid to use a lower power rifle to prevent the
> ice bullet from shattering during firing or did they engineer another
> deception?
>

Were YOU too clueless to actually watch the show?

> Herbert
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 4:17:29 PM9/6/12
to
It's what the FBI agents said.

>> He was trying to explain the
>> shallow wound in the back.
>
> Which was deep enough to be potentially fatal in many parts of the
> body.
>

Not in and of itself. Lattimer's theory that the back wound alone could be
fatal is based on the SB going though JFK's neck. Not the shallow wound.
Many people have received shallow wounds which are never fatal. Humes
really was that stupid that he thought the bullet only went in as far as
he could poke his little pinkie. Less than an inch. Do you think
Connally's thigh wound was fatal when it only penetrated a couple of
inches?

>> That wound did not kill Kennedy.
>
> You don`t know that. Kennedy had some signs of life at the hospital,
> you don`t put him over the top. He might have went longer if it was
> only the headwound he suffered.
>

Are you a doctor? In your professional opinion a person can survive an
explosive head wound and then be killed by a flesh wound? Maybe you
remember Gabby Giffords. She survived a bullet going through her head.
Medicine has many amazing strides since 1963. Remember another President
who received a shallow bullet wound in an assassination attempt?

During a stop in Milwaukee on his 1912 "Bull Moose" campaign for the
presidency, Roosevelt was shot at close range by John Schrank, a psychotic
New York saloonkeeper. Schrank had his .38 caliber pistol aimed at
Roosevelt's head, but a bystander saw the gun and deflected Schrank's arm
just as the trigger was pulled. Roosevelt did not realize he was hit until
someone noticed a hole in his overcoat. When Roosevelt reached inside his
coat, he found blood on his fingers.

Roosevelt was extremely lucky. He had the manuscript of a long, 50-page
speech in his coat pocket, folded in two, and the bullet was no doubt
slowed as it passed through it. He also had a steel spectacle case in his
pocket, and the bullet traversed this, too, before entering Roosevelt's
chest near the right nipple. Thus, one could say that Roosevelt's
long-windedness and myopia saved his life!

Although the bullet traveled superiorly and medially for about 3 inches
after breaking the skin, it lodged in the chest wall, without entering the
pleural space. Roosevelt was examined in a Milwaukee hospital [More],
(where he reluctantly allowed the surgeons to administer an injection of
tetanus anti-toxin [8c]), and then was observed for 8 days in a Chicago
hospital. He was discharged on October 23, 1912 -- only a few days before
the election. The bullet had effectively stopped Roosevelt's campaign. He
finished second to Woodrow Wilson, but ahead of the incumbent President,
William Howard Taft. The bullet was never removed, and caused no
difficulty after the wound healed. [5]

The details of the assassination attempt and its aftermath are described
in [4b].

Assassination attempt
The bullet-damaged speech and eyeglass case on display at the Theodore
Roosevelt Birthplace
X-Ray of Roosevelt's ribcage showing the bullet at lower left

While Roosevelt was campaigning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on October 14,
1912, a saloonkeeper named John Schrank shot him, but the bullet lodged
in his chest only after penetrating his steel eyeglass case and passing
through a thick (50 pages) single-folded copy of the speech he was
carrying in his jacket.[65] Roosevelt, as an experienced hunter and
anatomist, correctly concluded that since he was not coughing blood, the
bullet had not completely penetrated the chest wall to his lung, and so
declined suggestions he go to the hospital immediately. Instead, he
delivered his scheduled speech with blood seeping into his shirt.[66] He
spoke for 90 minutes. His opening comments to the gathered crowd were,
"Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know whether you fully understand that I
have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull
Moose."[67] Afterwards, probes and x-ray showed that the bullet had
traversed three inches (76 mm) of tissue and lodged in Roosevelt's chest
muscle but did not penetrate the pleura, and it would be more dangerous
to attempt to remove the bullet than to leave it in place. Roosevelt
carried it with him for the rest of his life.[68]

Because of the bullet wound, Roosevelt was taken off the campaign trail
in the final weeks of the race (which ended election day, November 5).
Though the other two campaigners stopped their own campaigns in the week
Roosevelt was in the hospital, they resumed it once he was released. The
bullet lodged in his chest caused his chronic rheumatoid arthritis ?
which he had suffered from for years[69] ? to get worse and it soon
prevented him from doing his daily stint of exercises;[69] Roosevelt
would soon become obese as well.[69] Roosevelt, for many reasons, failed
to move enough Republicans in his direction. He did win 4.1 million
votes (27%), compared to Taft's 3.5 million (23%). However, Wilson's 6.3
million votes (42%) were enough to garner 435 electoral votes. Roosevelt
had 88 electoral votes to Taft's 8 electoral votes. This meant that Taft
became the only incumbent president to place third in a re-election bid.
But Pennsylvania was Roosevelt's only eastern state; in the Midwest, he
carried Michigan, Minnesota and South Dakota; in the West, California
and Washington; he did not win any southern states.

>> Again, why do you refuse to actually WATCH those episodes and instead
>> misrepresent their experiments?
>
> You misrepresented Mythbusters to have supported the idea of an ice
> bullet. They actually busted the idea.
>

I point out that they LIED. They changed the myth.
I never said they supported the idea of an ice bullet.
I said that they made and fired ice bullets.
They created a Straw Man argument, because they are highly paid
professional propagandists, that the ice bullet could KILL someone.
That was never the theory proposed in the JFK assassination.
The only reason Humes dreamed it up was to explain away the shallow back
wound with no exit and no bullet found in the body. Once he heard about
the bullet found at Parkland he abandoned that ice bullet theory and
said maybe the bullet worked its way out of the back wound during
cardiac massage at Parkland.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 4:17:38 PM9/6/12
to
What's wrong? Everything I said is accurate.

>
>
>>> *snicker*
>>>
>>> JRK
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 4:18:49 PM9/6/12
to
But isn't it refreshing to see them admitting the underhanded tricks
they use? When I claim that they are using such tactics they use that to
claim that I am paranoid. Then they trip up and admit it themselves.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 4:19:55 PM9/6/12
to
On 9/5/2012 5:22 PM, caeruleo wrote:
> On Sep 2, 8:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/1/2012 7:14 PM, John King wrote:
>>
>> You are so naive that you expect to find a signed confession from Humes?
>> O'Neill's only job there was to write down what he HEARD Humes say, not
>> to make up his own speculation.
>
> I will break my long-standing practice to ignore you, Mr. Marsh, only
> this once, and only because I am able to see your articles on Google
> through which I am (ugh) currently posting, but thank goodness not on
> my newsreader. You have just confirmed, yet again, that my 2005
> decision to never again take you seriously was the correct one.
>

Jeez, what will it take to get you to live up to your promises?
What can I possibly say to you or about you to make you keep your word
and permanently killfile you? I've run out of insults. Do I have to call
you an alien or something?

> Are you so naive as to possibly believe that it is necessary to have
> any such silly thing as a "signed confession" from Humes to have some
> sort of confirmation of what he said? As you ought to have known

Are you trying to quote me? Then use quote marks or somehow use some
punctuation to indicate that you are quoting what I said.
I do not believe I said that you are so naive as to possibly believe
that is it necessary to have such a silly thing as a signed confession
from Humes to have some sort of confirmation of what he said. I believe
I would have used much stronger language, but maybe it got censored.

> years (plural) before you posted that utterly ridiculous question, it
> would obviously have been at least somewhat satisfactory for O'Neill
> to have produced what he claimed to be a verbatim quote of Humes, or

Look at the damn FBI 302. He never quotes. He summarizes. Maybe you
don't understand the difference.

> even to attribute a paraphrased version to Humes by name. But O'Neill
> did not do that in that document. Nothing about the ice bullet is
> attributed by O'Neill to Humes specifically in that document. Since

There are a lot things that are not in the 302. If they put every single
little detail into the 302 Hoover would have had their hides.
There is nothing in the 302 about the unnameable general who told them
not the dissect the back wound. So therefore you claim it never happened.

> O'Neill was quite obviously writing down what was said by more people
> than just Humes, it was rather obviously not his "only" job, as you

Which people? Name them and prove it. Quote a sentence from the 302 and
tell me who said it. Do you even have the 302? Have you ever read it?

> have so erroneously claimed, to write down what he heard Humes say,
> but rather to write down what he heard *anybody* at the autopsy say.
>

He was not there to document what the janitor or the radiologist said.

> I will remind you, yet again, Mr. Marsh, why I put you on permanent
> killfile on my newsreaders (by now on three different computers) in
> 2005, after first putting you on killfile for 30 days, then 60 days,
> then 90 days. It never had anything at all to do with anything I have
> ever seen you say about the JFK assassination itself. It had solely
> to do with you claiming, over and over and over, that I had said
> things I never said, and then ABSOLUTELY REFUSING, over and over and
> over, to admit, even once, that you had made a single mistake even
> AFTER I had quoted myself VERBATIM from my previous articles, proving
> beyond all possible doubt that I had not said what you erroneously
> claimed I said.
>

All of your present ranting has absolutely nothing to do with my saying
anything about what you said. It is only a knee-jerk attack on me
because you refuse to read the evidence.

> Now, everybody, watch this:
>
> Mr. Marsh, I now challenge you to a REAL-LIFE debate, you and me, face
> to face, in front of live witnesses, about the JFK assassination. It
> is my suspicion that you will never, ever, ever agree to such a
> debate, even though I *will* agree to such a debate, if I have the
> money to travel to wherever the debate is held. Oh yes, I am once
> again, after the posting of this article, going to start ignoring your
> articles in this newsgroup or any other newsgroup again. But I guess
> you know how to send an email. My email address, caer...@yahoo.com,
> displayed on the From line of all my articles, still continues to be
> valid, just as it was valid in my first article to this newsgroup in
> October, 2002, despite the unsuccessful attempt of another poster here
> (not you) to have the address terminated by means of a false
> complaint. Thus you know how to email me to arrange this debate.
>

I have debated several people about several points, even a prominent WC
defender on the radio. You had your chance about 10 times. At any one of
the several conferences I have attended. But you chickened out.

> Do be certain, Mr. Marsh, that in this live debate, if you agree to
> it, I will bring up numerous examples of you claiming I said things I
> never said, and numerous examples of you failing to admit your errors
> when I pointed them out to you. I will also not be at all hesitant to
> tell the audience that, if you refuse to admit your errors regarding
> me personally, this might be indicative of you also refusing to admit
> your errors regarding the JFK assassination.

You will play the victim and falsely claim that I said things that I
never did.
You will refuse to discuss the evidence.

>
> (Watch everyone, he'll never, ever, ever agree to any live debate with
> me. Rather obviously, it will be because he knows his credibility
> will be catastrophically demolished in front of a live audience.)
>

The moment you killfiled me you admitted to everyone that you were
afraid to debate me.

> John Reagor King
>


Bud

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 10:15:23 PM9/6/12
to
Is this where I ask you to quote the FBI agents saying that Humes
theorized about an ice bullet and you can`t?

> >> He was trying to explain the
> >> shallow wound in the back.
>
> >    Which was deep enough to be potentially fatal in many parts of the
> > body.
>
> Not in and of itself.

Yes, in and of itself that wound, even as shallow as it was thought
to be, had the potential to be fatal in many parts of the body.

> Lattimer's theory that the back wound alone could be
> fatal is based on the SB going though JFK's neck. Not the shallow wound.
> Many people have received shallow wounds which are never fatal.

And some people die from shallow wounds. A wound a few inches deep
in the brain or chest can be fatal.

Were Mythbusters able to inflict such a wound with an ice bullet?

> Humes
> really was that stupid that he thought the bullet only went in as far as
> he could poke his little pinkie. Less than an inch.

Where are you getting "less than an inch" from?

> Do you think
> Connally's thigh wound was fatal when it only penetrated a couple of
> inches?
>
> >> That wound did not kill Kennedy.
>
> >    You don`t know that. Kennedy had some signs of life at the hospital,
> > you don`t put him over the top. He might have went longer if it was
> > only the headwound he suffered.
>
> Are you a doctor?

No, and neither are you. And neither does medical school confer upon
someone the ability to determine the exact thing that caused someone to
expire when there are combinations of wounds. The headwound caused Kennedy
blood pressure to drop, but the back/neck wound also contributed to this
condition. Certainly the headwound made Kennedy`s death inevitable, and
possibly the back/neck wound might have been survivable, but Kennedy`s
actual demise might have been forestalled seconds or minutes without the
added trauma of the back/neck wound.

> In your professional opinion a person can survive an
> explosive head wound and then be killed by a flesh wound?

Some day you might be able to understand, and then address what I
actually say. Apparently not today. Let take a crack at a hypothetical,
lets say a car tumbles down an embankment and the driver suffer all kinds
of bone breaks, some compound, along with a massive head wound. Lets say
without all the other damages the person would expire at 12, but with all
the other injuries along with the massive headwound the person succumbs at
11:50. The cause of death will likely be the recorded as the headwound,
but the accompanying injuries that sped up that demise could be seen as
the actual reason he died *when* he did.

> Maybe you
> remember Gabby Giffords. She survived a bullet going through her head.

Another leftist gunman shooting a politician.
And busted the idea that they could be lethal.

> They created a Straw Man argument, because they are highly paid
> professional propagandists, that the ice bullet could KILL someone.
> That was never the theory proposed in the JFK assassination.
> The only reason Humes dreamed it up was to explain away the shallow back
> wound with no exit and no bullet found in the body. Once he heard about
> the bullet found at Parkland he abandoned that ice bullet theory and
> said maybe the bullet worked its way out of the back wound during
> cardiac massage at Parkland.

"How could these things be?" is the basis for inquiry. He just
needed to be more careful with the information he was working with.

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Sep 6, 2012, 10:15:52 PM9/6/12
to
> > “The bullet was simply too brittle to be used.”
>
> > Were Mythbusters too stupid to use a lower power rifle to prevent the
> > ice bullet from shattering during firing or did they engineer another
> > deception?
>
> Were YOU too clueless to actually watch the show?
>

I open a textbook when I want to further my knowledge of ballistics. So I
invite you to post what you have learned of ballistics by watching
Mythbusters.

Herbert

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 7, 2012, 6:23:36 PM9/7/12
to
>>> ?The bullet was simply too brittle to be used.?
>>
>>> Were Mythbusters too stupid to use a lower power rifle to prevent the
>>> ice bullet from shattering during firing or did they engineer another
>>> deception?
>>
>> Were YOU too clueless to actually watch the show?
>>
>
> I open a textbook when I want to further my knowledge of ballistics. So I
> invite you to post what you have learned of ballistics by watching
> Mythbusters.
>
> Herbert
>


Well, finally the truth comes out. You've never watched the show. You
don't own a TV and you have no way to view the clip on Youtube. And yet
you ramble on about the theory as if you know what you are talking about.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 7, 2012, 10:58:50 PM9/7/12
to
No, that is medical nonsense. And you can't even cite a wound that
shallow. And then when you find any shallow wound of that the type you
can't show even one which was fatal.
All you can do is guess.
And I notice that you can't refute the example I pointed out, Teddy
Roosevelt who survived a shallow wound and delivered a 90 minute speech.
I cite and I quote and all you can do is guess.

>> Lattimer's theory that the back wound alone could be
>> fatal is based on the SB going though JFK's neck. Not the shallow wound.
>> Many people have received shallow wounds which are never fatal.
>
> And some people die from shallow wounds. A wound a few inches deep
> in the brain or chest can be fatal.
>

So when you lose the argument you change the conditions. I was talking
about only the back wound. Now you change it to the brain. And you
change the one inch to a few inches.

> Were Mythbusters able to inflict such a wound with an ice bullet?
>

Such a wound? They were not testing the back wound hypothesis. Their ice
bullets were able to penetrate a couple of inches of ballistics gel.
They very rarely perform shooting testing on living people.
Are YOU volunteering to be a test subject?

>> Humes
>> really was that stupid that he thought the bullet only went in as far as
>> he could poke his little pinkie. Less than an inch.
>
> Where are you getting "less than an inch" from?
>


From the tip of his pinkie, as he said.
Why are you totally unfamiliar with the evidence in this case?
Because you are a WC defender.

>> Do you think
>> Connally's thigh wound was fatal when it only penetrated a couple of
>> inches?
>>
>>>> That wound did not kill Kennedy.
>>
>>> You don`t know that. Kennedy had some signs of life at the hospital,
>>> you don`t put him over the top. He might have went longer if it was
>>> only the headwound he suffered.
>>
>> Are you a doctor?
>
> No, and neither are you. And neither does medical school confer upon
> someone the ability to determine the exact thing that caused someone to
> expire when there are combinations of wounds. The headwound caused Kennedy

AU contraire. That is exactly what a forensic pathologist does.

> blood pressure to drop, but the back/neck wound also contributed to this
> condition. Certainly the headwound made Kennedy`s death inevitable, and

The back/neck wound you are talking about is not what we were talking. I
was talking about the theoretically shallow BACK wound which did not exit.
But as usual, when you lose an argument you change the conditions.

> possibly the back/neck wound might have been survivable, but Kennedy`s
> actual demise might have been forestalled seconds or minutes without the
> added trauma of the back/neck wound.
>

But not from a shallow back wound as Humes thought.

>> In your professional opinion a person can survive an
>> explosive head wound and then be killed by a flesh wound?
>
> Some day you might be able to understand, and then address what I
> actually say. Apparently not today. Let take a crack at a hypothetical,
> lets say a car tumbles down an embankment and the driver suffer all kinds
> of bone breaks, some compound, along with a massive head wound. Lets say
> without all the other damages the person would expire at 12, but with all
> the other injuries along with the massive headwound the person succumbs at
> 11:50. The cause of death will likely be the recorded as the headwound,
> but the accompanying injuries that sped up that demise could be seen as
> the actual reason he died *when* he did.
>

Or the cause of death might have been a heart attack. When a doctor
fills out a cause of death form he may list several causes, but the one
which is closest to the time of death is listed as the proximate cause
of death. I suggest you call up Dr. Henry Lee and have him explain this
to you.

>> Maybe you
>> remember Gabby Giffords. She survived a bullet going through her head.
>
> Another leftist gunman shooting a politician.
>

Leftist? Shame on you. As a lone nutter you are not allowed to assign a
political motive to a lone nut. You are defying the very definition of
lone nutter. And I defy you to document your claim that the shooter was
a leftist.
That was never the theory in the JFK assassination or any other alleged
use. That is a straw man argument, something that you use all the time.

>> They created a Straw Man argument, because they are highly paid
>> professional propagandists, that the ice bullet could KILL someone.
>> That was never the theory proposed in the JFK assassination.
>> The only reason Humes dreamed it up was to explain away the shallow back
>> wound with no exit and no bullet found in the body. Once he heard about
>> the bullet found at Parkland he abandoned that ice bullet theory and
>> said maybe the bullet worked its way out of the back wound during
>> cardiac massage at Parkland.
>
> "How could these things be?" is the basis for inquiry. He just
> needed to be more careful with the information he was working with.
>

Needed to be more careful? Ya think? So, yet another WC defender finally
admits that the autopsy doctors were incompetent. Maybe that is why we
are here discussing it after all these years. It is always the cover-up
with extends the controversy.
If they would just tell the truth in the first place we could put it
behind us.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 7, 2012, 11:20:38 PM9/7/12
to
In article <5048e3fb$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Strangely, my correction of your "mistake" was censored. (Lurkers may read
the full post in the open forum: alt.conspiracy.jfk)

But a simple proof of who is right, and who is wrong... is to simply
Google these two items:

ice bullets
ice bullets -mythbusters

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 8, 2012, 2:33:48 PM9/8/12
to
In article <5048e3fb$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Details can be found in the forum you "can't" read... (alt.conspiracy.jfk)

But a very simple test can be done by anyone to *PROVE* that you're wrong.
(not that you'll admit it, of course.)

Simply Google the following two phrases.

JFK
JFK -airport

Or, if you like, try these two searches:

ice bullet
ice bullet -mythbusters


Your claim is simply wrong. Indeed, anyone can Google "Google Search Boolean
Expressions" - this will provide far more accurate and information than you are
doing in this forum on this topic.

Bill Clarke

unread,
Sep 8, 2012, 2:36:17 PM9/8/12
to
In article <346dca89-7333-4874...@t4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Sep 6, 4:15=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/5/2012 5:26 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 4, 7:37 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 4, 12:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On 9/3/2012 10:58 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>
>> >>>> In article <dab45f00-73e5-4eef-89b7-d432641f3...@u15g2000yql.googleg=
>roups.com>,
>> >>>> Bud says...
>>
>> >>>>> On Sep 1, 7:14=3DA0pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> As far as I am able to track down at this moment, the origin of a =
>claim
>> >>>>>> similar to this seems to be from a document submitted to the HSCA =
>by
>> >>>>>> Francis O'Neill, which was later designated by the ARRB as MD 47. =
>=3DA0On p=3D
>> >>>>> age
>> >>>>>> 6 this is said:
>>
>> >>>>>> **********
>>
>> >>>>>> Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bul=
>let. =3D
>> >>>>> =3DA0A
>> >>>>>> general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bulle=
>t struc=3D
>> >>>>> k
>> >>>>>> JFK. =3DA0There was discussion concerning the back wound that the =
>bullet co=3D
>> >>>>> uld
>> >>>>>> have been a "plastic type" or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves=
> after
>> >>>>>> contact. =3DA0There was also no real sense either way that the wou=
>nds were
>> >>>>>> caused by the same kind of bullet.
>>
>> >>>>>>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md47/htm=
>l/...
>> >>>>>> e6.htm
>>
>> >>>>>> **********
>>
>> >>>>>> I do not see O'Neill here attributing the speculation of an ice bu=
>llet
>> >>>>>> specifically to Humes. =3DA0In fact, he does not seem to attribute=
> it even =3D
>> >>>>> to
>> >>>>>> the autopsists alone, as there were clearly others present besides=
> the
>> >>>>>> three autopsists. =3DA0Instead, he described a "general feeling," =
>as if thi=3D
>> >>>>> s
>> >>>>>> meant the majority of all persons present, and "discussion" that w=
>as not
>> >>>>>> necessarily initiated by any one particular person. =3DA0Is there =
>some othe=3D
>> >>>>> r
>> >>>>>> original source that attributes the speculation of an ice bullet
>> >>>>>> specifically to Humes? =3DA0The reason I ask is that I am coming a=
>cross cla=3D
>> >>>>> ims
>> >>>>>> here and elsewhere that it was Humes specifically who speculated t=
>his.
>> >>>>>> But I am unable to come across any direct quotation of the man him=
>self in
>> >>>>>> his own words saying that he speculated about this at all during t=
>he
>> >>>>>> autopsy, nor have I yet seen any witness to the autopsy attribute =
>this
>> >>>>>> speculation to Humes specifically by name.
>>
>> >>>>>> Thanks.
>>
>> >>>>> =A0 =A0Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bulle=
>t to
>> >>>>> Humes.
>>
>> >>>> I wouldn't ask Marsh for anything. =A0He is very often wrong. =A0Now=
> I don't
>> >>>> know anything about ice bullets but looks to me they would get prett=
>y hot
>> >>>> going down the barrel and hot ice melts. I wouldn't think they had m=
>uch
>> >>>> penetration ability either.
>>
>> >>>> Do ice bullets really exist or is this just more crap?
>>
>> >>>> Bill Clarke
>>
>> >>> Fun to guess, isn't it?
>> >>> Why do you refuse to watch the Mythbusters episode where they actuall=
>y
>> >>> made them and fired them into targets?
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0The myth of ice bullets was busted by Mythbusters. Twice.
>>
>> >> =A0http://mythbustersresults.com/episode1
>>
>> > =93The bullet was simply too brittle to be used.=94
>>
>> > Were Mythbusters too stupid to use a lower power rifle to prevent the
>> > ice bullet from shattering during firing or did they engineer another
>> > deception?
>>
>> Were YOU too clueless to actually watch the show?
>>
>
>I open a textbook when I want to further my knowledge of ballistics. So I
>invite you to post what you have learned of ballistics by watching
>Mythbusters.
>
>Herbert

Believe me, you don't want to hear Marsh expand on ballistics.

Bill Clarke


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 8, 2012, 2:37:03 PM9/8/12
to
As usual you don't pay careful attention to what I say. I did not say
"ice bullets -mythbusters."
I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the extraneous matches.
Google does for follow proper protocol for Boolean searches. Most people
didn't even know about the "-" so at least it can help a little.

In October 2000, Google introduced support for the Boolean OR operator.
With the Google default of an AND operation between terms and its
support for phrase searching using the "quote marks," it is now possible
to do some Boolean operations on Google. While the NOT operator itself
is not supported, the minus sign "-" before a term gives the same
functionality. However, bear in mind that the more complex the Boolean
statement, the less likely it is that it will be interpreted properly.
Some permutations come up with strange results. The following tableis
designed to show what can be done and what does work, or at least has
worked at sometime in the past.

By mcw1139

Sun Aug 19 14:33:45 PDT 2012

I don't know what you "search ninjas" are complaining about. Google
NEVER supported true Boolean operators: OR, AND, NOT, NEAR and the very
valuable parentheses (for search expressions with synonymous terms).
They have always geared search to the lowest common denominator
users.... so the dumbing down even further does not surprise me. Google
products are designed and built by CS engineers who have very little
"user Experience" training and skill. Wave was fully built when they
decided to pull some UX people into the project.

Google’s Firefox bookmarks & toolbar add-ons, Wave, Buzz, Notebook and
Dory all have bit the dust, partly due to poor user interface design and
partly do to Google's impatience with the rate user acceptance and
enrollment in its products. If a product does not get immediate and
widespread acceptance, Google discards it. Facebook's user base was not
created in a day. Social takes time - for users to join, recruit and
build networks. Google doesn't get this.

In the long run, Google's brand will suffer as a result of early
adopters built-up reluctance to put time and effort into using its new
products, given its ever lengthening track record of abandoning products
(and their users). I used to recommend Google Apps over Zoho Apps
because I thought Google Apps would be around a lot longer. But who
wants to spend a lot of time and effort working in a cloud that will
likely evaporate.

Internet Search

What’s especially ironic about the wide spread perception that Boolean =
Internet search is that most Internet search engines don’t even support
full Boolean logic. For example, although Google supports Boolean search
strings containing AND, OR, and NOT (with the minus sign) functionality,
you cannot use the NOT/- operator on an OR statement.

Let’s look at the results when we try and run this search string on Google:

(inurl:resume | intitle:resume) “business analyst” (requirement |
requirements) -(job OR jobs OR sample)

According to the Boolean logic of the search, we should not have any
results with the words “job,” “jobs,” or “sample.” Here is a screenshot
the first page results – you can easily see that the search is actually
returning results with the words sample, job, and jobs, defying the
Boolean logic of the search string.

>
>
>
>>>>> *snicker*
>>>>>
>>>>> JRK
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Herbert Blenner

unread,
Sep 8, 2012, 2:37:29 PM9/8/12
to
> you ramble on about the theory as if you know what you are talking about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I live in a cave without TV, Youtube, a computer or electricity. So
what, Marsh? I have running water that irrigates my mushroom crops and
also makes a fine air conditioner. What more do I need!

I am not taken in by the nonsense pushed by Mythbusters. For example,
when they showed that a 50-caliber bullet moved a dummy an inch or so,
I pointed out the fallacies in their demonstration. I noted your
failure to point out these fallacies in the group discussion of that
show.

Herbert

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 8, 2012, 10:48:13 PM9/8/12
to
In article <504ac1dc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Nor did I claim you did. What I just pointed out is that your claim that
the minus sign doesn't work is simply unsupportable.

You are wrong, and of course, no-one expects you to admit it.

Further information can be found in the open forum...



>I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the extraneous matches.


Very slyly adding in a modifier there, aren't you Tony?

You did *NOT* originally claim that "-movie" will not not remove all the
extraneous matches... what you said was: "...there is no longer any easy
way to remove the extraneous matches. Not even using "-movie" will do it."

But that's simply not true. Using "-movie" *WILL* remove virtually all
"movie" phrases.

By suddenly changing your tune, and claiming that it doesn't remove *ALL*
such references, you are CHANGING what you stated.

I would have no disagreement had you told the accurate truth the first
time.


>Google does for follow proper protocol for Boolean searches. Most people
>didn't even know about the "-" so at least it can help a little.


Based on your original statement, "-" doesn't work.


>In October 2000, Google introduced support for the Boolean OR operator.
>With the Google default of an AND operation between terms and its
>support for phrase searching using the "quote marks," it is now possible
>to do some Boolean operations on Google. While the NOT operator itself
>is not supported, the minus sign "-" before a term gives the same
>functionality. However, bear in mind that the more complex the Boolean
>statement, the less likely it is that it will be interpreted properly.
>Some permutations come up with strange results. The following tableis
>designed to show what can be done and what does work, or at least has
>worked at sometime in the past.
>
>By mcw1139
>
>Sun Aug 19 14:33:45 PDT 2012
>
>I don't know what you "search ninjas" are complaining about. Google
>NEVER supported true Boolean operators: OR, AND, NOT, NEAR and the very
>valuable parentheses (for search expressions with synonymous terms).
>They have always geared search to the lowest common denominator
>users.... so the dumbing down even further does not surprise me. Google
>products are designed and built by CS engineers who have very little
>"user Experience" training and skill. Wave was fully built when they
>decided to pull some UX people into the project.
>
>Google?s Firefox bookmarks & toolbar add-ons, Wave, Buzz, Notebook and
>Dory all have bit the dust, partly due to poor user interface design and
>partly do to Google's impatience with the rate user acceptance and
>enrollment in its products. If a product does not get immediate and
>widespread acceptance, Google discards it. Facebook's user base was not
>created in a day. Social takes time - for users to join, recruit and
>build networks. Google doesn't get this.
>
>In the long run, Google's brand will suffer as a result of early
>adopters built-up reluctance to put time and effort into using its new
>products, given its ever lengthening track record of abandoning products
>(and their users). I used to recommend Google Apps over Zoho Apps
>because I thought Google Apps would be around a lot longer. But who
>wants to spend a lot of time and effort working in a cloud that will
>likely evaporate.
>
>Internet Search
>
>What?s especially ironic about the wide spread perception that Boolean =
>Internet search is that most Internet search engines don?t even support
>full Boolean logic. For example, although Google supports Boolean search
>strings containing AND, OR, and NOT (with the minus sign) functionality,
>you cannot use the NOT/- operator on an OR statement.
>
>Let?s look at the results when we try and run this search string on Google:
>
>(inurl:resume | intitle:resume) ?business analyst? (requirement |
>requirements) -(job OR jobs OR sample)
>
>According to the Boolean logic of the search, we should not have any
>results with the words ?job,? ?jobs,? or ?sample.? Here is a screenshot
>the first page results ? you can easily see that the search is actually
>returning results with the words sample, job, and jobs, defying the
>Boolean logic of the search string.


None of this supports your original claim, Tony. Here it is again:

"Yes, if you search with Google there is no longer any easy way to remove the
extraneous matches. Not even using "-movie" will do it."

But that's not true, is it Tony? Using "-movie" does *INDEED* remove most
references to "movie". It cannot, of course, remove such references as "-movie",
since that would mean that "-movie" would be an unsearchable term.

Of course, you can't admit to any error, so you *change* what you claimed.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 9, 2012, 8:50:06 PM9/9/12
to
My point was that casual browsers should not rely on Google to obey the
Laws of Boolean Operators. Their NOT function does not work correctly.
People might be able to that if you didn't snip my messages.

> You are wrong, and of course, no-one expects you to admit it.
>
> Further information can be found in the open forum...
>
>
>
>> I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the extraneous matches.
>
>
> Very slyly adding in a modifier there, aren't you Tony?
>
> You did *NOT* originally claim that "-movie" will not not remove all the
> extraneous matches... what you said was: "...there is no longer any easy
> way to remove the extraneous matches. Not even using "-movie" will do it."
>
> But that's simply not true. Using "-movie" *WILL* remove virtually all
> "movie" phrases.
>
> By suddenly changing your tune, and claiming that it doesn't remove *ALL*
> such references, you are CHANGING what you stated.
>

I never used the word "all." You did.

> I would have no disagreement had you told the accurate truth the first
> time.
>
>
>> Google does for follow proper protocol for Boolean searches. Most people
>> didn't even know about the "-" so at least it can help a little.
>
>
> Based on your original statement, "-" doesn't work.
>

Doesn't work the way it should.
Most? Now whose changing the claim? I never said "most."

> Of course, you can't admit to any error, so you *change* what you claimed.
>

I never claimed "all." You falsely said I did.
Your only goal in being online is to falsely attack me.

>
>>>>>>> *snicker*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JRK
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 9, 2012, 8:54:42 PM9/9/12
to
Au contraire. I pointed out their fallacies from that show several
times. Just like the ice bullet they substituted a straw man argument
for the original claim.

> Herbert
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 9, 2012, 8:54:53 PM9/9/12
to
And anyone can read the newsgroups where they discuss how Google Search
does not follow the rules for Boolean Operators.

>
>>>>> *snicker*
>>>>>
>>>>> JRK
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 9, 2012, 10:25:31 PM9/9/12
to
In article <504c0c8a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
factually wrong.


You've denied it, you've attempted to *change* what you said, and you
*STILL* can't admit that you stated something that simply is not true.


Now Tony... you just got through making the claim that I "don't pay
careful attention to what" you said. Can you quote an example which makes
that point?



>that casual browsers should not rely on Google to obey the
>Laws of Boolean Operators. Their NOT function does not work correctly.
>People might be able to that if you didn't snip my messages.


I've QUOTED your precise statement that I've addressed. I've *NOT* snipped
*ANY* portion of the post.

I'm addressing your claim about the minus operand, and your original claim
that it doesn't work, and your new claim that it doesn't work "all" the
time.

(As well as your claim that you didn't use the term "all")


>> You are wrong, and of course, no-one expects you to admit it.



That was a correct prediction.




>> Further information can be found in the open forum...
>>
>>> I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the extraneous matches.
>>
>>
>> Very slyly adding in a modifier there, aren't you Tony?


(That you are now *denying* that you used...)



>> You did *NOT* originally claim that "-movie" will not not remove all the
>> extraneous matches... what you said was: "...there is no longer any easy
>> way to remove the extraneous matches. Not even using "-movie" will do it."
>>
>> But that's simply not true. Using "-movie" *WILL* remove virtually all
>> "movie" phrases.
>>
>> By suddenly changing your tune, and claiming that it doesn't remove *ALL*
>> such references, you are CHANGING what you stated.
>>
>
>I never used the word "all." You did.


"I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the extraneous matches."

That's your statement, is it not?

Will you retract your "mistaken" assertion that you never used the term?



>> I would have no disagreement had you told the accurate truth the first
>> time.
>>
>>
>>> Google does for follow proper protocol for Boolean searches. Most people
>>> didn't even know about the "-" so at least it can help a little.
>>
>>
>> Based on your original statement, "-" doesn't work.
>>
>
>Doesn't work the way it should.


You stated that it doesn't work at all. Now you're making a claim that it
doesn't work the way you presume it should.

Of course, you can't *define* this mysterious way that it's supposed to
work.
By the way, was the above material the stuff you claim I snipped?



>> None of this supports your original claim, Tony. Here it is again:
>>
>> "Yes, if you search with Google there is no longer any easy way to remove the
>> extraneous matches. Not even using "-movie" will do it."
>>
>> But that's not true, is it Tony? Using "-movie" does *INDEED* remove most
>> references to "movie". It cannot, of course, remove such references as
>> "-movie", since that would mean that "-movie" would be an unsearchable term.
>>
>
>Most? Now whose changing the claim? I never said "most."


No Tony, you stated that it doesn't work at all. I'm explaining to you
that it does *INDEED* remove *most* references.

Now you seem to understand that you were wrong, but cannot admit it.




You assert that I'm "changing the claim"... kindly point or quote anything that
*I've* said that is contrary to the above paragraph.


But you won't.




>> Of course, you can't admit to any error, so you *change* what you claimed.
>>
>
>I never claimed "all." You falsely said I did.


"I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the extraneous matches."

Who's telling the truth, Tony?


>Your only goal in being online is to falsely attack me.


Are these your words: "I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the
extraneous matches."?

If they *are* your words, can you explain why you asserted that you'd not
used the term "all?"


And can you define, BY QUOTING ME, just what "false attack" I've
presented?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 10, 2012, 11:06:57 AM9/10/12
to
No, I never said that.
I called your bluff and you folded.

>
>
>> that casual browsers should not rely on Google to obey the
>> Laws of Boolean Operators. Their NOT function does not work correctly.
>> People might be able to that if you didn't snip my messages.
>
>
> I've QUOTED your precise statement that I've addressed. I've *NOT* snipped
> *ANY* portion of the post.
>
> I'm addressing your claim about the minus operand, and your original claim
> that it doesn't work, and your new claim that it doesn't work "all" the
> time.
>

I never said "all."

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 10, 2012, 3:17:28 PM9/10/12
to
In article <504c1d9f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
And anyone can read the newsgroups where they discuss that Santa Claus
wears red.

Of course, it's not relevant either. I didn't state you were wrong on
"Boolean Operators", and you didn't claim I was wrong in what color Santa
Claus wears.

Does the minus sign work when doing Google searches? Yes, it does.

Did you claim otherwise? Yes, you did. Here it is again: "Yes, if you
search with Google there is no longer any easy way to remove the
extraneous matches. Not even using "-movie" will do it." But the truth is,
*YES IT WILL!*.

Will you *ever* admit to error? No, you won't.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 10, 2012, 3:17:59 PM9/10/12
to
In article <k2bh2...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
I find it fascinating to note that this post was written *DAYS* before my
repost of a similar post... yet is dated the day *AFTER*.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 10, 2012, 4:37:57 PM9/10/12
to
In article <504d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
I QUOTED your exact words... are you now trying to claim that you never
said: "As usual you don't pay careful attention to what I say."?

If you didn't say that, who did?


>I called your bluff and you folded.


Where did I "fold", Tony?

I've stated that you were FACTUALLY wrong on the use of the minus sign...
I QUOTED your exact words... I provided examples that anyone can check.


Tell us Tony, what did I "fold" on?



>>> that casual browsers should not rely on Google to obey the
>>> Laws of Boolean Operators. Their NOT function does not work correctly.
>>> People might be able to that if you didn't snip my messages.
>>
>>
>> I've QUOTED your precise statement that I've addressed. I've *NOT* snipped
>> *ANY* portion of the post.
>>
>> I'm addressing your claim about the minus operand, and your original claim
>> that it doesn't work, and your new claim that it doesn't work "all" the
>> time.
>>
>
>I never said "all."


Yes Tony... you did. Here it is again: "I said that "-movie" will not not
remove all the extraneous matches."


Now tell us Tony, did you say "I said that "-movie" will not not remove
all the extraneous matches."?


If you didn't make that statement, who did?



>> (As well as your claim that you didn't use the term "all")
>>
>>>> You are wrong, and of course, no-one expects you to admit it.
>>
>> That was a correct prediction.
>>
>>>> Further information can be found in the open forum...
>>>>
>>>>> I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the extraneous matches.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very slyly adding in a modifier there, aren't you Tony?
>>
>>
>> (That you are now *denying* that you used...)


And *STILL* denying it. Yet there it is for all to read.

This is really a very simple issue. You made the claim that the minus sign
won't work on Google searches, I provided several examples where it
clearly does, you changed your tune to say that it doesn't work to remove
"ALL" extraneous matches. Then you're consistently denying that you used
the word "all".

Yet there it is...


>>>> You did *NOT* originally claim that "-movie" will not not remove all the
>>>> extraneous matches... what you said was: "...there is no longer any easy
>>>> way to remove the extraneous matches. Not even using "-movie" will do it."
>>>>
>>>> But that's simply not true. Using "-movie" *WILL* remove virtually all
>>>> "movie" phrases.
>>>>
>>>> By suddenly changing your tune, and claiming that it doesn't remove *ALL*
>>>> such references, you are CHANGING what you stated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never used the word "all." You did.
>>
>>
>> "I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the extraneous matches."
>>
>> That's your statement, is it not?


Why are you refusing to answer this question, Tony?


>> Will you retract your "mistaken" assertion that you never used the term?


Clearly hypothetical... no-one would expect you to admit error.



>>>> I would have no disagreement had you told the accurate truth the first
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Google does for follow proper protocol for Boolean searches. Most people
>>>>> didn't even know about the "-" so at least it can help a little.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on your original statement, "-" doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't work the way it should.
>>
>>
>> You stated that it doesn't work at all. Now you're making a claim that it
>> doesn't work the way you presume it should.
>>
>> Of course, you can't *define* this mysterious way that it's supposed to
>> work.


Nor will you.
Dead silence...



>>>> None of this supports your original claim, Tony. Here it is again:
>>>>
>>>>"Yes, if you search with Google there is no longer any easy way to remove the
>>>> extraneous matches. Not even using "-movie" will do it."
>>>>
>>>> But that's not true, is it Tony? Using "-movie" does *INDEED* remove most
>>>> references to "movie". It cannot, of course, remove such references as
>>>>"-movie", since that would mean that "-movie" would be an unsearchable term.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Most? Now whose changing the claim? I never said "most."
>>
>>
>> No Tony, you stated that it doesn't work at all. I'm explaining to you
>> that it does *INDEED* remove *most* references.
>>
>> Now you seem to understand that you were wrong, but cannot admit it.


Dead silence.



>>You assert that I'm "changing the claim"... kindly point or quote anything that
>> *I've* said that is contrary to the above paragraph.
>>
>>
>> But you won't.


And didn't.


>>>> Of course, you can't admit to any error, so you *change* what you claimed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never claimed "all." You falsely said I did.
>>
>>
>> "I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the extraneous matches."
>>
>> Who's telling the truth, Tony?


Dead silence...



>>> Your only goal in being online is to falsely attack me.
>>
>>
>> Are these your words: "I said that "-movie" will not not remove all the
>> extraneous matches."?


Well... Tony?



>> If they *are* your words, can you explain why you asserted that you'd not
>> used the term "all?"
>>
>> And can you define, BY QUOTING ME, just what "false attack" I've
>> presented?


More silence...
Message has been deleted

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 12, 2012, 9:07:52 AM9/12/12
to
On 9/11/2012 4:27 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> Explain the fallacies to us and I do not me tell us to look then up on
> Google.
>

They pretended that the conspiracy theorists made up the ice bullet
theory to explain the head shot.
They debunked the myth that an ice bullet could be fatal, but that was
never the theory.
They tested an ice bullet hitting the throat via an umbrella weapon.
That was never the theory.

> Herbert
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Herbert- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 12, 2012, 5:30:11 PM9/12/12
to
So factually wrong, that you've decided that you can no longer respond to
this thread. You made the claim that *I* "folded", yet it's quite clear
that you can't answer the points I raise.

So tell us Tony, why did *YOU* "fold"?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 12, 2012, 5:30:50 PM9/12/12
to
Tony has stopped responding in this thread... clearly my logic and facts
were simply too much to try to refute.

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Sep 12, 2012, 7:56:17 PM9/12/12
to
According to Dr. Alvarez an ice bullet was fatal to the dinosaurs. Did
Mytbusters debunk this myth?

While you avoid this question allow me to repeat an earlier query which
you have ignored. What have you learned of ballistics from Mythbusters?


Herbert

Jason Burke

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 9:11:50 AM9/13/12
to
The 'minus' sign!?! A thread that's reached over 400 lines about a minus
sign!?! Geez.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 9:12:08 AM9/13/12
to
It was a cute theory at the time, but other scientists debunked it. The
Mythbusters are not scientists.

> While you avoid this question allow me to repeat an earlier query which
> you have ignored. What have you learned of ballistics from Mythbusters?
>

I learned that higher velocity does not equal greater penetration in all
situations. When the fired high velocity rifle bullets into a pool of
water the higher the velocity the more quickly they broke up into many
pieces with a few feet. At 3 feet of depth in the water both the M-1
bullet and the .50 Cal. bullet broke up into tiny pieces.
The bullet which did penetrate feet deep in the water and was recovered
intact from the ballistics gel was the 9 mm fired by the pistol.

>
> Herbert
>


Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 4:23:07 PM9/13/12
to
In article <k2r4ad$34t$2...@dont-email.me>, Jason Burke says...
So you condone bad information? You believe it's acceptable to provide
false information about how to search for information on Google - and not
allow anyone to correct bad information?

Is this really your stance?

It bothers you not at all that Tony refuses to correct the record?

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 7:59:56 PM9/13/12
to
It's not about the minus sign. It's about Google not following the rules
for a Boolean search.
They don't want to provide a reliable service. They want to dazzle you
with billions of hits and bombard you with advertising while the data
mine your computer.


Bud

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 9:55:03 PM9/13/12
to
Wrong.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Sep 13, 2012, 11:07:39 PM9/13/12
to
In article <5052...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
No Tony - you are again attempting to change the topic. No-one other than
you is talking about "following the rules for a Boolean search"... no-one.

The topic was your inaccurate assertion that the minus sign did not
function in Google searches.

I've proven that it certainly does, and gave the exception to that rule.


You've demonstrated, by your refusal to support your own claims, that one
person is right, and one person is wrong.

Any guesses, readers?


>They don't want to provide a reliable service. They want to dazzle you
>with billions of hits and bombard you with advertising while the data
>mine your computer.


Doesn't address the topic.

John Reagor King

unread,
Sep 19, 2012, 5:49:43 PM9/19/12
to
In article <5048e558$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/5/2012 5:23 PM, caeruleo wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 8:47 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sep 1, 7:14 pm, John King <caeru...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ask Marsh, he has often attributed the claim of an ice bullet to
> >> Humes.
> >
> > Oh. It's you again. This is one of the handful of occasions that I
> > have read your articles since 2005, Bud, and only because I'm looking
> > on (ugh) Google Groups at the moment, and most times even when I do
> > look on Google Groups, I almost always skip right past your articles.
> > I find you to be absolutely no better than Marsh, ever since on
> > September 9, 2005, you said this to me:
> >
> > **********
> >
> > I will do everything I can to cause you to relapse. I think I`ll take
> > to naming you in everything I post. Maybe I`ll say things like
> > "Caeruleo says this..." or "Caeruleo thinks this...", even if you
> > never said or thought such things as I intend to relate. I have no
> > qualms regarding my credibility. I know what bait to use, we`ll see if
> > I can get you to bite. (that oughta be good for a killfiling).
> >
> > **********
> >
> > It certainly was good for a killfiling, Bud, a killfiling that has
> > lasted for almost seven years on three different computers. Not once
> > here, not once, have I ever threatened another poster that I would
> > claim the poster said things that were actually never said. You will
> > be helplessly unable to locate a single reply by my to you between
> > 9-9-05 and today. Almost seven years later, have you reconsidered
> > your credibility? Are you ready to discuss the JFK assassination with
> > me again, finally? I am willing to at long last take you off killfile
> > on my newsreader program. But that depends on how you respond to
> > this.
> >
> > Never once have I killfiled anyone because of anything they've ever
> > said about the JFK assassination itself, no matter what it was, no
> > matter how strongly I disagreed with it. But I have little tolerance
> > for people who make false claims about me personally, or even threaten
> > to make false claims, even when those threats are not actually carried
> > out, since I have not once made such a threat. The question that
> > immediately comes to my mind is this: if the person makes false claims
> > about me, or threatens to, how many false claims has the person made
> > about the assassination?
> >
> > John Reagor King
>
> But isn't it refreshing to see them admitting the underhanded tricks
> they use? When I claim that they are using such tactics they use that to
> claim that I am paranoid. Then they trip up and admit it themselves.

Indeed. And it is quite disappointing that Bud has still never responded
to this and apologized to me finally, even though he posted at least two
other articles in this thread after I posted that one. Had our positions
been reversed, I would have apologized the first time it was brought up.

But yes, Anthony, you're right, and elsewhere too. The underhanded
tactics such as telling me that answers to my questions about the BOH
scalp would be found in the archives, and then my discovery that no such
answers are in the archives, or if they are, they are nearly impossible to
find.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Sep 19, 2012, 8:39:06 PM9/19/12
to
And maybe I've given you clues, but you refuse to follow them up. Google
Groups with all its errors is not the only method available.



John Reagor King

unread,
Sep 20, 2012, 5:56:12 PM9/20/12
to
In article <505a4cfd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
You have given me clues to *what* that I have "refused" to follow up?

0 new messages