Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What Day Did Humes Burn Paperwork?
81 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Aug 2, 2012, 2:56:58 PM8/2/12
to
Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
The *only* evidence puts it 24+ hours later.
I wonder if anyone will EVER see a citation supporting a Saturday morning
Humes fireplace party...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
The *only* evidence puts it 24+ hours later.
I wonder if anyone will EVER see a citation supporting a Saturday morning
Humes fireplace party...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
timstter
Aug 3, 2012, 8:35:57 PM8/3/12
to
that the firing pin was replaced.
I personally doubt it.
Informative 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
pjsp...@aol.com
Aug 3, 2012, 8:38:32 PM8/3/12
to
pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
notes he'd burned.
Baden's pretend scenerio also fails to explain why so many others claimed
the wound was where Humes said it was, and why none of the witnesses
recalled a wound where Baden would like us to believe it was.
John McAdams
Aug 3, 2012, 8:49:20 PM8/3/12
to
On 3 Aug 2012 20:38:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:56:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
>>
>
mistake at the autopsy?
>Baden's pretend scenerio also fails to explain why so many others claimed
>the wound was where Humes said it was, and why none of the witnesses
>recalled a wound where Baden would like us to believe it was.
Are you saying that you think the wound was near the EOP?
Obviously, if you assert that I'll ask you if you think the photos and
x-rays are forged.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:56:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
>>
>
>Baden has claimed it was Saturday morning as well. This allows him to
>pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
>simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
>notes he'd burned.
>
How is that better or worse that saying that Humes simply made a
>pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
>simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
>notes he'd burned.
>
mistake at the autopsy?
>Baden's pretend scenerio also fails to explain why so many others claimed
>the wound was where Humes said it was, and why none of the witnesses
>recalled a wound where Baden would like us to believe it was.
Obviously, if you assert that I'll ask you if you think the photos and
x-rays are forged.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
Aug 4, 2012, 12:42:58 PM8/4/12
to
In article <9aso189c992gu6p0e...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
You could ask that but it'd be a silly question.
You do realize that a photo of the entry in the scalp does not necessarily
prove to 100% certainty where the entry was in the skull........unless you
can prove the scalp was not moved or minipulated prior to the photo being
taken.
Can you prove to 100% certainty the scalp was not moved or minipulated
prior to the photo being taken?
Of course you can't...thus common sense tells us that the photo of the
entry in the "SKULL" (F8), along with the autopsy report, reveals where
the entry really was.
Note that you yourself have admitted the defect centered in the photo (F8)
titled "missile wound in posterior skull..." is "deep inside the cranial
cavity".......and you are well aware that both Sturdivan and Zimmerman
used a stereoscopic viewer to examine the originals to conclude that same
defect was indeed the entry.
Moreover they agreed with you that that defect was near the EOP.
One thing's for sure, there's nothing wrong with your eyesight.
BTW, you do realize don't you that one of the HSCA's own forensic
pathologists, Dr. Joe Davis, told his colleagues on the forensic pathology
panel that there was evidence the bullet impacted near the EOP...only to
be told that line of discussion shouldn't be in the record.
And of course you must also realize that none of the ARRB forensic experts
agreed the X-rays revealed any cowlick entry....right?
Here's a question: "Can you name one single individual, who stated they
saw the head-shot entry on the body, who said it was in the cowlick?"
It's a shame that you undoubtedly won't join Fiorentino when he travels to
College Park to examine the originals......if you did you'd be able to see
for yourself on F8 where the entry was.
But alas, maybe you don't want to see them?
:-)
BTW, IMO all the X-rays and photos are authentic....with one single
exception--the 6.5 mm thing.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
You do realize that a photo of the entry in the scalp does not necessarily
prove to 100% certainty where the entry was in the skull........unless you
can prove the scalp was not moved or minipulated prior to the photo being
taken.
Can you prove to 100% certainty the scalp was not moved or minipulated
prior to the photo being taken?
Of course you can't...thus common sense tells us that the photo of the
entry in the "SKULL" (F8), along with the autopsy report, reveals where
the entry really was.
Note that you yourself have admitted the defect centered in the photo (F8)
titled "missile wound in posterior skull..." is "deep inside the cranial
cavity".......and you are well aware that both Sturdivan and Zimmerman
used a stereoscopic viewer to examine the originals to conclude that same
defect was indeed the entry.
Moreover they agreed with you that that defect was near the EOP.
One thing's for sure, there's nothing wrong with your eyesight.
BTW, you do realize don't you that one of the HSCA's own forensic
pathologists, Dr. Joe Davis, told his colleagues on the forensic pathology
panel that there was evidence the bullet impacted near the EOP...only to
be told that line of discussion shouldn't be in the record.
And of course you must also realize that none of the ARRB forensic experts
agreed the X-rays revealed any cowlick entry....right?
Here's a question: "Can you name one single individual, who stated they
saw the head-shot entry on the body, who said it was in the cowlick?"
It's a shame that you undoubtedly won't join Fiorentino when he travels to
College Park to examine the originals......if you did you'd be able to see
for yourself on F8 where the entry was.
But alas, maybe you don't want to see them?
:-)
BTW, IMO all the X-rays and photos are authentic....with one single
exception--the 6.5 mm thing.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Aug 4, 2012, 12:43:31 PM8/4/12
to
burned his notes and the other doctors notes on Saturday morning because
they were bloodstained (after he copied them). Then he called Dr. Perry
and found out about the throat wound and had to rewrite the whole report.
Then on Sunday morning when he was satisfied that he had figured it out
and made all the necessary changes he burned his original report.
His first report said the bullet hit the back and fell out and JFK was hit
in the head from the front.
John Fiorentino
Aug 4, 2012, 12:47:26 PM8/4/12
to
Humes had no ulterior motive in burning those notes.
He explained quite sincerely (I believe) to the ARRB his motives.
The best evidence does show however that the inshoot wound on JFK's head
is NOT down near the eop, but rather up near the vertex where the HSCA FPP
indicated.
John F.
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:569645fa-146e-417a...@googlegroups.com...
He explained quite sincerely (I believe) to the ARRB his motives.
The best evidence does show however that the inshoot wound on JFK's head
is NOT down near the eop, but rather up near the vertex where the HSCA FPP
indicated.
John F.
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:569645fa-146e-417a...@googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
Aug 4, 2012, 10:37:33 PM8/4/12
to
In article <501caf77$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
*AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
Now, of course, your new claim wouldn't refute or have anything to do with
the possibility.
And interestingly, you're now claiming again what you refuted in your
previous statement quoted below:
"Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
"I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
The only question that remains... and has NEVER been answered... can you
cite *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that would lead anyone to believe that
Humes was busy at his fireplace on Saturday morning?
>
>On 8/3/2012 8:38 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:56:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The *only* evidence puts it 24+ hours later.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if anyone will EVER see a citation supporting a Saturday morning
>>>
>>> Humes fireplace party...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>On 8/3/2012 8:38 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:56:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The *only* evidence puts it 24+ hours later.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if anyone will EVER see a citation supporting a Saturday morning
>>>
>>> Humes fireplace party...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Baden has claimed it was Saturday morning as well. This allows him to
>> pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
>> simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
>> notes he'd burned.
>>
>> Baden's pretend scenerio also fails to explain why so many others claimed
>> the wound was where Humes said it was, and why none of the witnesses
>> recalled a wound where Baden would like us to believe it was.
>>
>
>
>You seem a little confused. There were TWO burn parties. First when Humes
>burned his notes and the other doctors notes on Saturday morning because
>they were bloodstained (after he copied them). Then he called Dr. Perry
>and found out about the throat wound and had to rewrite the whole report.
>Then on Sunday morning when he was satisfied that he had figured it out
>and made all the necessary changes he burned his original report.
>
>His first report said the bullet hit the back and fell out and JFK was hit
>in the head from the front.
My! What a *change* in your claims!!!
>> pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
>> simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
>> notes he'd burned.
>>
>> Baden's pretend scenerio also fails to explain why so many others claimed
>> the wound was where Humes said it was, and why none of the witnesses
>> recalled a wound where Baden would like us to believe it was.
>>
>
>
>You seem a little confused. There were TWO burn parties. First when Humes
>burned his notes and the other doctors notes on Saturday morning because
>they were bloodstained (after he copied them). Then he called Dr. Perry
>and found out about the throat wound and had to rewrite the whole report.
>Then on Sunday morning when he was satisfied that he had figured it out
>and made all the necessary changes he burned his original report.
>
>His first report said the bullet hit the back and fell out and JFK was hit
>in the head from the front.
You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
*AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
Now, of course, your new claim wouldn't refute or have anything to do with
the possibility.
And interestingly, you're now claiming again what you refuted in your
previous statement quoted below:
"Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
"I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
The only question that remains... and has NEVER been answered... can you
cite *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that would lead anyone to believe that
Humes was busy at his fireplace on Saturday morning?
Anthony Marsh
Aug 5, 2012, 10:27:17 AM8/5/12
to
On 8/4/2012 10:37 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <501caf77$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 8/3/2012 8:38 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:56:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The *only* evidence puts it 24+ hours later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if anyone will EVER see a citation supporting a Saturday morning
>>>>
>>>> Humes fireplace party...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Baden has claimed it was Saturday morning as well. This allows him to
>>> pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
>>> simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
>>> notes he'd burned.
>>>
>>> Baden's pretend scenerio also fails to explain why so many others claimed
>>> the wound was where Humes said it was, and why none of the witnesses
>>> recalled a wound where Baden would like us to believe it was.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You seem a little confused. There were TWO burn parties. First when Humes
>> burned his notes and the other doctors notes on Saturday morning because
>> they were bloodstained (after he copied them). Then he called Dr. Perry
>> and found out about the throat wound and had to rewrite the whole report.
>> Then on Sunday morning when he was satisfied that he had figured it out
>> and made all the necessary changes he burned his original report.
>>
>> His first report said the bullet hit the back and fell out and JFK was hit
>> in the head from the front.
>
> My! What a *change* in your claims!!!
>
No, no change. Exactly what I have been saying for many years if you had
> In article <501caf77$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 8/3/2012 8:38 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:56:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The *only* evidence puts it 24+ hours later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if anyone will EVER see a citation supporting a Saturday morning
>>>>
>>>> Humes fireplace party...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Baden has claimed it was Saturday morning as well. This allows him to
>>> pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
>>> simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
>>> notes he'd burned.
>>>
>>> Baden's pretend scenerio also fails to explain why so many others claimed
>>> the wound was where Humes said it was, and why none of the witnesses
>>> recalled a wound where Baden would like us to believe it was.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You seem a little confused. There were TWO burn parties. First when Humes
>> burned his notes and the other doctors notes on Saturday morning because
>> they were bloodstained (after he copied them). Then he called Dr. Perry
>> and found out about the throat wound and had to rewrite the whole report.
>> Then on Sunday morning when he was satisfied that he had figured it out
>> and made all the necessary changes he burned his original report.
>>
>> His first report said the bullet hit the back and fell out and JFK was hit
>> in the head from the front.
>
> My! What a *change* in your claims!!!
>
been paying attention.
> You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
> Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
> *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>
> Now, of course, your new claim wouldn't refute or have anything to do with
> the possibility.
>
> And interestingly, you're now claiming again what you refuted in your
> previous statement quoted below:
>
> "Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
> morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
>
> "I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
> Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
>
> The only question that remains... and has NEVER been answered... can you
> cite *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that would lead anyone to believe that
> Humes was busy at his fireplace on Saturday morning?
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Aug 5, 2012, 2:44:27 PM8/5/12
to
On 8/4/2012 12:47 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Humes had no ulterior motive in burning those notes.
>
> He explained quite sincerely (I believe) to the ARRB his motives.
>
> The best evidence does show however that the inshoot wound on JFK's head
> is NOT down near the eop, but rather up near the vertex where the HSCA
> FPP indicated.
>
Is that your fallback position, that Humes wasn't a liar, just an idiot?
> Humes had no ulterior motive in burning those notes.
>
> He explained quite sincerely (I believe) to the ARRB his motives.
>
> The best evidence does show however that the inshoot wound on JFK's head
> is NOT down near the eop, but rather up near the vertex where the HSCA
> FPP indicated.
>
Why didn't they try that with Watergate?
Anthony Marsh
Aug 5, 2012, 2:45:14 PM8/5/12
to
On 8/4/2012 12:42 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article <9aso189c992gu6p0e...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>> On 3 Aug 2012 20:38:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:56:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Baden has claimed it was Saturday morning as well. This allows him to
>>> pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
>>> simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
>>> notes he'd burned.
>>>
>>
>> How is that better or worse that saying that Humes simply made a
>> mistake at the autopsy?
>>
>>> Baden's pretend scenerio also fails to explain why so many others claimed
>>> the wound was where Humes said it was, and why none of the witnesses
>>> recalled a wound where Baden would like us to believe it was.
>>
>> Are you saying that you think the wound was near the EOP?
>>
>> Obviously, if you assert that I'll ask you if you think the photos and
>> x-rays are forged.
>
> You could ask that but it'd be a silly question.
>
> You do realize that a photo of the entry in the scalp does not necessarily
> prove to 100% certainty where the entry was in the skull........unless you
> can prove the scalp was not moved or minipulated prior to the photo being
> taken.
>
Oh, so now when you are stuck in an untenable position you resort to
> In article <9aso189c992gu6p0e...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>> On 3 Aug 2012 20:38:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:56:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Baden has claimed it was Saturday morning as well. This allows him to
>>> pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
>>> simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
>>> notes he'd burned.
>>>
>>
>> How is that better or worse that saying that Humes simply made a
>> mistake at the autopsy?
>>
>>> Baden's pretend scenerio also fails to explain why so many others claimed
>>> the wound was where Humes said it was, and why none of the witnesses
>>> recalled a wound where Baden would like us to believe it was.
>>
>> Are you saying that you think the wound was near the EOP?
>>
>> Obviously, if you assert that I'll ask you if you think the photos and
>> x-rays are forged.
>
> You could ask that but it'd be a silly question.
>
> You do realize that a photo of the entry in the scalp does not necessarily
> prove to 100% certainty where the entry was in the skull........unless you
> can prove the scalp was not moved or minipulated prior to the photo being
> taken.
>
depending on claims of fakery?
> Can you prove to 100% certainty the scalp was not moved or minipulated
> prior to the photo being taken?
>
> Of course you can't...thus common sense tells us that the photo of the
> entry in the "SKULL" (F8), along with the autopsy report, reveals where
> the entry really was.
>
> Note that you yourself have admitted the defect centered in the photo (F8)
> titled "missile wound in posterior skull..." is "deep inside the cranial
> cavity".......and you are well aware that both Sturdivan and Zimmerman
> used a stereoscopic viewer to examine the originals to conclude that same
> defect was indeed the entry.
>
> Moreover they agreed with you that that defect was near the EOP.
>
> One thing's for sure, there's nothing wrong with your eyesight.
>
> BTW, you do realize don't you that one of the HSCA's own forensic
> pathologists, Dr. Joe Davis, told his colleagues on the forensic pathology
> panel that there was evidence the bullet impacted near the EOP...only to
> be told that line of discussion shouldn't be in the record.
>
John Fiorentino
Aug 5, 2012, 7:28:50 PM8/5/12
to
Anthony:
I don't think Humes "lied" about anything. If you prefer "idiot" that's
your call.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:501e011e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
I don't think Humes "lied" about anything. If you prefer "idiot" that's
your call.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:501e011e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Ben Holmes
Aug 5, 2012, 7:29:59 PM8/5/12
to
In article <501dfd3a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Untrue. Indeed, I've QUOTED you in this post with a contrary claim.
>> You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
>> Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
>> *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>>
>
>That is not what I said.
***********************************************************
> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
>
I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
day after.
***********************************************************
I really don't understand people who seem to think that I can't locate
their words through a Google archive search.
Now, I repeat: You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned
And I note for the record that you *STILL* refuse to cite any evidence at
all for this Saturday morning burn party.
>> Now, of course, your new claim wouldn't refute or have anything to do with
>> the possibility.
>>
>> And interestingly, you're now claiming again what you refuted in your
>> previous statement quoted below:
>>
>> "Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
>> morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
>>
>> "I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
>> Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
Tell us Tony... why do you claim that there's been no change in your
position, since I just documented a change within just 21 days?
>> The only question that remains... and has NEVER been answered... can you
>> cite *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that would lead anyone to believe that
>> Humes was busy at his fireplace on Saturday morning?
>>
>
>His testimony.
Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
evidence for your claim.
>> You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
>> Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
>> *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>>
>
>That is not what I said.
> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
>
I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
day after.
***********************************************************
I really don't understand people who seem to think that I can't locate
their words through a Google archive search.
Now, I repeat: You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned
paperwork on Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES
REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
Would you like to deny that statement again?
REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
And I note for the record that you *STILL* refuse to cite any evidence at
all for this Saturday morning burn party.
>> Now, of course, your new claim wouldn't refute or have anything to do with
>> the possibility.
>>
>> And interestingly, you're now claiming again what you refuted in your
>> previous statement quoted below:
>>
>> "Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
>> morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
>>
>> "I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
>> Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
position, since I just documented a change within just 21 days?
>> The only question that remains... and has NEVER been answered... can you
>> cite *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that would lead anyone to believe that
>> Humes was busy at his fireplace on Saturday morning?
>>
>
>His testimony.
evidence for your claim.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 5, 2012, 11:37:31 PM8/5/12
to
>
>>> You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
>>> Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
>>> *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>>>
>>
>> That is not what I said.
>
>
> ***********************************************************
>> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
>> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
>>
>
> I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
> first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
> the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
> day after.
> ***********************************************************
>
> I really don't understand people who seem to think that I can't locate
> their words through a Google archive search.
>
> Now, I repeat: You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned
> paperwork on Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES
> REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>
things. I never said he decided to rewrite the autopsy report because he
knew that Oswald was dead. Oswald was still alive when he burned the notes
and his first draft.
You brag that you can find quotes of what I have written, but you will
never find a quote of me saying that he burned the notes after he knew
that Oswald was dead. Others have said that, not I.
> Would you like to deny that statement again?
>
>
> And I note for the record that you *STILL* refuse to cite any evidence at
> all for this Saturday morning burn party.
>
>
>
>>> Now, of course, your new claim wouldn't refute or have anything to do with
>>> the possibility.
>>>
>>> And interestingly, you're now claiming again what you refuted in your
>>> previous statement quoted below:
>>>
>>> "Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
>>> morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
>>>
>>> "I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
>>> Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
>
>
>
> Tell us Tony... why do you claim that there's been no change in your
> position, since I just documented a change within just 21 days?
>
>
>
>
>>> The only question that remains... and has NEVER been answered... can you
>>> cite *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that would lead anyone to believe that
>>> Humes was busy at his fireplace on Saturday morning?
>>>
>>
>> His testimony.
>
>
> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
> evidence for your claim.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Aug 5, 2012, 11:38:12 PM8/5/12
to
On 8/5/2012 7:28 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Anthony:
>
> I don't think Humes "lied" about anything. If you prefer "idiot" that's
> your call.
>
>
Then what do you call it?
> Anthony:
>
> I don't think Humes "lied" about anything. If you prefer "idiot" that's
> your call.
>
>
Ben Holmes
Aug 5, 2012, 11:59:34 PM8/5/12
to
In article <501f2782$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
The quotes are in this post for anyone to read, Tony.
>>>> You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
>>>> Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
>>>> *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not what I said.
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>>> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
>>> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
>>>
>>
>> I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
>> first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
>> the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
>> day after.
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>> I really don't understand people who seem to think that I can't locate
>> their words through a Google archive search.
>>
>> Now, I repeat: You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned
>> paperwork on Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES
>> REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>>
>
>Burning the notes and rewriting the autopsy report are two different
>things. I never said he decided to rewrite the autopsy report because he
>knew that Oswald was dead. Oswald was still alive when he burned the notes
>and his first draft.
Here it is again, Tony: You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes
I've just QUOTED the proof that what I said was completely accurate.
>You brag that you can find quotes of what I have written, but you will
>never find a quote of me saying that he burned the notes after he knew
>that Oswald was dead. Others have said that, not I.
No Tony... no-one other than *YOU* are claiming that *ANYONE* said that.
I've been repeatedly pointing out that the theory was raised that the
REASON that the autopsy report was re-written was because Oswald was shot.
You refuted that theory by claiming that Humes was busy burning paperwork,
and rewriting 24 hours earlier.
You STILL haven't produced any evidence to support your claim.
And I *HAVE* produced exactly what I stated you did.
>> Would you like to deny that statement again?
>>
>
>Which statement?
original exchange:
************************************************************
.. and *not* realize that I'm merely telling the truth?
Tell us what part of this statement: "You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim
>> And I note for the record that you *STILL* refuse to cite any evidence at
>> all for this Saturday morning burn party.
>>
>
>I did. His testimony. Learn to read for comprehension.
No Tony... you've *NOT* cited any evidence.
Produce a *REAL* citation, and quotes are acceptable, that people can read
to make the determination that you had reasonable grounds for claiming
that Humes was burning paperwork on Saturday morning.
>>>> Now, of course, your new claim wouldn't refute or have anything to do with
>>>> the possibility.
>>>>
>>>> And interestingly, you're now claiming again what you refuted in your
>>>> previous statement quoted below:
>>>>
>>>> "Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
>>>> morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
>>>>
>>>> "I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
>>>> Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
>>
>>
>>
>> Tell us Tony... why do you claim that there's been no change in your
>> position, since I just documented a change within just 21 days?
>>
>
>
>No, you didn't.
"Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
"I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
>>>> The only question that remains... and has NEVER been answered... can you
>>>> cite *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that would lead anyone to believe that
>>>> Humes was busy at his fireplace on Saturday morning?
>>>>
>>>
>>> His testimony.
>>
>>
>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
>> evidence for your claim.
>>
>>
>
>I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attention.
Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>>>> You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
>>>> Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
>>>> *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not what I said.
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>>> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
>>> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
>>>
>>
>> I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
>> first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
>> the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
>> day after.
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>> I really don't understand people who seem to think that I can't locate
>> their words through a Google archive search.
>>
>> Now, I repeat: You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned
>> paperwork on Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES
>> REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>>
>
>Burning the notes and rewriting the autopsy report are two different
>things. I never said he decided to rewrite the autopsy report because he
>knew that Oswald was dead. Oswald was still alive when he burned the notes
>and his first draft.
burned paperwork on Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT
HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
You claimed that this isn't what you said.
HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
I've just QUOTED the proof that what I said was completely accurate.
>You brag that you can find quotes of what I have written, but you will
>never find a quote of me saying that he burned the notes after he knew
>that Oswald was dead. Others have said that, not I.
I've been repeatedly pointing out that the theory was raised that the
REASON that the autopsy report was re-written was because Oswald was shot.
You refuted that theory by claiming that Humes was busy burning paperwork,
and rewriting 24 hours earlier.
You STILL haven't produced any evidence to support your claim.
And I *HAVE* produced exactly what I stated you did.
>> Would you like to deny that statement again?
>>
>
>Which statement?
You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
*AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
Tell us Tony... do you think that any reader will read that, then read the
Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
*AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
original exchange:
************************************************************
> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
day after.
************************************************************
> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
day after.
.. and *not* realize that I'm merely telling the truth?
Tell us what part of this statement: "You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim
that Humes burned paperwork on Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE
POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON
SUNDAY." is not true.
POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON
>> And I note for the record that you *STILL* refuse to cite any evidence at
>> all for this Saturday morning burn party.
>>
>
>I did. His testimony. Learn to read for comprehension.
Produce a *REAL* citation, and quotes are acceptable, that people can read
to make the determination that you had reasonable grounds for claiming
that Humes was burning paperwork on Saturday morning.
>>>> Now, of course, your new claim wouldn't refute or have anything to do with
>>>> the possibility.
>>>>
>>>> And interestingly, you're now claiming again what you refuted in your
>>>> previous statement quoted below:
>>>>
>>>> "Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
>>>> morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
>>>>
>>>> "I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
>>>> Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
>>
>>
>>
>> Tell us Tony... why do you claim that there's been no change in your
>> position, since I just documented a change within just 21 days?
>>
>
>
>No, you didn't.
"Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
"I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
>>>> The only question that remains... and has NEVER been answered... can you
>>>> cite *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that would lead anyone to believe that
>>>> Humes was busy at his fireplace on Saturday morning?
>>>>
>>>
>>> His testimony.
>>
>>
>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
>> evidence for your claim.
>>
>>
>
>I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attention.
pjsp...@aol.com
Aug 6, 2012, 12:29:27 PM8/6/12
to
On Friday, August 3, 2012 5:49:20 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2012 20:38:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:56:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> >> Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Baden has claimed it was Saturday morning as well. This allows him to
>
> >pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
>
> >simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
>
> >notes he'd burned.
>
> >
>
>
>
> How is that better or worse that saying that Humes simply made a
>
> mistake at the autopsy?
Baden is smart enough to know that his fellow doctors would have trouble
> On 3 Aug 2012 20:38:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Thursday, August 2, 2012 11:56:58 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> >> Tony Marsh has repeatedly asserted Saturday morning.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Baden has claimed it was Saturday morning as well. This allows him to
>
> >pretend Humes' claim the rear entrance wound was by the EOP was just a
>
> >simple mistake, and a case of Humes simply forgetting what was in the
>
> >notes he'd burned.
>
> >
>
>
>
> How is that better or worse that saying that Humes simply made a
>
> mistake at the autopsy?
buying that Humes wrote down and remembered the wrong location. The story
that Humes just wrote it down wrong--with the body in front of
him--doesn't fly. The story that he mis-remembered the location a day
later while re-constituting his notes however seems plausible. It should
be noted, moreover, that Baden always blames this on Humes, and never
acknowledges that EVERYONE else present at the autopsy to note the
entrance location shared his impression the entrance was low on the back
of the skull.
>
>
>
> >Baden's pretend scenerio also fails to explain why so many others claimed
>
> >the wound was where Humes said it was, and why none of the witnesses
>
> >recalled a wound where Baden would like us to believe it was.
>
>
>
> Are you saying that you think the wound was near the EOP?
>
>
>
> Obviously, if you assert that I'll ask you if you think the photos and
>
> x-rays are forged.
participated in you wouldn't have to ask such a question. The photos and
x-rays are clear-cut proof a bullet entered low on the president's skull
near the EOP.
>
>
>
> .John
>
> --------------
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 6, 2012, 12:33:51 PM8/6/12
to
here is to personally attack me by misrepresenting what I have said.
>
>
>> You brag that you can find quotes of what I have written, but you will
>> never find a quote of me saying that he burned the notes after he knew
>> that Oswald was dead. Others have said that, not I.
>
>
> No Tony... no-one other than *YOU* are claiming that *ANYONE* said that.
>
he saw that Oswald was dead.
> I've been repeatedly pointing out that the theory was raised that the
> REASON that the autopsy report was re-written was because Oswald was shot.
>
> You refuted that theory by claiming that Humes was busy burning paperwork,
> and rewriting 24 hours earlier.
>
> You STILL haven't produced any evidence to support your claim.
>
> And I *HAVE* produced exactly what I stated you did.
>
for my pointing out the flaws in your kooky theories.
>
>
>
>>> Would you like to deny that statement again?
>>>
>>
>> Which statement?
>
>
> You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
> Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
> *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>
You fail.
>
> Tell us Tony... do you think that any reader will read that, then read the
> original exchange:
>
> ************************************************************
>> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
>> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
>
> I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
> first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
> the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
> day after.
> ************************************************************
>
> .. and *not* realize that I'm merely telling the truth?
>
>
> Tell us what part of this statement: "You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim
> that Humes burned paperwork on Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE
> POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON
> SUNDAY." is not true.
>
notes and first draft.
And you don't identify the date of the message and who said what.
>
>>> And I note for the record that you *STILL* refuse to cite any evidence at
>>> all for this Saturday morning burn party.
>>>
>>
>> I did. His testimony. Learn to read for comprehension.
>
>
> No Tony... you've *NOT* cited any evidence.
>
You seem to conveniently forget that I was the person who first uploaded
the Humes ARRB testimony for the benefit of all serious researchers.
Although I know you don't have the skills to read it, I will post some
pages for the benefit of real researchers.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0065b.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0066a.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0066b.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0067a.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0067b.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0068a.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0068b.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0069a.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0069b.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0070a.gif
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0070b.gif
Ben Holmes
Aug 6, 2012, 4:26:29 PM8/6/12
to
I QUOTED you... I didn't say a thing that isn't in your quotes.
Now... QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS... and do your best to show that they aren't
true.
But you can't.
>Your only purpose is being
>here is to personally attack me by misrepresenting what I have said.
would lead anyone to believe that Humes was burning ANYTHING (to include
his breakfast) on Saturday morning.
I've not "misrepresented" anything at all, since the original post has now
been quoted in its entirety, with date, with link... and it says EXACTLY
what I said it did.
Then demonstrate that they aren't correct.
>>> You brag that you can find quotes of what I have written, but you will
>>> never find a quote of me saying that he burned the notes after he knew
>>> that Oswald was dead. Others have said that, not I.
>>
>>
>> No Tony... no-one other than *YOU* are claiming that *ANYONE* said that.
>>
>
>Others have claimed that Humes burned the original autopsy report when
>he saw that Oswald was dead.
What I've been quite specific about is that you REFUTED this theory by
claiming that what Humes did on *SUNDAY*, he actually did on *SATURDAY*...
and thus, the possible cause of Oswald being murdered wouldn't be a
possible cause.
To this day, you've REFUSED to cite anything to support your Saturday
morning claim.
You CONTINUE to refuse to cite any evidence that supports your claim that
Humes was burning ANYTHING AT ALL on Saturday morning.
>> I've been repeatedly pointing out that the theory was raised that the
>> REASON that the autopsy report was re-written was because Oswald was shot.
>
>Not my theory.
anyone is saying that you said this.
YOU RESPONDED TO IT, TONY.
And I've QUOTED you responding to it. Exactly as I stated.
>> You refuted that theory by claiming that Humes was busy burning paperwork,
>> and rewriting 24 hours earlier.
>>
>> You STILL haven't produced any evidence to support your claim.
>>
>> And I *HAVE* produced exactly what I stated you did.
>>
>
>No, you haven't. All you can do is make personal attacks to get revenge
>for my pointing out the flaws in your kooky theories.
Here it is again, Tony:
"You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
*AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY." is not true.
"You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
Now, you claimed that the above statement isn't correct... so here's the
proof that what I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE:
************************************************************
> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
day after.
************************************************************
supported by that quote?
>>>> Would you like to deny that statement again?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which statement?
>>
>>
>> You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on
>> Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING
>> *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON SUNDAY.
>>
>
>No. Name the date and quote the message.
>You fail.
date is 01/15/03 - and the full unedited quote is:
**********************************************************
"Lech K. Lesiak" wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 2003, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
> > We need to ask why MILITARY doctors did the autopsy, when there were
> > plenty of pathologists in the Washington-Baltimore area who would have
> > done a more professional job, especially in light of the fact that
> > Oswald was still alive at the time of the autopsy and would face trial
>
> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
>
I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
day after.
> Cheers,
> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
>
I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
day after.
> Lech
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
**********************************************************
Anyone can read the original here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/m35UuLJajVI/9ls8Eq2kEv0J
Now tell us Tony, are you still going to deny that: "You *ORIGINALLY*
jumped in to claim that Humes burned paperwork on Saturday, IN ORDER TO
REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS
SHOT ON SUNDAY."?
REFUTE THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS
>> Tell us Tony... do you think that any reader will read that, then read the
>> original exchange:
>>
>> ************************************************************
>>> As well as asking why the military MD doing the autopsy burned his notes
>>> upon hearing Oswald had been killed, and started all over again.
>>
>> I think you have the timing wrong. Humes supposedly burned the notes and
>> first draft in his fireplace on Saturday morning after he learned about
>> the throat wound and had to rewrite it. Oswald was killed on Sunday, the
>> day after.
>> ************************************************************
>>
>> .. and *not* realize that I'm merely telling the truth?
>>
>>
>> Tell us what part of this statement: "You *ORIGINALLY* jumped in to claim
>> that Humes burned paperwork on Saturday, IN ORDER TO REFUTE THE
>> POSSIBILITY THAT HUMES REWROTE EVERYTHING *AFTER* OSWALD WAS SHOT ON
>> SUNDAY." is not true.
>>
>
>Context. That is not the first message I wrote about Humes burning the
>notes and first draft.
>And you don't identify the date of the message and who said what.
but now the cite is available for anyone to see.
No Google searching required.
You *DID* say exactly what I quoted you saying, you STILL HAVEN'T CITED
FOR HUMES BURNING ANYTHING ON SATURDAY MORNING.
>>>> And I note for the record that you *STILL* refuse to cite any evidence at
>>>> all for this Saturday morning burn party.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did. His testimony. Learn to read for comprehension.
>>
>>
>> No Tony... you've *NOT* cited any evidence.
>>
>
>Maybe you don't consider testimony evidence. I did not film him doing it.
>
>You seem to conveniently forget that I was the person who first uploaded
>the Humes ARRB testimony for the benefit of all serious researchers.
>Although I know you don't have the skills to read it, I will post some
>pages for the benefit of real researchers.
>
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0065b.gif
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0066a.gif
Doesn't mention burning AT ALL, let alone on Saturday morning.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0066b.gif
Doesn't mention burning AT ALL, let alone on Saturday morning.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0067a.gif
Doesn't mention burning AT ALL, let alone on Saturday morning.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0067b.gif
Doesn't mention burning AT ALL, let alone on Saturday morning.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0068a.gif
Refers to something that occurs on Sunday morning AT THE EARLIEST.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0068b.gif
Mentions burning, but no day mentioned at all.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0069a.gif
Specifically states that he started writing in the EVENING of Saturday.
Your claim, of course, is that he burned his notes and first draft
Saturday morning, when he makes it clear that he didn't start *WRITING*
the first draft until the late evening hours.
He burned in the morning what he didn't write until the evening... is in
essence your claim.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0069b.gif
Mentions burning, but again, no day.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0070a.gif
Mentions burning, but again, no day.
>http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Humes_0070b.gif
Doesn't mention burning at all.
Now, in all these cites, it's quite clear that Humes didn't do
*ANY^BURNING WHATSOEVER* on Saturday... indeed, according to one of your
cites, he didn't start writing the autopsy report until 11pm on Saturday
evening. You claim he was burning on Saturday morning what he didn't write
until Saturday evening.
All you really need to post is where Humes said that he burned anything at
all on Saturday morning. Or admit that you have no evidence for your
claim.
Still can't do it, can you Tony?
>> Produce a *REAL* citation, and quotes are acceptable, that people can read
>> to make the determination that you had reasonable grounds for claiming
>> that Humes was burning paperwork on Saturday morning.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Now, of course, your new claim wouldn't refute or have anything to do
with
>>>>>> the possibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And interestingly, you're now claiming again what you refuted in your
>>>>>> previous statement quoted below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
>>>>>> morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." -
Anthony
>>>>>> Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell us Tony... why do you claim that there's been no change in your
>>>> position, since I just documented a change within just 21 days?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you didn't.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Humes supposedly burned the notes ... in his fireplace on Saturday
>> morning." - Anthony Marsh 1/15/2003
>>
>> "I never said that Humes burned the doctors' notes on Saturday." - Anthony
>> Marsh 2/5/2003 (21 days later...)
context? Can you EXPLAIN why they contradict each other?
>>>>>> The only question that remains... and has NEVER been answered... can you
>>>>>> cite *ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER* that would lead anyone to believe that
>>>>>> Humes was busy at his fireplace on Saturday morning?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> His testimony.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
>>>> evidence for your claim.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attention.
>>
>>
>> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
support your claim?
Or cite it?
Jean Davison
Aug 7, 2012, 4:44:54 PM8/7/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Aug 6, 3:26 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>
>
<snip>
> >>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
> >>>> evidence for your claim.
>
> >>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attention.
>
> >> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>
> More silence.
>
> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
> support your claim?
>
> Or cite it?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
Tell us, Ben, why can't *YOU* admit that there isn't any
evidence to support your firing pin claim? Or cite it?
Don't you see the irony in your demanding a cite from
others when you fail to provide your own?
Jean
> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>
>
<snip>
> >>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
> >>>> evidence for your claim.
>
> >>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attention.
>
> >> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>
> More silence.
>
> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
> support your claim?
>
> Or cite it?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
evidence to support your firing pin claim? Or cite it?
Don't you see the irony in your demanding a cite from
others when you fail to provide your own?
Jean
Ben Holmes
Aug 7, 2012, 10:52:47 PM8/7/12
to
In article <c64c29dd-699a-43dd...@j28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
into trouble.
Tell us Jean, do *YOU* accept the claim that Dr. Humes burned his first
draft and notes on Saturday morning?
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Aug 6, 3:26=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>> >>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* a=
>On Aug 6, 3:26=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>>
>>
><snip>
>
>ny
>> >>>> evidence for your claim.
>>
>> >>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attent=
>> >>>> evidence for your claim.
>>
>ion.
>>
>> >> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>>
>> More silence.
>>
>> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
>> support your claim?
>>
>> Or cite it?
>
>
>>
>> >> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>>
>> More silence.
>>
>> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
>> support your claim?
>>
>> Or cite it?
>
>
> Tell us, Ben, why can't *YOU* admit that there isn't any
>evidence to support your firing pin claim? Or cite it?
>
> Don't you see the irony in your demanding a cite from
>others when you fail to provide your own?
>
>
>Jean
I've noted before the support from LNT'ers that Tony gets when he gets
>evidence to support your firing pin claim? Or cite it?
>
> Don't you see the irony in your demanding a cite from
>others when you fail to provide your own?
>
>
>Jean
into trouble.
Tell us Jean, do *YOU* accept the claim that Dr. Humes burned his first
draft and notes on Saturday morning?
Anthony Marsh
Aug 8, 2012, 1:05:28 AM8/8/12
to
Ben Holmes
Aug 8, 2012, 12:23:53 PM8/8/12
to
In article <5021e58c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
Neither, apparently, do you... since what you cited FAILED to support your
claim.
And since I've cited your original post, you've discovered that I told the
simple truth about your original post - you've decided that there's
nothing you can refute now - and refuse to answer.
But my guess is, you'll continue to make the claim that you can't cite
for...
claim.
And since I've cited your original post, you've discovered that I told the
simple truth about your original post - you've decided that there's
nothing you can refute now - and refuse to answer.
But my guess is, you'll continue to make the claim that you can't cite
for...
Anthony Marsh
Aug 8, 2012, 5:18:27 PM8/8/12
to
hypocrisy. Worse, it makes it look like you are defending me.
Jean Davison
Aug 8, 2012, 5:25:24 PM8/8/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Aug 7, 9:52 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <c64c29dd-699a-43dd-acce-fb5e4e664...@j28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Why do you refuse to discuss your firing pin claim,
Ben?
Not that it matters. Your meaning is clear. You made a
mistake but will never admit it. You see nothing wrong with demanding
cites from others while failing to provide your own. Okay, I get it.
Jean
> In article <c64c29dd-699a-43dd-acce-fb5e4e664...@j28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean Davison says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 6, 3:26=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> >>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* a=
> >ny
> >> >>>> evidence for your claim.
>
> >> >>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attent=
> >ion.
>
> >> >> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>
> >> More silence.
>
> >> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
> >> support your claim?
>
> >> Or cite it?
>
> > Tell us, Ben, why can't *YOU* admit that there isn't any
> >evidence to support your firing pin claim? Or cite it?
>
> > Don't you see the irony in your demanding a cite from
> >others when you fail to provide your own?
>
> >Jean
>
> I've noted before the support from LNT'ers that Tony gets when he gets
> into trouble.
>
> Tell us Jean, do *YOU* accept the claim that Dr. Humes burned his first
> draft and notes on Saturday morning?
>
Trying to change the subject for some reason?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 6, 3:26=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> >>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* a=
> >ny
> >> >>>> evidence for your claim.
>
> >> >>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attent=
> >ion.
>
> >> >> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>
> >> More silence.
>
> >> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
> >> support your claim?
>
> >> Or cite it?
>
> > Tell us, Ben, why can't *YOU* admit that there isn't any
> >evidence to support your firing pin claim? Or cite it?
>
> > Don't you see the irony in your demanding a cite from
> >others when you fail to provide your own?
>
> >Jean
>
> I've noted before the support from LNT'ers that Tony gets when he gets
> into trouble.
>
> Tell us Jean, do *YOU* accept the claim that Dr. Humes burned his first
> draft and notes on Saturday morning?
>
Why do you refuse to discuss your firing pin claim,
Ben?
Not that it matters. Your meaning is clear. You made a
mistake but will never admit it. You see nothing wrong with demanding
cites from others while failing to provide your own. Okay, I get it.
Jean
Bud
Aug 8, 2012, 6:44:54 PM8/8/12
to
Ben Holmes
Aug 8, 2012, 8:56:36 PM8/8/12
to
In article <50228e06$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
to get it.
But it looks like *no-one* will ever get the citations that support your
claim, Tony.
You refuse to provide them.
And the ones you *do* provide ... contradict your claims.
>
>On 8/7/2012 4:44 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 3:26 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
>>>>>>> evidence for your claim.
>>>
>>>>>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attention.
>>>
>>>>> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>>>
>>> More silence.
>>>
>>> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
>>> support your claim?
>>>
>>> Or cite it?
>>>
>>
>>
>On 8/7/2012 4:44 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 3:26 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
>>>>>>> evidence for your claim.
>>>
>>>>>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attention.
>>>
>>>>> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>>>
>>> More silence.
>>>
>>> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
>>> support your claim?
>>>
>>> Or cite it?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Tell us, Ben, why can't *YOU* admit that there isn't any
>> evidence to support your firing pin claim? Or cite it?
>>
>> Don't you see the irony in your demanding a cite from
>> others when you fail to provide your own?
>>
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Jean, that is not fair. You are using common sense to point out his
>hypocrisy. Worse, it makes it look like you are defending me.
Jean already *has* her answer... all she need do is come to the open forum
>> evidence to support your firing pin claim? Or cite it?
>>
>> Don't you see the irony in your demanding a cite from
>> others when you fail to provide your own?
>>
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Jean, that is not fair. You are using common sense to point out his
>hypocrisy. Worse, it makes it look like you are defending me.
to get it.
But it looks like *no-one* will ever get the citations that support your
claim, Tony.
You refuse to provide them.
And the ones you *do* provide ... contradict your claims.
Jean Davison
Aug 9, 2012, 11:35:14 AM8/9/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Aug 8, 7:56 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <50228e0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> But it looks like *no-one* will ever get the citations that support your
> claim, Tony.
>
> You refuse to provide them.
>
> And the ones you *do* provide ... contradict your claims.
>
It's like you have a twin.
Jean
> In article <50228e0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 8/7/2012 4:44 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> >> On Aug 6, 3:26 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>>>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
> >>>>>>> evidence for your claim.
>
> >>>>>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attention.
>
> >>>>> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>
> >>> More silence.
>
> >>> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
> >>> support your claim?
>
> >>> Or cite it?
>
> >> Tell us, Ben, why can't *YOU* admit that there isn't any
> >> evidence to support your firing pin claim? Or cite it?
>
> >> Don't you see the irony in your demanding a cite from
> >> others when you fail to provide your own?
>
> >> Jean
>
> >Jean, that is not fair. You are using common sense to point out his
> >hypocrisy. Worse, it makes it look like you are defending me.
>
> Jean already *has* her answer... all she need do is come to the open forum
> to get it.
Fail to do the right thing, blame someone else. Perfect!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 8/7/2012 4:44 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> >> On Aug 6, 3:26 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >>> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>>>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T* any
> >>>>>>> evidence for your claim.
>
> >>>>>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay attention.
>
> >>>>> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>
> >>> More silence.
>
> >>> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
> >>> support your claim?
>
> >>> Or cite it?
>
> >> Tell us, Ben, why can't *YOU* admit that there isn't any
> >> evidence to support your firing pin claim? Or cite it?
>
> >> Don't you see the irony in your demanding a cite from
> >> others when you fail to provide your own?
>
> >> Jean
>
> >Jean, that is not fair. You are using common sense to point out his
> >hypocrisy. Worse, it makes it look like you are defending me.
>
> Jean already *has* her answer... all she need do is come to the open forum
> to get it.
>
> But it looks like *no-one* will ever get the citations that support your
> claim, Tony.
>
> You refuse to provide them.
>
> And the ones you *do* provide ... contradict your claims.
>
Jean
Ben Holmes
Aug 10, 2012, 2:47:49 AM8/10/12
to
In article <10cb9706-fc45-413f...@n6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>here isn't any
>> >> evidence to support your firing pin claim? =A0Or cite it?
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Don't you see the irony in your demanding =
>> But it looks like *no-one* will ever get the citations that support your
>> claim, Tony.
>>
>> You refuse to provide them.
>>
>> And the ones you *do* provide ... contradict your claims.
>>
>
> It's like you have a twin.
>
>Jean
Tell us Jean, why are you evading the fact that Tony refuses to provide
citations that support his claim that Dr. Humes was burning a draft on
Saturday morning that he didn't start writing until later?
Does objective truth no longer matter?
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Aug 8, 7:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <50228e0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >On 8/7/2012 4:44 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>> >> On Aug 6, 3:26 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >>> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >>>>>>> Once again, you refuse to cite. You can't... because there *ISN'T=
>On Aug 8, 7:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <50228e0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >On 8/7/2012 4:44 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>> >> On Aug 6, 3:26 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >>> In article <501fdc3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>* any
>> >>>>>>> evidence for your claim.
>>
>> >>>>>> I've only cited it a few thousand times, but you refuse to pay att=
>> >>>>>>> evidence for your claim.
>>
>ention.
>>
>> >>>>> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>>
>> >>> More silence.
>>
>> >>> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
>> >>> support your claim?
>>
>> >>> Or cite it?
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Tell us, Ben, why can't *YOU* admit that t=
>>
>> >>>>> Then all you have to do is cite merely *ONE* of them.
>>
>> >>> More silence.
>>
>> >>> Tell us Tony, why can't you admit that there *ISN'T* any evidence to
>> >>> support your claim?
>>
>> >>> Or cite it?
>>
>here isn't any
>> >> evidence to support your firing pin claim? =A0Or cite it?
>>
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Don't you see the irony in your demanding =
>a cite from
>> >> others when you fail to provide your own?
>>
>> >> Jean
>>
>> >Jean, that is not fair. You are using common sense to point out his
>> >hypocrisy. Worse, it makes it look like you are defending me.
>>
>> Jean already *has* her answer... all she need do is come to the open forum
>> to get it.
>
>
> Fail to do the right thing, blame someone else. Perfect!
You apparently think that debate is a one-man show. Sorry Jean, it's not.
>> >> others when you fail to provide your own?
>>
>> >> Jean
>>
>> >Jean, that is not fair. You are using common sense to point out his
>> >hypocrisy. Worse, it makes it look like you are defending me.
>>
>> Jean already *has* her answer... all she need do is come to the open forum
>> to get it.
>
>
> Fail to do the right thing, blame someone else. Perfect!
>> But it looks like *no-one* will ever get the citations that support your
>> claim, Tony.
>>
>> You refuse to provide them.
>>
>> And the ones you *do* provide ... contradict your claims.
>>
>
> It's like you have a twin.
>
>Jean
citations that support his claim that Dr. Humes was burning a draft on
Saturday morning that he didn't start writing until later?
Does objective truth no longer matter?
Jean Davison
Aug 10, 2012, 12:27:15 PM8/10/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Aug 10, 1:47 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <10cb9706-fc45-413f-b1eb-140359edb...@n6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
You tell me. Was the firing pin defective, Ben? Did it
have to be replaced?
It amazes me that you expect Tony to acknowledge his error,
yet you won't acknowledge your own. It's like you're talking to
yourself. And you don't see the irony, the double standard?
Jean
> In article <10cb9706-fc45-413f-b1eb-140359edb...@n6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
have to be replaced?
It amazes me that you expect Tony to acknowledge his error,
yet you won't acknowledge your own. It's like you're talking to
yourself. And you don't see the irony, the double standard?
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Aug 10, 2012, 1:20:34 PM8/10/12
to
know and remember that I have often provided citations that support the
claim that Dr. Humes was burning a draft of the autosy report on Saturday
morning? Could it be because you never read the JAMA articles and were
never even aware of them? Go do your homework and then get back to us.
Bud
Aug 10, 2012, 1:21:12 PM8/10/12
to
debate, either behind your killfilter or your ad hominem.
> >> But it looks like *no-one* will ever get the citations that support your
>
> >> claim, Tony.
>
> >>
>
> >> You refuse to provide them.
>
> >>
>
> >> And the ones you *do* provide ... contradict your claims.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > It's like you have a twin.
>
> >
>
> >Jean
>
>
>
>
>
> Tell us Jean, why are you evading the fact that Tony refuses to provide
>
> citations that support his claim that Dr. Humes was burning a draft on
>
> Saturday morning that he didn't start writing until later?
> Does objective truth no longer matter?
Ben Holmes
Aug 10, 2012, 8:11:30 PM8/10/12
to
In article <5025136f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
140359...@n6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
If she is, she's refused, just as you have, to cite them.
>Could it be because you never read the JAMA articles and were
>never even aware of them? Go do your homework and then get back to us.
I asked you for the citations... you provided them... they don't support
your claim.
You have thus far refused to respond to that post.
Indeed, quite contrary to your claim of *EVER* citing for your claim, you
have *NEVER* provided a citation that would support your claim.
It would be incredibly easy for you to demonstrate that I'm wrong...
Why not do so, Tony?
>>Does objective truth no longer matter?
>
>On 8/10/2012 2:47 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <10cb9706-fc45-413f-b1eb-
>On 8/10/2012 2:47 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
140359...@n6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>Could it be because you never read the JAMA articles and were
>never even aware of them? Go do your homework and then get back to us.
your claim.
You have thus far refused to respond to that post.
Indeed, quite contrary to your claim of *EVER* citing for your claim, you
have *NEVER* provided a citation that would support your claim.
It would be incredibly easy for you to demonstrate that I'm wrong...
Why not do so, Tony?
>>Does objective truth no longer matter?
0 new messages