An overplayed hand....
Walt
cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
opponent if he expects to walk away with his opponents money.. If the
bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
Such is the case with Rob Caprio.... Rob has dozens of posts in
which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls everything that
he doesn't agree with a "lie".
Rob overplays his hand time after time and reveals it is he who is the
liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive" ballistics test
(with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor the Warren Commission's theory -
the alternative, of course, is that the ballistics examiner would have stated
that there was *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
theory of the case.
Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never having
asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics test, but
for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
YOU are the one who Speculates with NO Citations ! ! !
Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
(allegedly LHO's).
Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40").
Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
in 4/63.
Walt never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it was
found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle that was easily traceable so he
could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for RFK.
Walt never proved that Truly held a "roll call" and LHO was the ONLY
one missing.
Walt never proved the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from a
Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40" Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein's.
Walt never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt BY photo) came from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report
ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on the "Bill of lading" was TARE
weight.
Walt never proved the weight of the 40" Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad
the WC used says 7.0LBS.
Walt never proved a "signed affadavit with a notary seal" signed by
the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the pilot fly
him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved the rifle found on the roof was a DPD shotgun and
NOT a Mauser as the Mentesana film shows.
Walt said Mausers are NOT stamped on the barrel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------��--------------------------------- � Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded" photoof Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe???
Walt
> In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
>
>
> >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
> >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
> >opponent if he expects to walk away with his opponents money.. If the
> >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>
> >Such is the case with Rob Caprio.... Rob has dozens of posts in
> >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>
> >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
> >( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls everything that
> >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>
> >Rob overplays his hand time after time and reveals it is he who is the
> >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>
> I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>
> For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive" ballistics test
> (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor the Warren Commission's theory -
> the alternative, of course, is that the ballistics examiner would have stated
> that there was *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
> theory of the case.
>
> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never having
> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics test, but
> for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
I disagree... Rob's intelligent enough.....He just has a gargantuan
ego which he allows to make a fool of him. His ego won't allow him to
admit that he's endorsed some dumb idea nor will it allow him to admit
that he's made a mistake. He's not as stupid as he some times seems to
be. ( nobody could be that stupid)
Since he seems to have a little education, and writes well, I doubt
that he's the Village Idiot..... I've long thought that he may be
stupid like a fox....
Robert
> In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
> cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
> opponent if he expects to walk away with his opponents money.. If the
> bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>
> Such is the case with Rob Caprio.... Rob has dozens of posts in
> which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
Funny Walt has NO problem with Ben haviing dozens of posts calling me
a liar, huh?
> A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
> ( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls everything that
> he doesn't agree with a "lie".
Where was this understanding Walt before? When I didn't agree his
speculation was FACT I was called all kinds of things.
>
> Rob overplays his hand time after time and reveals it is he who is the
> liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
Walt is the liar, and here are his lies:
Walt never proved his claim that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling
Mounts".
Walt never proved his claim that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved his claim that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved his claim that Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the
CE-133A photo on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that the wallet was found "INSIDE" the
owner's car (allegedly LHO’s).
Walt never proved his claim that Michael Paine had the same model
rifle as LHO (Carcano 40”).
Walt never proved his claim that General Walker believed LHO shot at
him in 4/63.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker on
4/10/63.
Walt never proved his claim that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT
General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO RECEIVED a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that the bill of lading proved a 40"
Carcano was ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO ORDERED a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the weapon found on the roof was a
DPD shotgun.
Walt never proved his claim that Lt. Day performed a “lift” off of the
Carcano on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a “smudged print” on the
wooden foregrip of CE139 when found.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a clip inside the Carcano
when it was found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved his claim that Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved his claim that Truly held a “roll call” and LHO was
the ONLY one missing.
Walt never proved his claim that DeMohrenschildt actually owned the
40” Carcano allegedly ordered from Klein’s.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct.
1963.
Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that the weight listed on the “Bill of
lading” was TARE weight.
Walt never proved his claim that the weight of the 40” Carcano is
7.5LBS when the ad the WC used says 7.0LBS.
Walt never proved his claim that the bullet recovered from Walker
shooting was copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO ordered a rifle that was easily
traceable so he could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved his claim that the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm
ammo) came from a Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved his claim that BY photo 133A (deMohrenschildt BY
photo) came from the SAME negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the
money order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved his claim Fritz was just sloppy when timing the
arrest report ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved his claim of a “signed affadavit with a notary seal”
signed by the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the
pilot fly him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO was part of a plot to kill Castro
(probably claims he was going to be the “trigger man” too).
Walt never proved his claim that a reporter lied because he was “bent
on hyperbole”, and said the bullet found at Walker’s was a .30.06
caliber instead of a 6.5mm bullet as Walt and the WC claim.
Walt never proved his claim that CE573 was the bullet actually fired
at Gen. Walker on 4/10/63.
mucher1
> In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
> >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
> >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
> >opponent if he expects to walk away with his opponents money.. If the
> >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>
> >Such is the case with Rob Caprio.... Rob has dozens of posts in
> >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>
> >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
> >( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls everything that
> >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>
> >Rob overplays his hand time after time and reveals it is he who is the
> >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>
> I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
You're dishonest nearly all the time, and I can't think of any
mitigating circumstances.
> For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive" ballistics test
> (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor the Warren Commission's theory -
> the alternative, of course, is that the ballistics examiner would have stated
> that there was *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
> theory of the case.
Aren't you forgetting the third possibility? It's a bit misleading,
btw, to characterize the findings based on the examination of the
Walker bullet as simply "inconclusive". Despite the mangled condition
of the bullet, the experts were able to find several matching
characteristics and (if memory serves) nothing that was incompatible
with the bullet having been fired from Oswald's rifle.
> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never having
> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics test, but
> for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
And what's your excuse?
Robert
> In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
>
>
> >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
> >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
> >opponent if he expects to walk away with his opponents money.. If the
> >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>
> >Such is the case with Rob Caprio.... Rob has dozens of posts in
> >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>
> >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
> >( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls everything that
> >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>
> >Rob overplays his hand time after time and reveals it is he who is the
> >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>
> I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>
> For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive" ballistics test
> (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor the Warren Commission's theory -
> the alternative, of course, is that the ballistics examiner would have stated
> that there was *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
> theory of the case.
They did SAY THIS via Frazier. YOU are the one saying the
inconclusive FAVORED a match, NOT me. Why are you saying that? YOU
also are listening to Walt too much and he will sink you as the DPD
never mentioned a copper-jacketed bullet in the Walker shooting.
There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker.
> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never having
> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics test, but
> for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
Ben you have NOT shown me lying. YOU OTOH claim a neutral result, an
inconclusive, FAVORS a side (a match). NOW that is a lie.
Robert
The ONLY one with a huge ego is Walt. That is why he gives us his
"hobby tests results" (i.e. his cardboard model of DP) as evidence
INSTEAD OF STICKING TO THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE GIVEN TO US. Walt
always makes it about him and that is a sign of an ego issue.
> His ego won't allow him to
> admit that he's endorsed some dumb idea nor will it allow him to admit
> that he's made a mistake.
You are a liar Walt as I have admitted many mistakes on here. As for
the other stuff I make sure I am aware of the evidence before I jump
in so I don't endorse "dumb ideas". Proof of this is that I DON'T
endorse your ideas!
> He's not as stupid as he some times seems to
> be. ( nobody could be that stupid)
> Since he seems to have a little education, and writes well, I doubt
> that he's the Village Idiot..... I've long thought that he may be
> stupid like a fox....
Spoken like a true WC shill. Remember, Walt, I offered a peace
offering and you spat at me.
Walt
Oh really.... Where? When?
As for
> the other stuff I make sure I am aware of the evidence before I jump
> in so I don't endorse "dumb ideas".
Oh really... Then why did you argue for months that the clip is
"EJECTED" from a Mannlicher Carcano just like the clip is ejected from
an M-1 Garand??
Proof of this is that I DON'T
> endorse your ideas!
>
> > He's not as stupid as he some times seems to
> > be. ( nobody could be that stupid)
> > Since he seems to have a little education, and writes well, I doubt
> > that he's the Village Idiot..... I've long thought that he may be
> > stupid like a fox....
>
> Spoken like a true WC shill. Remember, Walt, I offered a peace
> offering and you spat at me.
Peace ??? I don't want "peace" I'd like you to get your head outta
yer ass and quit making our entire contingent look like fools.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 23, 4:05=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
>> >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
>> >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>>
>> >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>>
>> >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
>> >( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls everything that
>> >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>>
>> >Rob overplays his hand time after time and reveals it is he who is the
>> >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>>
>> I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>>
>> For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive"
>> ballistics test (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor
>> the Warren Commission's theory - the alternative, of course, is
>> that the ballistics examiner would have stated that there was
>> *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
>> theory of the case.
>
>They did SAY THIS via Frazier.
No moron, they did *NOT*. I defy you to cite Frazier. In neither the Walker
bullet nor the two larger limo fragments... Frazier did *NOT* state that there
was no match.
You're a liar, moron.
>YOU are the one saying the
>inconclusive FAVORED a match,
Still molesting children, aren't you?
If you'd ever take the time to *READ* what someone is saying, instead of trying
to force your own understanding into someone's mouth, you'd be far more
credible.
I've previously stated in print, in this forum, TO YOU, that an "inconclusive"
does not *FORBID* a match. It also, of course, does not forbid a *NON-MATCH*.
I've *NEVER* stated that an inconclusive finding *FAVORS* one or the other.
Now why can't you start either QUOTING me, or retracting these lies, Roberta?
>NOT me. Why are you saying that?
Since you will be totally unable to quote me saying that, it appears once again
that you're molesting little boys & girls. You really should stop that. I'm
unaware of *any* society that condones child molestation.
Do you suppose that you could go even *one* week without molesting any children?
>YOU also are listening to Walt too much and he will sink you as the DPD
>never mentioned a copper-jacketed bullet in the Walker shooting.
>There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker.
Yes, moron, there is.
Whether it's credible or persuasive, is another matter... but when you simply
deny that any evidence exists, your just a moron.
You seem to have the same problem that LNT'ers do with evidence. You simply
decide for yourself what the facts are.
>> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never having
>> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics
>> test, but for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>
>Ben you have NOT shown me lying.
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match." Rob Caprio -
Nov 2nd, 2008.
"Your logic is all wrong, in ballistics, as in all sciences, a non-match is an
EXCLUSION!!! That is why there are ONLY two outcomes - a positive and a
negative." Rob Caprio - Oct 1st, 2008
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match." Rob Caprio -
Nov 30th, 2007
You can keep running from your lies, Robert - I'll just keep right on quoting
them.
>YOU OTOH claim a neutral result, an
>inconclusive, FAVORS a side (a match). NOW that is a lie.
Indeed, your STATEMENT is a lie.
You assert that I've claimed something that I've never claimed.
bigdog
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...> In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
> > cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
> > opponent if he expects to walk away with his opponents money.. If the
> > bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>
> > Such is the case with Rob Caprio.... Rob has dozens of posts in
> > which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>
> > A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
> > ( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls everything that
> > he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>
> > Rob overplays his hand time after time and reveals it is he who is the
> > liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>
Rosstards overplays his hand everytime he has sex.
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:677030c7-7bc4-4931...@r27g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
bigdog wrote;
Rosstards overplays his hand everytime he has sex.
I write;
Only because your wife is "Insatiable".
Anton tells me there will be another debate in August.
Are you gonna be the "Suicide Bomber" this time?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe???
>
> bigdog wrote;
>
> Rosstards overplays his hand everytime he has sex.
>
> I write;
>
> Only because your wife is "Insatiable".
>
> Anton tells me there will be another debate in August.
>
> Are you gonna be the "Suicide Bomber" this time?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have my number. I'll believe it when I get the call.
Robert
I have admitted more mistakes than you. I am NOT above making a
mistake like every other human being. YOU are the one that has a
problem with admitting you offer NOTHING but speculation.
Why do you have NO problem with Ben using child molestation as a
debate tactic Walt? Do you think this is proper behavior on this
board? Do you think using this sick stuff is okay? YOU must because I
have never seen you say anything to him, but we see you have a problem
with me labeling him a liar when he lies. How come?
> As for
>
> > the other stuff I make sure I am aware of the evidence before I jump
> > in so I don't endorse "dumb ideas".
>
> Oh really... Then why did you argue for months that the clip is
> "EJECTED" from a Mannlicher Carcano just like the clip is ejected from
> an M-1 Garand??
Liar, aren't you? I said immediately we can go your way as it has
NOTHING to do with the claim the WC made. NOW show us how the way the
clip leaves is important Walt. I dare you!
> Proof of this is that I DON'T
>
> > endorse your ideas!
>
> > > He's not as stupid as he some times seems to
> > > be. ( nobody could be that stupid)
> > > Since he seems to have a little education, and writes well, I doubt
> > > that he's the Village Idiot..... I've long thought that he may be
> > > stupid like a fox....
>
> > Spoken like a true WC shill. Remember, Walt, I offered a peace
> > offering and you spat at me.
>
> Peace ??? I don't want "peace" I'd like you to get your head outta
> yer ass and quit making our entire contingent look like fools.
Walt, you are liar and a WC Shill. YOU and Ben are the ones that make
the contingent look bad. YOU lie and use speculation and Ben lies and
uses a sick tactic like child molestation as a weapon. Thank God you
are both WC Shills and NOT CTers!
aeffects
> On 23 Jul., 22:05, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Walt says...
>
> > >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
> > >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
> > >opponent if he expects to walk away with his opponents money.. If the
> > >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>
> > >Such is the case with Rob Caprio.... Rob has dozens of posts in
> > >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>
> > >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
> > >( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls everything that
> > >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>
> > >Rob overplays his hand time after time and reveals it is he who is the
> > >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>
> > I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>
> You're dishonest nearly all the time, and I can't think of any
> mitigating circumstances.
sirdown little guy, when we need your assistance here we'll squeeze
that shit for brains pimple atop your shoulders..
Till then, chill moron!
tomnln
> Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe???
>
> bigdog wrote;
>
> Rosstards overplays his hand everytime he has sex.
>
> I write;
>
> Only because your wife is "Insatiable".
>
> Anton tells me there will be another debate in August.
>
> Are you gonna be the "Suicide Bomber" this time?
>
bigdog wrote;
You have my number. I'll believe it when I get the call.
I write;
Your number went out with the rest of the Garbage;
send it again,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
OK.... Apparently you're too damned dumb to understand the
significance of this tiny bit of information, even though I've told
you before... I guess you were too busy calling me a liar to pay
attention....
The FACT that the clip FALLS free ( NOT EJECTED) out of the bottom of
the rifle when the LAST round in that clip is stripped from it by the
forward stroke of the bolt, means that the clip should have been found
in the so called sniper's nest, IF the rifle had been fired from that
location. This is a FACT!! If the last round was IN THE FIRING
CHAMBER as both Lt John Day and Captain Fritz testified, then when
that round was stripped from the clip the clip would have dropped out
of the rifle. Since the reloading of a fresh round is a reflex
reaction after firing then IF the killer had fired that rifle and
reflectsively ejected the spent shell ( as he would have) when he
pushed the bolt forward he would have stripped the last round from the
clip and seated it in the firing chamber. THAT action would have
allowed the clip to FALL out on the floor right there in the so called
"sniper's nest" and that's where the clip would have been found IF...
IF... IF... the rifle had been fired as the Warren Commission
speculated.
Now, I hope you've gotten that idea through your thick skull.......
because ....
When the Mannlicher Carcano ( Not a MAUSER ) was pulled from the
cavern in the stack of boxes where it had been COMPLETELY hidden ( not
merely tossed behind some boxes) Lt Day and Captain Frittz said that a
live round FELL.... FELL...FELL... out onto the floor. The FACT that
the live round FELL onto the florr means that the ejector finger was
NOT engaged with the live cartridge. If the ejector finger had been
engaged with the live cartridge the cartridge would have been FLUNG
FLUNG from the rifle by the spring action of the ejector,,and it would
NOT have merely FELL on the floor. This is all substantiated by the
photos that were taken of the rifle as it was being retrieved and
examined in the first coulpe of minutes after it was lifted by Lt day
from the place where it had been carefully hidden. the photos show
that the bolt is NOT fully closed . It is hung in the position where
the bolt of a carcano sticks when a bullet is simply dropped into the
firing chamber and the bolt is pushed forward in an attempt to latch
it shut for firing. The photos show that the bolt is stuck and not
down in the latched (firing) position.
What all this means is somebody who was unfamiliar with the rifle
tried to chamber a single round by dropping it in the chamber and not
using a clip. Whoever that ''somebody" was... they couldn't get the
bolt shut and left it in the jammed position. Then when captain Fritz
opened the bolt the live cartridge merely FELL out onto the floor.
Furthermore that "somebody" inserted a clip into the bottom of the
rifle and jammed it in the magazine where it went unnoticed by
anybody. Apparently in the handling of the rifle, while Day was
examining it and lifting a print from it , the clip started to work
its way out of the rifle ( by force of gravity), because the clip can
be seen hanging precariously from the rifle's magazine as Day carried
it from the TSBD.. ( see photograph on page 550 of Trask's
POTP )
>
> > Proof of this is that I DON'T
>
> > > endorse your ideas!
>
> > > > He's not as stupid as he some times seems to
> > > > be. ( nobody could be that stupid)
> > > > Since he seems to have a little education, and writes well, I doubt
> > > > that he's the Village Idiot..... I've long thought that he may be
> > > > stupid like a fox....
>
> > > Spoken like a true WC shill. Remember, Walt, I offered a peace
> > > offering and you spat at me.
>
> > Peace ??? I don't want "peace" I'd like you to get your head outta
> > yer ass and quit making our entire contingent look like fools.
>
> Walt, you are liar and a WC Shill. YOU and Ben are the ones that make
> the contingent look bad. YOU lie and use speculation and Ben lies and
> uses a sick tactic like child molestation as a weapon. Thank God you
> are both WC Shills and NOT CTers!- Hide quoted text -
Robert
> In article <933ca5ca-5d96-4ee3-b4f9-a1721d14a...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
First of all, I will not even discuss the Walker bullet because we
know there is NO chain of custody for it and it does NOT match the
type of bullet in the DPD report immediately after the shooting. Thus
the bullet presented by the WC is NOT the bullet fired at Walker.
Frazier was NOT the right man to be even discussing this as he lacked
spectographic credentials in the first place. John F. Gallagher was
the man with the background for this type of testing, but the WC
waited UNTIL 9/15/64 to depose him and then spent less than an hour
with him.
Mr. REDLICH. Very briefly, what has been the nature of your
affiliation with the FBI?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The greater part of that 18 years I have been assigned
to the FBI Laboratory, and in particular to the Physics and Chemistry
Section. I work in the spectrographic unit of the FBI Laboratory.
Gallagher did the actual tests on the two fragments to see if they
came from the same bullet or not, but he was kept at arms length by
the WC. Here is what Frazier testified to on this matter regarding
the two fragments.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567;
and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - **There is not enough of the two fragments in
unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments
actually fit together.**
However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such
as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section
of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
course, they could be parts of separate bullets.
This is called tap-dancing. It could be, but then it could be not.
Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of the actual bullets that you have
been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle,
and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
Mr. FRAZIER - Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket
fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet,
then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet
in two parts.
Mr. McCLOY - And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from
one bullet or two separate ones?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at
the minimum?
Mr. FRAZIER - I meant at least two bullets.
Mr. McCLOY - There were at least two different bullets?
Mr. FRAZIER - At least two, yes.
This really sounds unsure to me, but Ben thinks it FAVORS THE WC'S
CLAIM OF ONE BULLET!
“Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET… (Robert, edited by Ben)
“It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**” (Ben
Holmes – 7/14/09)
> You're a liar, moron.
You are the liar, and you you are a bad one too.
> >YOU are the one saying the
> >inconclusive FAVORED a match,
>
> Still molesting children, aren't you?
Please, quit projecting your sickness onto me and others. Ben said
this about his sickness:
“Child molesting is a seriously sick pre-occupation, Rob.” (Ben Holmes
– 12/11/08)
For once Ben is telling the truth, let's hope he gets the help he
needs.
> If you'd ever take the time to *READ* what someone is saying, instead of trying
> to force your own understanding into someone's mouth, you'd be far more
> credible.
YOU can explain it to us. Point by point. YOU are the one that
writes in a cryptic style Ben, I have told you this for a long time.
I'm sure most people on here would agree you hide your point as your
main goal is to catch someone in a mistake that you can call a lie.
> I've previously stated in print, in this forum, TO YOU, that an "inconclusive"
> does not *FORBID* a match. It also, of course, does not forbid a *NON-MATCH*.
Yes, I have this quote. IT is neutral, that is my point.
> I've *NEVER* stated that an inconclusive finding *FAVORS* one or the other.
What is this:
“Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET… (Robert, edited by Ben)
“It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**” (Ben
Holmes – 7/14/09)
I didn't type this and claim you said it Ben, thus your sick child
molesting comments are off base. YOU said it, and I'm just calling
you on it.
I said the inconclusive allows LNers and shills to claim the two
fragments came from one bullet and you said "It's possible they did."
Nothing wrong with that as they could have just as much as the could
NOT have. But then you shot yourself in the foot with the next part.
"Indeed, the odds favor it." This went to far as there are NO odds
favoring a match over a non-match in this case of an inconclusive.
YOU LIED.
This has NOTHING to do with me and my interpretation, but I can see
how you would like to make that the issue instead of your blatant lie.
> Now why can't you start either QUOTING me, or retracting these lies, Roberta?
Benita, I have bee QUOTING you and you keep lying about what you
said. A man who lies about his OWN WORDS is the most dishonest of
them all.
> >NOT me. Why are you saying that?
>
> Since you will be totally unable to quote me saying that, it appears once again
> that you're molesting little boys & girls. You really should stop that. I'm
> unaware of *any* society that condones child molestation.
Benita you are a liar. I have been quoting you for a week now. YOU
lie about YOUR OWN WORDS! YOU lie and attack me with your sickness
when you said the ODDS FAVOR A MATCH like the WC and LNers claim. I
did NOT put any words into your mouth. YOU are a dispicable liar.
> Do you suppose that you could go even *one* week without molesting any children?
I have gone a lifetime sicko. YOU are the ADMITTED molester,
remember?
“Molesting neighborhood children again...” (Ben Holmes – 2/8/07)
> >YOU also are listening to Walt too much and he will sink you as the DPD
> >never mentioned a copper-jacketed bullet in the Walker shooting.
> >There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker.
>
> Yes, moron, there is.
LOL!! Where is it? I'm NOT taking about the WC's lies of evidence,
show us where in the official DPD report of the incident does it
mention a copper-jacketed bullet?
> Whether it's credible or persuasive, is another matter... but when you simply
> deny that any evidence exists, your just a moron.
YOU call fake stuff evidence, I don't. Show us that the bullet the WC
gave us is the real bullet fired at Walker! I dare you!
> You seem to have the same problem that LNT'ers do with evidence. You simply
> decide for yourself what the facts are.
As you said:
“You seem confused... I accept their *EVIDENCE*, I can make my own
conclusions.
That's why God gave me a brain, to use it.
I accept *ALL* DPD evidence that isn't contradicted by other evidence,
and that
appears untainted by the frameup being conducted.
The **"steel jacket"** was found to be very inconvenient for people
such as you, so
you simply ignore it... don't you?” (Bendsie Holmes – 1/27/06)
Funny Benita didn't have this understanding take on the issue when he
attacked Todd Vaughn, huh? ONLY when Walt is involved do we get the
nice Benita.
Ben knows the bullet found at the scene was steel-jacketed as he says
so above, but NOW he and WALT ARE IGNORING IT! But he claims I am
ingoring it. I smell another post in my "Provable Lies of Ben Holmes"
series!
> >> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never having
> >> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics
> >> test, but for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>
> >Ben you have NOT shown me lying.
>
> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match." Rob Caprio -
> Nov 2nd, 2008.
>
> "Your logic is all wrong, in ballistics, as in all sciences, a non-match is an
> EXCLUSION!!! That is why there are ONLY two outcomes - a positive and a
> negative." Rob Caprio - Oct 1st, 2008
>
> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match." Rob Caprio -
> Nov 30th, 2007
>
> You can keep running from your lies, Robert - I'll just keep right on quoting
> them.
Who is running? I have made my point very clear and you HAVE AGREED
WITH ME! So once again, IF I'm lying you are lying because you said
this?
“Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no
non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
the test.” (Ben Holmes – 7/23/09)
That has been my point from the beginning, if you want PROOF you get
two results, IF you want everything you get three.
> >YOU OTOH claim a neutral result, an
> >inconclusive, FAVORS a side (a match). NOW that is a lie.
>
> Indeed, your STATEMENT is a lie.
YOU are the liar, and you even lie about YOUR OWN WORDS!
> You assert that I've claimed something that I've never claimed.
Liar, aren't you?
“Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET… (Robert, edited by Ben)
“It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**” (Ben
Holmes – 7/14/09)
Is this denial routine the best you can do?
Walt
Hey Stupid Bastard.... Would a steel jacketed bullet that is designed
to penetrate steel, be badly mangled by passing through wood and
plaster?? ALL ...ALL reports from people who actually saw the bullet
at Walker's house said that it was BADLY MANGLED. Therefore doesn't
common sense dictate that the Walker bullet was NOT a steel jacketed
bullet??
>
>
> > >> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never having
> > >> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics
> > >> test, but for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>
> > >Ben you have NOT shown me lying.
>
> > "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match." Rob Caprio -
> > Nov 2nd, 2008.
>
> > "Your logic is all wrong, in ballistics, as in all sciences, a non-match is an
> > EXCLUSION!!! That is why there are ONLY two outcomes - a positive and a
> > negative." Rob Caprio - Oct 1st, 2008
>
> > "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match." Rob Caprio -
> > Nov 30th, 2007
>
> > You can keep running from your lies, Robert - I'll just keep right on quoting
> > them.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Robert
IT has NO significance.
> The FACT that the clip FALLS free ( NOT EJECTED) out of the bottom of
> the rifle when the LAST round in that clip is stripped from it by the
> forward stroke of the bolt, means that the clip should have been found
> in the so called sniper's nest, IF the rifle had been fired from that
> location.
Correct, but it was NOT. YOUR claim has been it was still in the
rifle like the WC said, are you going to lie about that NOW?
> This is a FACT!! If the last round was IN THE FIRING
> CHAMBER as both Lt John Day and Captain Fritz testified, then when
> that round was stripped from the clip the clip would have dropped out
> of the rifle. Since the reloading of a fresh round is a reflex
> reaction after firing then IF the killer had fired that rifle and
> reflectsively ejected the spent shell ( as he would have) when he
> pushed the bolt forward he would have stripped the last round from the
> clip and seated it in the firing chamber. THAT action would have
> allowed the clip to FALL out on the floor right there in the so called
> "sniper's nest" and that's where the clip would have been found IF...
> IF... IF... the rifle had been fired as the Warren Commission
> speculated.
Yes, but you have said the clip was INSIDE the rifle when it was found
like the WC did!
> Now, I hope you've gotten that idea through your thick skull.......
> because ....
I have always known this part, the part I call you a liar for is you
clam the clip WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE when they found it, and there is NO
evidence for this claim.
> When the Mannlicher Carcano ( Not a MAUSER ) was pulled from the
> cavern in the stack of boxes where it had been COMPLETELY hidden ( not
> merely tossed behind some boxes) Lt Day and Captain Frittz said that a
> live round FELL.... FELL...FELL... out onto the floor. The FACT that
> the live round FELL onto the florr means that the ejector finger was
> NOT engaged with the live cartridge. If the ejector finger had been
> engaged with the live cartridge the cartridge would have been FLUNG
> FLUNG from the rifle by the spring action of the ejector,,and it would
> NOT have merely FELL on the floor. This is all substantiated by the
> photos that were taken of the rifle as it was being retrieved and
> examined in the first coulpe of minutes after it was lifted by Lt day
> from the place where it had been carefully hidden. the photos show
> that the bolt is NOT fully closed . It is hung in the position where
> the bolt of a carcano sticks when a bullet is simply dropped into the
> firing chamber and the bolt is pushed forward in an attempt to latch
> it shut for firing. The photos show that the bolt is stuck and not
> down in the latched (firing) position.
Where is your evidence for the clip being inside the rifle when it was
found? This is called speculation Walt. I want evidence.
> What all this means is somebody who was unfamiliar with the rifle
> tried to chamber a single round by dropping it in the chamber and not
> using a clip. Whoever that ''somebody" was... they couldn't get the
> bolt shut and left it in the jammed position. Then when captain Fritz
> opened the bolt the live cartridge merely FELL out onto the floor.
Pure speculation, and I'm NOT interested. YOU have said the clip was
inside the rifle and I want evidence for this claim.
> Furthermore that "somebody" inserted a clip into the bottom of the
> rifle and jammed it in the magazine where it went unnoticed by
> anybody. Apparently in the handling of the rifle, while Day was
> examining it and lifting a print from it , the clip started to work
> its way out of the rifle ( by force of gravity), because the clip can
> be seen hanging precariously from the rifle's magazine as Day carried
> it from the TSBD.. ( see photograph on page 550 of Trask's
> POTP )
There is NO evidence for this claim either. Why does Walt want a clip
inside the rifle so bad?
Robert
Hey WC Shill and Liar,
This calls for SPECULATION and I'm NOT interested. PROVE the bullet
found was a COPPER-JACKETED one or admit you are a liar.
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 23, 6:46=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 5:05=A0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 23, 5:19=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 23, 3:05=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.google=
>groups.com>,
>> > > > Walt says...
>>
>> > > > >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
>> > > > >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
>If the
>> > > > >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>>
>n
>> > > > >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>>
>> > > > >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
>that
>> > > > >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>>
> the
>> > > > >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>>
>> > > > I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>>
>tics test
>> > > > (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor the Warren Commissi=
>on's theory -
>> > > > the alternative, of course, is that the ballistics examiner would h=
>ave stated
>> > > > that there was *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of=
> the WC's
>> > > > theory of the case.
>>
>aving
>> > > > asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistic=
>s test, but
>> > > > for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>>
>> > > I disagree... Rob's intelligent enough.....He just has a gargantuan
>> > > ego which he allows to make a fool of him.
>>
>> > "hobby tests results" (i.e. his cardboard model of DP) as evidence
>> > always makes it about him and that is a sign of an ego issue.
>>
>> > > His ego won't allow him to
>t
>> > > that he's made a mistake.
>>
>> > You are a liar Walt as I have admitted many mistakes on here.
>>
>> Oh really.... Where? When?
>
>I have admitted more mistakes than you. I am NOT above making a
>mistake like every other human being. YOU are the one that has a
>problem with admitting you offer NOTHING but speculation.
>
>
>Why do you have NO problem with Ben using child molestation as a
>debate tactic Walt?
He'd probably *HATE* it if he ever got caught trying to assert that I'd said
things I've never said.
But clearly, you don't hate it enough to stop asserting things I've never said.
>Do you think this is proper behavior on this
>board? Do you think using this sick stuff is okay? YOU must because I
>have never seen you say anything to him, but we see you have a problem
>with me labeling him a liar when he lies. How come?
>
>
>> =A0As for
>>
>> > the other stuff I make sure I am aware of the evidence before I jump
>> > in so I don't endorse "dumb ideas".
>>
>> Oh really... Then why did you argue for months that the clip is
>> "EJECTED" from a Mannlicher Carcano just like the clip is ejected from
>> an M-1 Garand??
>
>Liar, aren't you? I said immediately we can go your way as it has
>NOTHING to do with the claim the WC made. NOW show us how the way the
>clip leaves is important Walt. I dare you!
>
>
>> =A0Proof of this is that I DON'T
>>
>> > endorse your ideas!
>>
>> > > He's not as stupid as he some times seems to
>> > > be. ( nobody could be that stupid)
>> > > Since he seems to have a little education, and writes well, I doubt
>> > > that he's the Village Idiot..... =A0 I've long thought that he may be
>> > > stupid like a fox....
>>
>> > Spoken like a true WC shill. =A0Remember, Walt, I offered a peace
>> > offering and you spat at me.
>>
>> Peace ??? =A0 I don't want "peace" I'd like you to get your head outta
>> yer ass and quit making our entire contingent look like fools.
>
>Walt, you are liar and a WC Shill. YOU and Ben are the ones that make
>the contingent look bad. YOU lie and use speculation and Ben lies and
>uses a sick tactic like child molestation as a weapon. Thank God you
>are both WC Shills and NOT CTers!
>
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 23, 8:48=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <933ca5ca-5d96-4ee3-b4f9-a1721d14a...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 23, 4:05=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Walt says...
>>
>> >> >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
>> >> >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
>f the
>> >> >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>>
>> >> >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>>
>> >> >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
>t
>> >> >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>>
>e
>> >> >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>>
>> >> I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>>
>> >> For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive"
>> >> ballistics test (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor
>> >> the Warren Commission's theory - the alternative, of course, is
>> >> that the ballistics examiner would have stated that there was
>> >> *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
>> >> theory of the case.
>>
>> >They did SAY THIS via Frazier.
>>
>> No moron, they did *NOT*. I defy you to cite Frazier. In neither the Walker
>> bullet nor the two larger limo fragments... Frazier did *NOT* state that
>> there was no match.
>
>First of all, I will not even discuss the Walker bullet
Then why are you willing to lie, then run away when I defy you to produce a
citation supporting what you said?
>because we
>know there is NO chain of custody for it and it does NOT match the
>type of bullet in the DPD report immediately after the shooting. Thus
>the bullet presented by the WC is NOT the bullet fired at Walker.
Pretty stupid of the DPD not to produce a bullet fired out of the MC.
That's even more stupidity than I would attribute to you.
>Frazier was NOT the right man to be even discussing this as he lacked
>spectographic credentials in the first place.
Do you even understand what you're saying?
Doesn't matter *what* you call it, you clearly don't understand it.
>Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of the actual bullets that you have
>been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle,
>and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
>
>Mr. FRAZIER - Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket
>fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet,
>then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet
>in two parts.
>
>Mr. McCLOY - And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from
>one bullet or two separate ones?
>
>Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>
>Mr. EISENBERG - When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at
>the minimum?
>
>Mr. FRAZIER - I meant at least two bullets.
>
>Mr. McCLOY - There were at least two different bullets?
>
>Mr. FRAZIER - At least two, yes.
>
>
>This really sounds unsure to me, but Ben thinks it FAVORS THE WC'S
>CLAIM OF ONE BULLET!
I told you that you can't molest cats... stick with larger dogs and sheep.
>=93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
>both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
>=93It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**=94 (Ben
>Holmes =96 7/14/09)
>
>
>> You're a liar, moron.
>
>You are the liar, and you you are a bad one too.
You're a liar, moron.
>> >YOU are the one saying the
>> >inconclusive FAVORED a match,
>>
>> Still molesting children, aren't you?
>
>Please, quit projecting your sickness onto me and others. Ben said
>this about his sickness:
>
>=93Child molesting is a seriously sick pre-occupation, Rob.=94 (Ben Holmes
>=96 12/11/08)
>
>For once Ben is telling the truth, let's hope he gets the help he
>needs.
Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.
>
>> If you'd ever take the time to *READ* what someone is saying, instead of =
>trying
>> to force your own understanding into someone's mouth, you'd be far more
>> credible.
>
>YOU can explain it to us. Point by point. YOU are the one that
>writes in a cryptic style Ben, I have told you this for a long time.
>I'm sure most people on here would agree you hide your point as your
>main goal is to catch someone in a mistake that you can call a lie.
And yet, even when I go into exquisite detail, what we see from you most often
is "Who cares?", then a repeat of your lies.
>> I've previously stated in print, in this forum, TO YOU, that an "inconclu=
>sive"
>> does not *FORBID* a match. =A0It also, of course, does not forbid a *NON-=
>MATCH*.
>
>Yes, I have this quote. IT is neutral, that is my point.
There is *NOTHING* in that statement that says what you keep asserting I said.
>> I've *NEVER* stated that an inconclusive finding *FAVORS* one or the other.
>
>What is this:
>
>=93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
>both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
>=93It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**=94 (Ben
>Holmes =96 7/14/09)
The odds *DO* favor that the two larger fragments came from one bullet. I even
detailed the explanation why, and you pulled your "Who Cares?" answer.
IT DOES NOT STATE THAT AN "INCONCLUSIVE FINDING *FAVORS* ONE OR THE OTHER".
You're sick when you begin molesting animals Robert Caprio.
>I didn't type this and claim you said it Ben, thus your sick child
>molesting comments are off base. YOU said it, and I'm just calling
>you on it.
I said what I ACTUALLY said, not what you try to twist it into.
>I said the inconclusive allows LNers and shills to claim the two
>fragments came from one bullet and you said "It's possible they did."
It *IS* possible that the two fragments came from one bullet.
GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, MORON!
>Nothing wrong with that as they could have just as much as the could
>NOT have. But then you shot yourself in the foot with the next part.
>"Indeed, the odds favor it." This went to far as there are NO odds
>favoring a match over a non-match in this case of an inconclusive.
I even went into detail on the odds, and you ran from it, stupid.
>YOU LIED.
>
>This has NOTHING to do with me and my interpretation, but I can see
>how you would like to make that the issue instead of your blatant lie.
Stupid, aren't you?
>> Now why can't you start either QUOTING me, or retracting these lies, Robe=
>rta?
>
>Benita, I have bee QUOTING you and you keep lying about what you
>said. A man who lies about his OWN WORDS is the most dishonest of
>them all.
Stupid, aren't you?
>> >NOT me. =A0Why are you saying that?
>>
>> Since you will be totally unable to quote me saying that, it appears once=
> again
>> that you're molesting little boys & girls. =A0You really should stop that=
>. =A0I'm
>> unaware of *any* society that condones child molestation.
>
>Benita you are a liar. I have been quoting you for a week now. YOU
>lie about YOUR OWN WORDS!
Nope. My words say exactly what they say, and any intelligent person can
correctly parse them.
>YOU lie and attack me with your sickness
>when you said the ODDS FAVOR A MATCH like the WC and LNers claim.
The odds *DO* favor a match. The odds that the two fragments come from one
bullet are considerably more likely than the odds AGAINST the theory that they
came from two bullets.
But you apparently don't understand this.
>I did NOT put any words into your mouth. YOU are a dispicable liar.
Child molester... and now moving into molesting animals. "dispicable" indeed!
>> Do you suppose that you could go even *one* week without molesting any ch=
>ildren?
>
>I have gone a lifetime sicko. YOU are the ADMITTED molester,
>remember?
>
>=93Molesting neighborhood children again...=94 (Ben Holmes =96 2/8/07)
>
>
>> >YOU also are listening to Walt too much and he will sink you as the DPD
>> >never mentioned a copper-jacketed bullet in the Walker shooting.
>> >There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker.
>>
>> Yes, moron, there is.
>
>LOL!! Where is it? I'm NOT taking about the WC's lies of evidence,
In other words, you know it exists, you'll just deny it.
>show us where in the official DPD report of the incident does it
>mention a copper-jacketed bullet?
>
>
>> Whether it's credible or persuasive, is another matter... but when you si=
>mply
>> deny that any evidence exists, your just a moron.
>
>YOU call fake stuff evidence, I don't.
You refer to ANYTHING that doesn't fit your preconceived theory as "fake", and
worry not at all that you can't provide evidence, citation, or even logical
argument to support your silly assertions.
>Show us that the bullet the WC
>gave us is the real bullet fired at Walker! I dare you!
Rather stupid of the DPD to substitute a bullet that cannot be tied to the MC,
isn't it?
>> You seem to have the same problem that LNT'ers do with evidence. =A0You s=
>imply
>> decide for yourself what the facts are.
>
>As you said:
>
>=93You seem confused... I accept their *EVIDENCE*, I can make my own
>conclusions.
>That's why God gave me a brain, to use it.
>
>I accept *ALL* DPD evidence
Then you *KNOW FOR A FACT* that evidence exists... but just above, you were
denying it.
Lied, didn't you?
>that isn't contradicted by other evidence,
>and that
>appears untainted by the frameup being conducted.
>
>The **"steel jacket"** was found to be very inconvenient for people
>such as you, so
>you simply ignore it... don't you?=94 (Bendsie Holmes =96 1/27/06)
>
>Funny Benita didn't have this understanding take on the issue when he
>attacked Todd Vaughn, huh? ONLY when Walt is involved do we get the
>nice Benita.
>
>Ben knows the bullet found at the scene was steel-jacketed as he says
>so above, but NOW he and WALT ARE IGNORING IT! But he claims I am
>ingoring it. I smell another post in my "Provable Lies of Ben Holmes"
>series!
I've told you before, moron, the evidence is contradictory. But you can't
simply deny it exists.
Lt. Day's testimony exists. That's simply a fact.
>> >> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never havi=
>ng
>> >> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics
>> >> test, but for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>>
>> >Ben you have NOT shown me lying.
>>
>> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match." Rob Cap=
>rio -
>> Nov 2nd, 2008.
>>
>> "Your logic is all wrong, in ballistics, as in all sciences, a non-match =
>is an
>> EXCLUSION!!! That is why there are ONLY two outcomes - a positive and a
>> negative." Rob Caprio - Oct 1st, 2008
>>
>> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match." Rob C=
>aprio -
>> Nov 30th, 2007
>>
>> You can keep running from your lies, Robert - I'll just keep right on quo=
>ting
>> them.
>
>Who is running?
You. You provably keep snipping and running away.
>I have made my point very clear and you HAVE AGREED
>WITH ME!
No moron, simply untrue.
>So once again, IF I'm lying you are lying because you said
>this?
>
>=93Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no
>non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
>the test.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/23/09)
>
>That has been my point from the beginning, if you want PROOF you get
>two results, IF you want everything you get three.
How many "possible outcomes" are there, moron?
>> >YOU OTOH claim a neutral result, an
>> >inconclusive, FAVORS a side (a match). =A0NOW that is a lie.
>>
>> Indeed, your STATEMENT is a lie.
>
>YOU are the liar, and you even lie about YOUR OWN WORDS!
Animals will not be any better than small children, molester.
>> You assert that I've claimed something that I've never claimed.
>
>Liar, aren't you?
>
>=93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
>both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
>=93It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**=94 (Ben
>Holmes =96 7/14/09)
>
>Is this denial routine the best you can do?
I do appreciate that you quote my words - that way, lurkers can see that I did
*NOT* say what you keep asserting.
It's apparent that you're simply too stupid to figure it out...
Walt
STOP!!... And THINK!!...... That's right there was no clip found in
the so called "Sniper's Nest" ...THAT is a FACT!!.... NOW... If the
cartridge that preceeded the last round in the clip had been fired
from that location when it's spent hull was ejected by the backward
stroke of the bolt,THEN the last round in the clip would automatically
have been fed up to the face of the bolt and the forward stroke would
have stripped thar last round from the clip, which would have left
NOTHING to hold the clip in the rifle and it would have fallen on the
floor right there in the so called "Sniper's Nest". It is a FACT that
no clip was found in the socalled "Sniper's Nest" which means that the
rifle was NOT fired from that location.... Ya dig??
YOUR claim has been it was still in the
> rifle like the WC said, are you going to lie about that NOW?
>
> > This is a FACT!! If the last round was IN THE FIRING
> > CHAMBER as both Lt John Day and Captain Fritz testified, then when
> > that round was stripped from the clip the clip would have dropped out
> > of the rifle. Since the reloading of a fresh round is a reflex
> > reaction after firing then IF the killer had fired that rifle and
> > reflectsively ejected the spent shell ( as he would have) when he
> > pushed the bolt forward he would have stripped the last round from the
> > clip and seated it in the firing chamber. THAT action would have
> > allowed the clip to FALL out on the floor right there in the so called
> > "sniper's nest" and that's where the clip would have been found IF...
> > IF... IF... the rifle had been fired as the Warren Commission
> > speculated.
>
> Yes, but you have said the clip was INSIDE the rifle when it was found
> like the WC did!
That's correct.... all available evidence indicates that there was a
clip in the rifles magazine when it was found COMPLETELY COVERED by
boxes. HOWEVER... Now THINK!!
That does NOT mean the clip was used to load the rifle or that it was
in the rifle when the live round was dropped into the firing chamber.
That clip had to have been inserted into the BOTTOM of the magazine
opening and jammed there by the person who HID the rifle in that
cavern of boxes. It stayed stuck in the magazine until Day's handling
of the rifle caused it to slide part way out of the magazine and stick
in the position where it is seen in the photo of Day leaving the TSBD
with the rifle.
>
> > Now, I hope you've gotten that idea through your thick skull.......
> > because ....
>
> I have always known this part,
You're a liar..... several months ago you argued with me about this
very point. I can google the posts if necessary.
the part I call you a liar for is you
> clam the clip WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE when they found it, and there is NO
> evidence for this claim.
Get your stupid head outta yer ass and LOOK at the photos.... THEY are
the evidence that there WAS in fact a clip in the rifle when it was
found.
That's NOT speculation ya stupid bastard .... READ the testimonies of
Lt Day and Captain Fritz and others who observed their actions.
YOU have said the clip was
> inside the rifle and I want evidence for this claim.
Sorry... You'll have to pull yer head outta yer ass to see it.
>
> > Furthermore that "somebody" inserted a clip into the bottom of the
> > rifle and jammed it in the magazine where it went unnoticed by
> > anybody. Apparently in the handling of the rifle, while Day was
> > examining it and lifting a print from it , the clip started to work
> > its way out of the rifle ( by force of gravity), because the clip can
> > be seen hanging precariously from the rifle's magazine as Day carried
> > it from the TSBD.. ( see photograph on page 550 of Trask's
> > POTP )
>
> There is NO evidence for this claim either. Why does Walt want a clip
> inside the rifle so bad?
I'm merely reading the evidence.... and the evidence says... There was
NO clip found in the so called" Sniper's Nest" ( and there should have
been a clip there if the rifle had been fired from that location. The
evidence also reveals that a live round was dropped into the chamber
by a dumb ass who didn't know that you can't close the bolt to the
latched position if you try to load the rifle without using a clip.
(It cannot be used as a single shot rifle.) The evidence also reveals
that there definitely WAS a clip in the rifle when Lt Day carried it
from the TSBD. He damned sure never put it there because he didn't
know anything about a Mannlicher Carcano. ( recall he asked if anybody
knew what kind of rifle it was when he first lifted it from the cavern
in which it had been hidden.) Based on these FACTS it's apparent that
some dumb ass inserted the clip into the hole in the bottom of the
magazine. Whoever hid that rifle knew enough about Mannlicher
Carcano's to know that the rifle was worthless as a firearm if there
was no clip for it. Therefore he knew that a clip would have to be
found with the rifle, or near by, if the cops were going to believe
that it was the murder weapon. This is NOT to say that he knew that
the removal of the last round released the clip and allowed it to fall
free of the rifle. He could simply have been told to make sure the
clip was found with the rifle.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
At the opening of this thread, Rob wrote:...." First of all, I will
not even discuss the Walker bullet"
But before he closed off he just couldn't resist proving himself to be
a liar.
>
> > > > >YOU also are listening to Walt too much and he will sink you as the DPD
> > > > >never mentioned a copper-jacketed bullet in the Walker shooting.
> > > > >There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker.
Rob says he won't discuss the Walker bullet, but he then turns right
around and discusses the Walker bullet.... What a liar!!
Walt
> In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
>
>
> >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
> >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
> >opponent if he expects to walk away with his opponents money.. If the
> >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>
> >Such is the case with Rob Caprio.... Rob has dozens of posts in
> >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>
> >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
> >( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls everything that
> >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>
> >Rob overplays his hand time after time and reveals it is he who is the
> >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>
> I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>
> For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive" ballistics test
> (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor the Warren Commission's theory -
> the alternative, of course, is that the ballistics examiner would have stated
> that there was *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
> theory of the case.
Absolutely!!...... Time after time the "experts" used this tactic
which left the impression that although they had not been able to
prove something conclusively....they were leaving the impression that
they wanted people to assume. In the case of the bullets which killed
Tippit they said that they couldn't prove the bullets had been fired
from Oswald's pistol but then went on to say that the barrel of his
pistol was oversized for the S&W .38 Special bullet and therefore
there would be no way to prove ballistically that the bullets had been
fired from his pistol to the exclusion of all others. The impression
given is:.... Oswald had a pistol that could have fired the bullets
and therefore the probabilty is high that he did fire the bullets that
killed Tippit. What they deliberately neglected say is:... that any
S&W .38 with a two inch barrel would have left the same NON EVIDENCE
on the bullets. Of course they knew that Jack Ruby had bought
several of the .38 S&W pistols which also wouldn't leave markings on
the bullets that could be traced to a particular pistol. Who knows
how many of those .38 S&W pistols were floating around that seedy
neighborhood that day??
One of my favorite examples of this slight of hand is the FBI handling
of CE 133A... Thet said that they had examined the rifle in Oswald's
hand in CE 133A and had been unable to find any difference between it
and the TSBD rifle (CE 139) thus giving the impression that there was
no difference. When in fact they certainly had to have known that
the rifle in Oswald's hands in CE 133A had the sling swivels on the
bottom of the barrel while the rifle found in the TSBD ( CE 139) had
them on the side of the barrel.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Jul 23, 3:05=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
>> >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
>> >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>>
>> >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>>
>> >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
>> >( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls everything that
>> >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>>
>> >Rob overplays his hand time after time and reveals it is he who is the
>> >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>>
>> I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>>
>> For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive"
>> ballistics test (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor
>> the Warren Commission's theory - the alternative, of course, is
>> that the ballistics examiner would have stated that there was
>> *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
>> theory of the case.
>
>Absolutely!!......
Yet the moron repeatedly calls me a liar for pointing out the obvious.
He can't seem to understand such an easily understandable topic.
Robert doesn't stop to think things through, if it's not in one of his favorite
books, if it contradicts some of the nonsensical things that pass for "CT", then
he's automatically against it.
He's the sort of moron that you should keep away from books - since he's
apparently brainwashed by those he reads.
It doesn't matter who the author is - CHECK THE EVIDENCE AND CITATIONS YOURSELF!
>Time after time the "experts" used this tactic
>which left the impression that although they had not been able to
>prove something conclusively....they were leaving the impression that
>they wanted people to assume. In the case of the bullets which killed
>Tippit they said that they couldn't prove the bullets had been fired
>from Oswald's pistol but then went on to say that the barrel of his
>pistol was oversized for the S&W .38 Special bullet and therefore
>there would be no way to prove ballistically that the bullets had been
>fired from his pistol to the exclusion of all others.
Of course, they couldn't get what they wanted from Frazier, so they hunted
around to find someone who *WOULD* give 'em a taste... Nicol is who they found.
Frazier clearly lied, but he was honest enough to try to stay away from BLATANT
lying.
Walt
> In article <d1cecf3b-577d-40af-8354-3fb49b547...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
I'd say it a little differently..... I'd say:.... Frazier clearly
lied, but he was SMART enough to try to stay away from BLATANT lying.
>
>
>
>
>
> >The impression
> >given is:.... Oswald had a pistol that could have fired the bullets
> >and therefore the probabilty is high that he did fire the bullets that
> >killed Tippit. What they deliberately neglected say is:... that any
> >S&W .38 with a two inch barrel would have left the same NON EVIDENCE
> >on the bullets. Of course they knew that Jack Ruby had bought
> >several of the .38 S&W pistols which also wouldn't leave markings on
> >the bullets that could be traced to a particular pistol. Who knows
> >how many of those .38 S&W pistols were floating around that seedy
> >neighborhood that day??
>
> >One of my favorite examples of this slight of hand is the FBI handling
> >of CE 133A... Thet said that they had examined the rifle in Oswald's
> >hand in CE 133A and had been unable to find any difference between it
> >and the TSBD rifle (CE 139) thus giving the impression that there was
> >no difference. When in fact they certainly had to have known that
> >the rifle in Oswald's hands in CE 133A had the sling swivels on the
> >bottom of the barrel while the rifle found in the TSBD ( CE 139) had
> >them on the side of the barrel.
>
> >> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never having
> >> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics
> >> test, but for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Jul 24, 8:18=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d1cecf3b-577d-40af-8354-3fb49b547...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 23, 3:05=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Walt says...
>>
>> >> >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
>> >> >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
>f the
>> >> >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>>
>> >> >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>>
>> >> >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
>t
>> >> >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>>
>e
>> >> >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>>
>> >> I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>>
>> >> For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive"
>> >> ballistics test (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor
>> >> the Warren Commission's theory - the alternative, of course, is
>> >> that the ballistics examiner would have stated that there was
>> >> *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
>> >> theory of the case.
>>
>> >Absolutely!!......
>>
>> Yet the moron repeatedly calls me a liar for pointing out the obvious.
>>
>> He can't seem to understand such an easily understandable topic.
>>
>vorite
>> books, if it contradicts some of the nonsensical things that pass for "CT=
>", then
>> he's automatically against it.
>>
>> He's the sort of moron that you should keep away from books - since he's
>> apparently brainwashed by those he reads.
>>
>URSELF!
>>
>> >Time after time the "experts" used this tactic
>> >which left the impression that although they had not been able to
>> >prove something conclusively....they were leaving the impression that
>> >Tippit they said that they couldn't prove the bullets had been fired
>> >from Oswald's pistol but then went on to say that the barrel of his
>> >pistol was oversized for the S&W .38 Special bullet and therefore
>> >there would be no way to prove ballistically that the bullets had been
>> >fired from his pistol to the exclusion of all others.
>>
>> Of course, they couldn't get what they wanted from Frazier, so they
>> hunted around to find someone who *WOULD* give 'em a taste... Nicol
>> is who they found.
>>
>> Frazier clearly lied, but he was honest enough to try to stay away
>> from BLATANT lying.
>
>I'd say it a little differently..... I'd say:.... Frazier clearly
>lied, but he was SMART enough to try to stay away from BLATANT lying.
Yeah, that might be another way to put it.
One obvious example is his characterization of the MC as a low velocity
weapon... if challenged, he could always back up and say that this was his
considered "opinion". This is where most of his lies resided, IMO; in areas
where he could fudge and argue that it *is* his opinion.
On items where he could be easily checked, even if only by other experts, he
tended to be a tad more honest.
That's my take on the guy, anyway..
Now, Nicol is in a completely different category... I'd consider him the
"designated liar", brought in when the WC needed the lie to make their case.
>> >The impression
>> >given is:.... Oswald had a pistol that could have fired the bullets
>> >and therefore the probabilty is high that he did fire the bullets that
>> >killed Tippit. =A0 What they deliberately neglected =A0say is:... that a=
>ny
>> >S&W .38 with a two inch barrel would have left the same NON EVIDENCE
>> >on the bullets. =A0 Of course they knew that Jack Ruby had bought
>> >several of the .38 S&W pistols which also wouldn't leave markings on
>> >the bullets that could be traced to a particular pistol. =A0Who knows
>> >how many of those .38 S&W pistols were floating around that seedy
>> >neighborhood that day??
>>
>> >One of my favorite examples of this slight of hand is the FBI handling
>> >of CE 133A... Thet said that they had examined the rifle in Oswald's
>> >hand in CE 133A and had been unable to find any difference between it
>> >and the TSBD rifle (CE 139) thus giving the impression that there was
>> >no difference. =A0 When in fact they certainly had to have known that
>> >the rifle in Oswald's hands in CE 133A had the sling swivels on the
>> >bottom of the barrel while the rifle found in the TSBD =A0( CE 139) had
>> >them on the side of the barrel.
>>
>> >> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never havi=
Walt
> In article <8b0a376c-536f-4903-95b8-4498f1df1...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Yup, yer hitting the nail squarely on the head..... Frazier lied his
assoff when he testified before the Warren Commission. Since he was an
"expert" the Commissioner who had real doubts about rubber stamping
Hoover's decree ( that Oswald was the lone nut assassin) had little
choice but to believe him. One easily verifiable lie that he told
was his statement that the Mannlicher Carcano could be used as as
single shot rifle. That is a blatant lie..... The Mannlicher Carcano
CANNOT be used as a single shot rifle, and it worthless as a firearm
if there is no ammo clip for it.
Robert
> In article <681bdc3f-d997-4fe0-9940-30e5519e5...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
I QUOTE your own words Ben, you are just using this sick tactic to try
and get me back off of your LIES! It won't work. It may have worked
in the past, I don't know, but you have called so many people this
sick thing it has NO effect anymore -- especially when I have you
admitting it yourself!
I do NOT lie about what you say, you just claim I do to try and wiggle
out of your lies. Tis that simple.
Robert
> In article <f68b962f-35fb-4d1c-96e6-719ced111...@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Who is lying besides you? He is running besides you? Who is using a
sick distraction (child molestation) beyond you?
> >because we
> >know there is NO chain of custody for it and it does NOT match the
> >type of bullet in the DPD report immediately after the shooting. Thus
> >the bullet presented by the WC is NOT the bullet fired at Walker.
>
> Pretty stupid of the DPD not to produce a bullet fired out of the MC.
Why? The Walker shooting happened in April of 1963, they had NO way of
knowing the MC would be the alleged assassination rifle in late
November of 1963. NOW did they?
They reported what was found, and it was NOT a copper jacketed bullet.
> That's even more stupidity than I would attribute to you.
YOU are the stupid one, and a liar to boot. Show us how the DPD would
know the MC would be the alleged murder weapon used by LHO in late
November in APRIL! I dare you!
> >Frazier was NOT the right man to be even discussing this as he lacked
> >spectographic credentials in the first place.
>
> Do you even understand what you're saying?
Yes, bullet comparison coming from one bullet was outside of Frazier's
expertise as you need a chemistry background. Frazier was a firearms
ID expert meaning he specialized in matching guns and bullets, but NOT
bullet fragments to each other.
Right, it is a a neutral conclusion, thus it CANNOT FAVOR an outcome
as you claim.
> >Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of the actual bullets that you have
> >been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle,
> >and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
>
> >Mr. FRAZIER - Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket
> >fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet,
> >then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet
> >in two parts.
>
> >Mr. McCLOY - And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from
> >one bullet or two separate ones?
>
> >Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>
> >Mr. EISENBERG - When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at
> >the minimum?
>
> >Mr. FRAZIER - I meant at least two bullets.
>
> >Mr. McCLOY - There were at least two different bullets?
>
> >Mr. FRAZIER - At least two, yes.
>
> >This really sounds unsure to me, but Ben thinks it FAVORS THE WC'S
> >CLAIM OF ONE BULLET!
>
> I told you that you can't molest cats... stick with larger dogs and sheep.
Sorry, Ben, see below. YOU said it and now you are trying to distract
from the issue by using sick stuff. YOU are a liar and a sicko.
> >=93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
> >=93It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**=94 (Ben
> >Holmes =96 7/14/09)
>
> >> You're a liar, moron.
>
> >You are the liar, and you you are a bad one too.
>
> You're a liar, moron.
YOU are a sicko and a liar WC Shill.
> >> >YOU are the one saying the
> >> >inconclusive FAVORED a match,
>
> >> Still molesting children, aren't you?
>
> >Please, quit projecting your sickness onto me and others. Ben said
> >this about his sickness:
>
> >=93Child molesting is a seriously sick pre-occupation, Rob.=94 (Ben Holmes
> >=96 12/11/08)
>
> >For once Ben is telling the truth, let's hope he gets the help he
> >needs.
>
> Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.
It is Ben, SO DON'T DO IT!
> >> If you'd ever take the time to *READ* what someone is saying, instead of =
> >trying
> >> to force your own understanding into someone's mouth, you'd be far more
> >> credible.
>
> >YOU can explain it to us. Point by point. YOU are the one that
> >writes in a cryptic style Ben, I have told you this for a long time.
> >I'm sure most people on here would agree you hide your point as your
> >main goal is to catch someone in a mistake that you can call a lie.
>
> And yet, even when I go into exquisite detail, what we see from you most often
> is "Who cares?", then a repeat of your lies.
Liar, aren't you? YOU never go into "exquisite" detail, you just
continue to lie even when your own words are quoted. YOU then use
sick distractions to try and bail yourself out.
> >> I've previously stated in print, in this forum, TO YOU, that an "inconclu=
> >sive"
> >> does not *FORBID* a match. =A0It also, of course, does not forbid a *NON-=
> >MATCH*.
>
> >Yes, I have this quote. IT is neutral, that is my point.
>
> There is *NOTHING* in that statement that says what you keep asserting I said.
BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE STATEMENT I AM REFERRING TO LIAR, AND YOU KNOW
IT! This is the one:
“Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET… (Robert, edited by Ben)
“It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**” (Ben
Holmes – 7/14/09)
So we see all that sick stuff Ben has been using for me "putting words
into his mouth" is just ANOTHER lie by him.
> >> I've *NEVER* stated that an inconclusive finding *FAVORS* one or the other.
>
> >What is this:
>
> >=93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
> >=93It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**=94 (Ben
> >Holmes =96 7/14/09)
>
> The odds *DO* favor that the two larger fragments came from one bullet. I even
> detailed the explanation why, and you pulled your "Who Cares?" answer.
WC Shill aren't you? A neutral conclusion CANNOT FAVOR an outcome
liar. There is NO firm proof either way for the two fragments so to
insist they FAVOR being from one bullet is a lie.
> IT DOES NOT STATE THAT AN "INCONCLUSIVE FINDING *FAVORS* ONE OR THE OTHER".
YOU are saying it and the only thing you can base this on is the
inconclusive. YOU are a liar no matter how you slice it.
> You're sick when you begin molesting animals Robert Caprio.
YOU are sick liar who will use any attempt to DISTORT his own lies. I
have NOT put words into your mouth, you did that all by yourself
sicko.
> >I didn't type this and claim you said it Ben, thus your sick child
> >molesting comments are off base. YOU said it, and I'm just calling
> >you on it.
>
> I said what I ACTUALLY said, not what you try to twist it into.
ONLY you see that way as the point is there was NO firm proof the
bullets came from one bullet (or two) so it is a lie for anyone to
claim they did. YOU claimed it, thus you lied, but instead of being a
man about it you are lying even more and using sick stuff to save
yourself.
> >I said the inconclusive allows LNers and shills to claim the two
> >fragments came from one bullet and you said "It's possible they did."
>
> It *IS* possible that the two fragments came from one bullet.
Just as much as if they came from two! That is the point liar.
> GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, MORON!
Read below, I didn't say there was anything wrong with that, now did
I? I want a retraction!
> >Nothing wrong with that as they could have just as much as the could
> >NOT have. But then you shot yourself in the foot with the next part.
> >"Indeed, the odds favor it." This went to far as there are NO odds
> >favoring a match over a non-match in this case of an inconclusive.
>
> I even went into detail on the odds, and you ran from it, stupid.
YOU are a pathetic liar Ben. YOU CANNOT show any cites that will
claim a neutral conclusion CAN FAVOR one outcome, if they do, they are
liars like you!
> >YOU LIED.
DEAD SILENCE.
> >This has NOTHING to do with me and my interpretation, but I can see
> >how you would like to make that the issue instead of your blatant lie.
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
I am not the one who makes lies and then is too stupid to hide them,
that is YOU! Show us how a neutral conclusion has "odds favoring" one
side over another again!
> >> Now why can't you start either QUOTING me, or retracting these lies, Robe=
> >rta?
>
> >Benita, I have bee QUOTING you and you keep lying about what you
> >said. A man who lies about his OWN WORDS is the most dishonest of
> >them all.
>
> Stupid, aren't you?
Dishonest, aren't you? Sick, aren't you? Liar, aren't you? WC
shill, aren't you?
> >> >NOT me. =A0Why are you saying that?
>
> >> Since you will be totally unable to quote me saying that, it appears once=
> > again
> >> that you're molesting little boys & girls. =A0You really should stop that=
> >. =A0I'm
> >> unaware of *any* society that condones child molestation.
>
> >Benita you are a liar. I have been quoting you for a week now. YOU
> >lie about YOUR OWN WORDS!
>
> Nope. My words say exactly what they say, and any intelligent person can
> correctly parse them.
So I guess you are ADMITTING you are NOT intelligent then! YOU said
"the odds favor" the two fragments coming from one bullet. That is a
lie. Tis that simple.
> >YOU lie and attack me with your sickness
> >when you said the ODDS FAVOR A MATCH like the WC and LNers claim.
>
> The odds *DO* favor a match. The odds that the two fragments come from one
> bullet are considerably more likely than the odds AGAINST the theory that they
> came from two bullets.
Liar, aren't you? How can an neutral conclusion FAVOR one side over
another. Will he ever explain this in a sentence for us?
> But you apparently don't understand this.
I don't waste time understanding lies, I just point out that you lied.
> >I did NOT put any words into your mouth. YOU are a dispicable liar.
>
> Child molester... and now moving into molesting animals. "dispicable" indeed!
At least you are honest ABOUT SOMETHING! Ben is now attacking
harmless little animals, but I heard this was popular in the gay
community.
Lurkers, notice how he lies about his own words! I am quoting his OWN
WORDS and he is lying and saying I am putting words into his mouth.
> >> Do you suppose that you could go even *one* week without molesting any ch=
> >ildren?
>
> >I have gone a lifetime sicko. YOU are the ADMITTED molester,
> >remember?
>
> >=93Molesting neighborhood children again...=94 (Ben Holmes =96 2/8/07)
>
> >> >YOU also are listening to Walt too much and he will sink you as the DPD
> >> >never mentioned a copper-jacketed bullet in the Walker shooting.
> >> >There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker.
>
> >> Yes, moron, there is.
>
> >LOL!! Where is it? I'm NOT taking about the WC's lies of evidence,
>
> In other words, you know it exists, you'll just deny it.
There is NO evidence that puts LHO at the scene. Even the ONLY
witness did NOT describe a person who looked like LHO.
> >show us where in the official DPD report of the incident does it
> >mention a copper-jacketed bullet?
>
> >> Whether it's credible or persuasive, is another matter... but when you si=
> >mply
> >> deny that any evidence exists, your just a moron.
>
> >YOU call fake stuff evidence, I don't.
>
> You refer to ANYTHING that doesn't fit your preconceived theory as "fake", and
> worry not at all that you can't provide evidence, citation, or even logical
> argument to support your silly assertions.
Ben, the bullet presented by the WC as the bullet in the Walker
shooting is NOT the type of bullet found at the scene. They failed to
call the cop who found it. Walker even said the bullet was NOT the
same type he saw. YOU have said this yourself, so why are YOU now
lying about this?
I wonder IF Ben can quote me saying I claim everything is fake when it
doesn't fit my pre-conceived, silly assertions? I smell another lie.
The DPD report is the ONLY evidence I need. That is the official
evidence for the Walker shooting, NOT the junk the WC gave us. The WC
does NOT override the DPD in that case, so why is Ben lying and acting
like they do?
> >Show us that the bullet the WC
> >gave us is the real bullet fired at Walker! I dare you!
>
> Rather stupid of the DPD to substitute a bullet that cannot be tied to the MC,
> isn't it?
Why? They knew they would have liars like you and Walt to say, it is
copper jacketed and even though it couldn't be matched to the MC it
could still have been fired by it! "Indeed, the odds FAVOR it!"
Nice try WC shill, but we are on to you.
> >> You seem to have the same problem that LNT'ers do with evidence. =A0You s=
> >imply
> >> decide for yourself what the facts are.
>
> >As you said:
>
> >=93You seem confused... I accept their *EVIDENCE*, I can make my own
> >conclusions.
> >That's why God gave me a brain, to use it.
>
> >I accept *ALL* DPD evidence
>
> Then you *KNOW FOR A FACT* that evidence exists... but just above, you were
> denying it.
I deny it is genuine, NOT THAT IT EXISTS! WHY must you lie
constantly?
> Lied, didn't you?
LOL!!! NO you did.
> >that isn't contradicted by other evidence,
> >and that
> >appears untainted by the frameup being conducted.
>
> >The **"steel jacket"** was found to be very inconvenient for people
> >such as you, so
> >you simply ignore it... don't you?=94 (Bendsie Holmes =96 1/27/06)
>
> >Funny Benita didn't have this understanding take on the issue when he
> >attacked Todd Vaughn, huh? ONLY when Walt is involved do we get the
> >nice Benita.
Dead silence.
> >Ben knows the bullet found at the scene was steel-jacketed as he says
> >so above, but NOW he and WALT ARE IGNORING IT! But he claims I am
> >ingoring it. I smell another post in my "Provable Lies of Ben Holmes"
> >series!
>
> I've told you before, moron, the evidence is contradictory. But you can't
> simply deny it exists.
I'm NOT denying it, YOU and Walt are! I know the WC gave us a copper
jacketed bullet, but I am saying it is NOT the bullet that was found
at the scene. Why must you lie constantly?
YOU know what this means in Ben's world? Yep, the "Teabag Champ" has
struck again. He is really in "Gay Brazilian Grappling" (i.e. this
means gay sex) as he writes about it. It seems he likes small animals
too. Sshhh.
> Lt. Day's testimony exists. That's simply a fact.
He testified, that is a fact, what he said is NOT a fact.
> >> >> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never havi=
> >ng
> >> >> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics
> >> >> test, but for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>
> >> >Ben you have NOT shown me lying.
>
> >> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match." Rob Cap=
> >rio -
> >> Nov 2nd, 2008.
>
> >> "Your logic is all wrong, in ballistics, as in all sciences, a non-match =
> >is an
> >> EXCLUSION!!! That is why there are ONLY two outcomes - a positive and a
> >> negative." Rob Caprio - Oct 1st, 2008
>
> >> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match." Rob C=
> >aprio -
> >> Nov 30th, 2007
>
> >> You can keep running from your lies, Robert - I'll just keep right on quo=
> >ting
> >> them.
>
> >Who is running?
>
> You. You provably keep snipping and running away.
LOL!! I don't run from liars like you. Prove me wrong, I dare YOU! I
said there are two outcomes that have proof on their side, and one
that doesn't. Good luck with disproving that one.
> >I have made my point very clear and you HAVE AGREED
> >WITH ME!
>
> No moron, simply untrue.
YOU agreed with me liar.
> >So once again, IF I'm lying you are lying because you said
> >this?
>
> >=93Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no
> >non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
> >the test.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/23/09)
>
> >That has been my point from the beginning, if you want PROOF you get
> >two results, IF you want everything you get three.
>
> How many "possible outcomes" are there, moron?
See above liar.
> >> >YOU OTOH claim a neutral result, an
> >> >inconclusive, FAVORS a side (a match). =A0NOW that is a lie.
>
> >> Indeed, your STATEMENT is a lie.
>
> >YOU are the liar, and you even lie about YOUR OWN WORDS!
>
> Animals will not be any better than small children, molester.
Ben is speaking from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE! Lurkers, see how DESPERATE
BEN IS?
> >> You assert that I've claimed something that I've never claimed.
>
> >Liar, aren't you?
>
> >=93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
> >=93It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**=94 (Ben
> >Holmes =96 7/14/09)
>
> >Is this denial routine the best you can do?
>
> I do appreciate that you quote my words - that way, lurkers can see that I did
> *NOT* say what you keep asserting.
YOU asserted the "odds favored" the two fragments coming from one
bullet, but that is a lie because they only got an inconclusive (a
neutral) conclusion, thus they CANNOT favor either side. YOU are a
liar and a WC shill!
> It's apparent that you're simply too stupid to figure it out...
NO, you are too stupid to think anyone is going to fall for your
lies. We all know what you said and what you meant Ben. YOU will not
change that with sick comments, you ONLY further show what a nutjob
you are.
Ben says a neutral conclusion FAVORS a side, but I am the stupid one.
LOL!!
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 24, 4:21=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <681bdc3f-d997-4fe0-9940-30e5519e5...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 23, 6:46=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 23, 5:05=3DA0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jul 23, 5:19=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Jul 23, 3:05=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.goo=
>gle=3D
>> >groups.com>,
>> >> > > > Walt says...
>>
>> >> > > > >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
>s
>> >> > > > >opponent if he expects to walk away with his opponents money.. =
>> >If the
>> >> > > > >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>>
>sts i=3D
>> >n
>> >> > > > >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>>
>> >> > > > >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
>ng =3D
>> >that
>> >> > > > >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>>
> is=3D
>> > the
>> >> > > > >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>>
>> >> > > > I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>>
>lis=3D
>> >tics test
>> >> > > > (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor the Warren Commi=
>ssi=3D
>> >on's theory -
>> >> > > > the alternative, of course, is that the ballistics examiner woul=
>d h=3D
>> >ave stated
>> >> > > > that there was *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk=
> of=3D
>> > the WC's
>> >> > > > theory of the case.
>>
>r h=3D
>> >aving
>> >> > > > asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballis=
>tic=3D
>> >s test, but
>> >> > > > for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>>
>n
>> >> > > ego which he allows to make a fool of him.
>>
>is
>> >> > "hobby tests results" (i.e. his cardboard model of DP) as evidence
>alt
>> >> > always makes it about him and that is a sign of an ego issue.
>>
>> >> > > His ego won't allow him to
>dmi=3D
>> >t
>> >> > > that he's made a mistake.
>>
>> >> > You are a liar Walt as I have admitted many mistakes on here.
>>
>> >> Oh really.... Where? When?
>>
>> >I have admitted more mistakes than you. I am NOT above making a
>> >mistake like every other human being. YOU are the one that has a
>> >problem with admitting you offer NOTHING but speculation.
>>
>> >Why do you have NO problem with Ben using child molestation as a
>> >debate tactic Walt?
>>
>> He'd probably *HATE* it if he ever got caught trying to assert that
>> I'd said things I've never said.
>>
>> But clearly, you don't hate it enough to stop asserting things I've never
>> said.
>
>I QUOTE your own words Ben,
And yet, the words you quote don't say what you keep asserting that they say.
You just make up stuff. You can't read, that's your problem. You can't argue
with what I *actually* say, so you just make up stuff.
>you are just using this sick tactic to try
>and get me back off of your LIES! It won't work. It may have worked
>in the past, I don't know, but you have called so many people this
>sick thing it has NO effect anymore -- especially when I have you
>admitting it yourself!
You see? Another perfect example!
>I do NOT lie about what you say, you just claim I do to try and wiggle
>out of your lies. Tis that simple.
Don't worry Rob - I'll continue to post *YOUR* exact quotes that contradict each
other - and demonstrate your lack of character. Here it is again:
Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
number does Robert Caprio favor?
"I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
Okay... three.
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
Oops... just two.
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
Yep... again, only two.
Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will
he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
Probably not... snip, run, and lie are Robert's only tactics these days.
Robert
The FACT is this -- NO clip was found at the scene, NO clip was
mentioned by any of the cops on the scene and NO clip was inventoried
on the sheets of evidence found at the scene.
Walt has argued it was INSIDE THE RIFLE though, NOW he is changing his
story. He even asked once "How could saying the clip was inside the
rifle benefit the WC?"
Come on. Walt is playing games again.
> YOUR claim has been it was still in the
> > rifle like the WC said, are you going to lie about that NOW?
>
> > > This is a FACT!! If the last round was IN THE FIRING
> > > CHAMBER as both Lt John Day and Captain Fritz testified, then when
> > > that round was stripped from the clip the clip would have dropped out
> > > of the rifle. Since the reloading of a fresh round is a reflex
> > > reaction after firing then IF the killer had fired that rifle and
> > > reflectsively ejected the spent shell ( as he would have) when he
> > > pushed the bolt forward he would have stripped the last round from the
> > > clip and seated it in the firing chamber. THAT action would have
> > > allowed the clip to FALL out on the floor right there in the so called
> > > "sniper's nest" and that's where the clip would have been found IF...
> > > IF... IF... the rifle had been fired as the Warren Commission
> > > speculated.
>
> > Yes, but you have said the clip was INSIDE the rifle when it was found
> > like the WC did!
>
> That's correct.... all available evidence indicates that there was a
> clip in the rifles magazine when it was found COMPLETELY COVERED by
> boxes.
Liar, aren't you? Lurkers, we are back to his lie.
> HOWEVER... Now THINK!!
> That does NOT mean the clip was used to load the rifle or that it was
> in the rifle when the live round was dropped into the firing chamber.
NONE of this matters. The FACT is NO clip was ever seen or mentioned
by any of the cops on the scene. ONLY the WC and Walt insists it was
inside the rifle when it was found.
> That clip had to have been inserted into the BOTTOM of the magazine
> opening and jammed there by the person who HID the rifle in that
> cavern of boxes. It stayed stuck in the magazine until Day's handling
> of the rifle caused it to slide part way out of the magazine and stick
> in the position where it is seen in the photo of Day leaving the TSBD
> with the rifle.
More Walt speculation that BENEFITS the WC's claims!
> > > Now, I hope you've gotten that idea through your thick skull.......
> > > because ....
>
> > I have always known this part,
I was referring to how and when the clip left the rifle.
> You're a liar..... several months ago you argued with me about this
> very point. I can google the posts if necessary.
Google away liar... the point is there was NO clip mentioned or
inventoried by anyone at the TSBD.
> the part I call you a liar for is you
>
> > clam the clip WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE when they found it, and there is NO
> > evidence for this claim.
>
> Get your stupid head outta yer ass and LOOK at the photos.... THEY are
> the evidence that there WAS in fact a clip in the rifle when it was
> found.
Walt, you are a liar, and you lie to the BENEFIT of the WC, thus you
are a WC shill!
> > > When the Mannlicher Carcano ( Not a MAUSER ) was pulled from the
> > > cavern in the stack of boxes where it had been COMPLETELY hidden ( not
> > > merely tossed behind some boxes) Lt Day and Captain Frittz said that a
> > > live round FELL.... FELL...FELL... out onto the floor. The FACT that
> > > the live round FELL onto the florr means that the ejector finger was
> > > NOT engaged with the live cartridge. If the ejector finger had been
> > > engaged with the live cartridge the cartridge would have been FLUNG
> > > FLUNG from the rifle by the spring action of the ejector,,and it would
> > > NOT have merely FELL on the floor. This is all substantiated by the
> > > photos that were taken of the rifle as it was being retrieved and
> > > examined in the first coulpe of minutes after it was lifted by Lt day
> > > from the place where it had been carefully hidden. the photos show
> > > that the bolt is NOT fully closed . It is hung in the position where
> > > the bolt of a carcano sticks when a bullet is simply dropped into the
> > > firing chamber and the bolt is pushed forward in an attempt to latch
> > > it shut for firing. The photos show that the bolt is stuck and not
> > > down in the latched (firing) position.
>
> > Where is your evidence for the clip being inside the rifle when it was
> > found? This is called speculation Walt. I want evidence.
Dead silence!
> > > What all this means is somebody who was unfamiliar with the rifle
> > > tried to chamber a single round by dropping it in the chamber and not
> > > using a clip. Whoever that ''somebody" was... they couldn't get the
> > > bolt shut and left it in the jammed position. Then when captain Fritz
> > > opened the bolt the live cartridge merely FELL out onto the floor.
>
> > Pure speculation, and I'm NOT interested.
>
> That's NOT speculation ya stupid bastard .... READ the testimonies of
> Lt Day and Captain Fritz and others who observed their actions.
So Walt claims these two were telling the gospel, huh? I want
evidence of the clip being in the rifle at the time it was discovered!
Robert
> In article <d1cecf3b-577d-40af-8354-3fb49b547...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Ah, the TWO WC SHILLS are supporting each other!
> He can't seem to understand such an easily understandable topic.
I understand it and I have many more of YOUR WORDS showing you know a
steel jacketed bullet was found, yet Walt says no such bullet was
found. Ben said this:
“When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it
out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
So why does Ben NOT point out to Walt that a steel jacketed bullet was
found at Walker's?? Why does he act like I am the one lying? Because
they are two WC shills, that is why!
> Robert doesn't stop to think things through, if it's not in one of his favorite
> books, if it contradicts some of the nonsensical things that pass for "CT", then
> he's automatically against it.
I want my words QUOTED showing this is how I think. We all know this
is another lie by Ben. Lurkers, from my first post here I had Walt
and Ben telling me how I thought. They didn't even know me, never met
me, yet they knew what I thought. This is one of the oldest tricks in
the LNer playbook.
I am against lies, especially those that support the lies of the WC,
and you and Walt tell a bunch of them.
> He's the sort of moron that you should keep away from books - since he's
> apparently brainwashed by those he reads.
>
> It doesn't matter who the author is - CHECK THE EVIDENCE AND CITATIONS YOURSELF!
See, more lies and smears. HOW could Ben, a man I've never met (Thank
God), know what I have done or not done? This is the same tactic Dave
Von Con uses. He CAN'T obviously, so he is just lying and making
things up. This is perfect for a new post in the "Provable Lies of
Ben Holmes" series.
> >Time after time the "experts" used this tactic
> >which left the impression that although they had not been able to
> >prove something conclusively....they were leaving the impression that
> >they wanted people to assume. In the case of the bullets which killed
> >Tippit they said that they couldn't prove the bullets had been fired
> >from Oswald's pistol but then went on to say that the barrel of his
> >pistol was oversized for the S&W .38 Special bullet and therefore
> >there would be no way to prove ballistically that the bullets had been
> >fired from his pistol to the exclusion of all others.
>
> Of course, they couldn't get what they wanted from Frazier, so they hunted
> around to find someone who *WOULD* give 'em a taste... Nicol is who they found.
>
> Frazier clearly lied, but he was honest enough to try to stay away from BLATANT
> lying.
Ben thinks there are degrees of lying, huh? I guess this is how he
gets through life being such a liar.
>
>
>
>
>
> >The impression
> >given is:.... Oswald had a pistol that could have fired the bullets
> >and therefore the probabilty is high that he did fire the bullets that
> >killed Tippit. What they deliberately neglected say is:... that any
> >S&W .38 with a two inch barrel would have left the same NON EVIDENCE
> >on the bullets. Of course they knew that Jack Ruby had bought
> >several of the .38 S&W pistols which also wouldn't leave markings on
> >the bullets that could be traced to a particular pistol. Who knows
> >how many of those .38 S&W pistols were floating around that seedy
> >neighborhood that day??
>
> >One of my favorite examples of this slight of hand is the FBI handling
> >of CE 133A... Thet said that they had examined the rifle in Oswald's
> >hand in CE 133A and had been unable to find any difference between it
> >and the TSBD rifle (CE 139) thus giving the impression that there was
> >no difference. When in fact they certainly had to have known that
> >the rifle in Oswald's hands in CE 133A had the sling swivels on the
> >bottom of the barrel while the rifle found in the TSBD ( CE 139) had
> >them on the side of the barrel.
>
> >> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never having
> >> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistics
> >> test, but for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
Robert
> In article <e6077e9c-b55e-4e3d-a812-d015fcaf0...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Lying about what you said is NOT going to save you. YOU said the
"odds FAVOR" a match, that is a lie. HERE are your OWN WORDS LIAR:
“Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET… (Robert, edited by Ben)
“It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**” (Ben
Holmes – 7/14/09)
In case may have made a mistake I gave him a chance to retract and he
still said the same thing!
“Care to retract your lie that the inconclusive "favors" the WC's side
in this case?” (Robert)
“How can I retract it? It's the truth.” (Ben Holmes – 7/20/09)
What else can I do Lurkers?
> >you are just using this sick tactic to try
> >and get me back off of your LIES! It won't work. It may have worked
> >in the past, I don't know, but you have called so many people this
> >sick thing it has NO effect anymore -- especially when I have you
> >admitting it yourself!
>
> You see? Another perfect example!
Is Ben lying about calling many folks child molestors? If so, Google
this topic folks and see how often he has used this method.
> >I do NOT lie about what you say, you just claim I do to try and wiggle
> >out of your lies. Tis that simple.
>
> Don't worry Rob - I'll continue to post *YOUR* exact quotes that contradict each
> other - and demonstrate your lack of character. Here it is again:
Distraction won't work liar! I said what I said and I stand by it.
Ben thinks an inconclusive (a neutral conclusion) can FAVOR one side
that is why he thinks this outcome is so important. He is a liar and
a WC shill.
> Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
> number does Robert Caprio favor?
>
> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>
> Okay... three.
>
> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>
> Oops... just two.
>
> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>
> Yep... again, only two.
>
> Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will
> he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
Been there, done that. NOW prove me wrong liar.
> Probably not... snip, run, and lie are Robert's only tactics these days.
Liar, aren't you? A neutral conclusion CAN FAVOR one side over
another, NOW THAT IS PRICELESS!
Lurkers, notice how this man uses this site for his advertising. The
only other one who does this is Dave Von Con. Both are obsessed with
correct spelling and grammer. Both write articles. Both lie to the
benefit of the WC. Hmmm.
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 24, 4:43=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <f68b962f-35fb-4d1c-96e6-719ced111...@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 23, 8:48=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <933ca5ca-5d96-4ee3-b4f9-a1721d14a...@t13g2000yqt.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >On Jul 23, 4:05=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.google=
>gro=3D
>> >ups=3D3D
>> >> >.com>,
>> >> >> Walt says...
>>
>> >> >> >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
>> >> >> >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
>3DA0I=3D
>> >f the
>> >> >> >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>>
>ts in
>> >> >> >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>>
>> >> >> >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
>tha=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>>
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>>
>> >> >> I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>>
>> >> >> For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive"
>> >> >> ballistics test (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor
>> >> >> the Warren Commission's theory - the alternative, of course, is
>> >> >> that the ballistics examiner would have stated that there was
>> >> >> *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
>> >> >> theory of the case.
>>
>> >> >They did SAY THIS via Frazier.
>>
>alker
>> >> bullet nor the two larger limo fragments... Frazier did *NOT* state th=
>at
>> >> there was no match.
>>
>> >First of all, I will not even discuss the Walker bullet
>>
>> Then why are you willing to lie, then run away when I defy you to
>> produce a citation supporting what you said?
>
>Who is lying besides you? He is running besides you? Who is using a
>sick distraction (child molestation) beyond you?
Then why are you willing to lie, then run away when I defy you to produce a
citation supporting what you said?
>> >because we
>> >know there is NO chain of custody for it and it does NOT match the
>> >type of bullet in the DPD report immediately after the shooting. Thus
>> >the bullet presented by the WC is NOT the bullet fired at Walker.
>>
>> Pretty stupid of the DPD not to produce a bullet fired out of the MC.
>
>Why?
I'm quite sure that that one simply went right over your head. Why don't you
pretend to be the DPD, trying to frame Oswald, and tell *US* what you would do?
Maybe then, you'll figure it out.
>The Walker shooting happened in April of 1963, they had NO way of
>knowing the MC would be the alleged assassination rifle in late
>November of 1963. NOW did they?
This is sheer nonsense, stupid.
You're implying that bullets were swapped, BUT SWAPPED BACK IN APRIL OF 1963???
How stupid is that?
If bullets were swapped, they were SWAPPED AT THE TIME WHEN THEY KNEW WHAT
WEAPON IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN FIRED OUT OF!
Even a moron can figure this out...
>They reported what was found, and it was NOT a copper jacketed bullet.
>
>
>> That's even more stupidity than I would attribute to you.
>
>YOU are the stupid one, and a liar to boot. Show us how the DPD would
>know the MC would be the alleged murder weapon used by LHO in late
>November in APRIL! I dare you!
Sorry stupid, I don't play games with strawmen. I'm not, unfortunately for you,
a moron - so I don't have to pretend that any bullet swapping must have been
done before the DPD knew which rifle was involved.
>> >Frazier was NOT the right man to be even discussing this as he lacked
>> >spectographic credentials in the first place.
>>
>> Do you even understand what you're saying?
>
>Yes, bullet comparison coming from one bullet was outside of Frazier's
>expertise as you need a chemistry background. Frazier was a firearms
>ID expert meaning he specialized in matching guns and bullets, but NOT
>bullet fragments to each other.
Yep... I didn't think you understood it. *STILL* can't find that other pencil.
"bullet comparison coming from one bullet" is done just the same as comparing
one bullet with another 'test' bullet. You examine lands & grooves with a
comparison microscope... or you match up areas that were next to each other.
>> >John F. Gallagher was
>> >the man with the background for this type of testing, but the WC
>> >waited UNTIL 9/15/64 to depose him and then spent less than an hour
>> >with him.
>>
>> >Mr. REDLICH. Very briefly, what has been the nature of your
>> >affiliation with the FBI?
>>
>> >Mr. GALLAGHER. The greater part of that 18 years I have been assigned
>> >to the FBI Laboratory, and in particular to the Physics and Chemistry
>> >Section. I work in the spectrographic unit of the FBI Laboratory.
>>
>> >Gallagher did the actual tests on the two fragments to see if they
>> >came from the same bullet or not, but he was kept at arms length by
>> >the WC. =A0Here is what Frazier testified to on this matter regarding
>> >the two fragments.
>>
>> > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567;
>> >and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
>>
>> >Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>>
>> >Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>>
>> >Mr. FRAZIER - **There is not enough of the two fragments in
>> >unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments
>> >actually fit together.**
>> >However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such
>> >as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section
>> >of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
>> >course, they could be parts of separate bullets.
>>
>> >This is called tap-dancing. It could be, but then it could be not.
>>
>> Doesn't matter *what* you call it, you clearly don't understand it.
>
>Right, it is a a neutral conclusion, thus it CANNOT FAVOR an outcome
>as you claim.
Doesn't matter *what* you call it, you clearly don't understand it. Never *DID*
find that second pencil, did you?
And because you never did, you never demonstrated that you understood what the
topic was that Frazier is discussing.
>> >Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of the actual bullets that you have
>> >been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle,
>> >and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
>>
>> >Mr. FRAZIER - Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket
>> >fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet,
>> >then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet
>> >in two parts.
>>
>> >Mr. McCLOY - And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from
>> >one bullet or two separate ones?
>>
>> >Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>>
>> >Mr. EISENBERG - When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at
>> >the minimum?
>>
>> >Mr. FRAZIER - I meant at least two bullets.
>>
>> >Mr. McCLOY - There were at least two different bullets?
>>
>> >Mr. FRAZIER - At least two, yes.
>>
>> >This really sounds unsure to me, but Ben thinks it FAVORS THE WC'S
>> >CLAIM OF ONE BULLET!
>>
>> I told you that you can't molest cats... stick with larger dogs and sheep.
>
>Sorry, Ben, see below. YOU said it and now you are trying to distract
>from the issue by using sick stuff. YOU are a liar and a sicko.
No molester, I *NEVER* said it. I'm beginning to think you enjoy asserting your
molesting activities.
>> >=3D93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
>> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=3D85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>>
>> >=3D93It's possible that they did. =A0**Indeed, the odds favor it.**=3D94=
> (Ben
>> >Holmes =3D96 7/14/09)
>>
>> >> You're a liar, moron.
>>
>> >You are the liar, and you you are a bad one too.
>>
>> You're a liar, moron.
>
>YOU are a sicko and a liar WC Shill.
You're a liar, moron.
>> >> >YOU are the one saying the
>> >> >inconclusive FAVORED a match,
>>
>> >> Still molesting children, aren't you?
>>
>> >Please, quit projecting your sickness onto me and others. =A0Ben said
>> >this about his sickness:
>>
>> >=3D93Child molesting is a seriously sick pre-occupation, Rob.=3D94 (Ben =
>Holmes
>> >=3D96 12/11/08)
>>
>> >For once Ben is telling the truth, let's hope he gets the help he
>> >needs.
>>
>> Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.
>
>It is Ben, SO DON'T DO IT!
Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.
>> >> If you'd ever take the time to *READ* what someone is saying, instead =
>of =3D
>> >trying
>> >> to force your own understanding into someone's mouth, you'd be far mor=
>e
>> >> credible.
>>
>> >YOU can explain it to us. Point by point. YOU are the one that
>> >writes in a cryptic style Ben, I have told you this for a long time.
>> >I'm sure most people on here would agree you hide your point as your
>> >main goal is to catch someone in a mistake that you can call a lie.
>>
>> And yet, even when I go into exquisite detail, what we see from you
>> most often is "Who cares?", then a repeat of your lies.
>
>Liar, aren't you? YOU never go into "exquisite" detail, you just
>continue to lie even when your own words are quoted. YOU then use
>sick distractions to try and bail yourself out.
And yet, even when I go into exquisite detail, what we see from you most often
is "Who cares?", then a repeat of your lies.
>> >> I've previously stated in print, in this forum, TO YOU, that an
>> >> "inconclusive" does not *FORBID* a match. It also, of course,
>> >> does not forbid a *NON-MATCH*.
>>
>> >Yes, I have this quote. IT is neutral, that is my point.
>>
>> There is *NOTHING* in that statement that says what you keep asserting I
>> said.
>
>BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE STATEMENT I AM REFERRING TO LIAR,
Then why bother to quote it, stupid?
>AND YOU KNOW
>IT! This is the one:
>
>
>=93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
>both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
>=93It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**=94 (Ben
>Holmes =96 7/14/09)
That statement doesn't say what you assert either. Your statement that this
"ALLOWS the shills to claim both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET" was
answered by me as "It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it."
It says *NOTHING* that supports your lie, moron.
"It's possible that they did"
What's possible?
That the two larger limo fragments came from one bullet.
And it is *INDEED* possible.
"Indeed, the odds favor it"
Favor what?
That the two larger limo fragments came from one bullet.
How do we know this?
I gave a long answer, and your response was "Who cares?"... so if you are
interested, you can go look it up again.
BUT NO-WHERE IN THAT STATEMENT DOES IT SAY "a neutral result, an inconclusive,
FAVORS a side (a match)"
You can continue to lie, moron, and I'll continue to make public your child &
animal molesting emails, or you can start debating what I ACTUALLY say, and
provide citations.
Your choice.
>So we see all that sick stuff Ben has been using for me "putting words
>into his mouth" is just ANOTHER lie by him.
>
>
>> >> I've *NEVER* stated that an inconclusive finding *FAVORS* one or the o=
>ther.
>>
>> >What is this:
>>
>> >=3D93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
>> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=3D85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>>
>> >=3D93It's possible that they did. =A0**Indeed, the odds favor it.**=3D94=
> (Ben
>> >Holmes =3D96 7/14/09)
>>
>> The odds *DO* favor that the two larger fragments came from one bullet.
>> I even detailed the explanation why, and you pulled your "Who Cares?" answer.
>
>WC Shill aren't you? A neutral conclusion CANNOT FAVOR an outcome
>liar.
And yet, there's a person in jail now because the ballistics came back
"inconclusive" - as in the court case I cited.
>There is NO firm proof either way for the two fragments so to
>insist they FAVOR being from one bullet is a lie.
The "inconclusive" result is not what "favors" the two fragments as coming from
one bullet. The *odds* do that - as I explained.
Why can't you understand that, moron?
>> IT DOES NOT STATE THAT AN "INCONCLUSIVE FINDING *FAVORS* ONE OR THE OTHER".
>
>YOU are saying it
Then all you have to do is QUOTE ME SAYING IT!
But until you do, I'm going to continue to make your emails concerning your
molesting activities public.
>and the only thing you can base this on is the
>inconclusive.
How can that be, stupid? I *SAID* that I base that statement on the odds. You
know, probability theory... something you can't understand.
>YOU are a liar no matter how you slice it.
>
>
>> You're sick when you begin molesting animals Robert Caprio.
>
>YOU are sick liar who will use any attempt to DISTORT his own lies. I
>have NOT put words into your mouth, you did that all by yourself
>sicko.
And yet, you can't seem to quote me saying what you're asserting that I said...
why is that, moron?
>> >I didn't type this and claim you said it Ben, thus your sick child
>> >molesting comments are off base. YOU said it, and I'm just calling
>> >you on it.
>>
>> I said what I ACTUALLY said, not what you try to twist it into.
>
>ONLY you see that way as the point is there was NO firm proof the
>bullets came from one bullet (or two) so it is a lie for anyone to
>claim they did.
Then you'll have to label yourself a liar, as you've claimed that the two larger
fragments came from *TWO* bullets... based on the "inconclusive" results.
>YOU claimed it, thus you lied,
The odds favor the sun rising tomorrow.
>but instead of being a
>man about it you are lying even more and using sick stuff to save
>yourself.
Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
number does Robert Caprio favor?
"I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
Okay... three.
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
Oops... just two.
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
Yep... again, only two.
Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will
he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
>> >I said the inconclusive allows LNers and shills to claim the two
>> >fragments came from one bullet and you said "It's possible they did."
>>
>> It *IS* possible that the two fragments came from one bullet.
>
>Just as much as if they came from two! That is the point liar.
No, *NOT* "just as much". The odds would favor one bullet.
Let me give you a simple analogy, which I'm sure you *STILL* won't understand.
Let's toss $5 worth of pennies into that limo. One of them hits the door's
armrest and balances on it's edge. You remark - "What are the odds of *that*
happening?" I'll reply that no matter what the odds, the odds against *TWO*
pennies balancing on their edge in that limo is quite a bit higher.
Same with bullets. You have one bullet that broke into three pieces, and the
middle piece is missing. Now the odds that you will find just the nose, and
just the base of a bullet, with the middle part missing, is certainly quite
high, but the odds of TWO bullets, each fragmenting into three pieces, BOTH
middle pieces missing, and *ONE* nose from one bullet, and *ONE* base from the
other bullet, being all that's left, is quite a bit higher.
Thus, the odds favor the two larger fragments coming from *ONE* bullet.
Now, last time I explained this we got your "Who cares?" answer. I suspect this
time we'll hear whining about my analogy, and how it has nothing to do with
bullet fragments.
But it doesn't matter... Lurkers will understand.
>> GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, MORON!
>
>Read below, I didn't say there was anything wrong with that, now did
>I? I want a retraction!
Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
number does Robert Caprio favor?
"I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
Okay... three.
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
Oops... just two.
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
Yep... again, only two.
Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will
he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
>> >Nothing wrong with that as they could have just as much as the could
>> >NOT have. But then you shot yourself in the foot with the next part.
>> >"Indeed, the odds favor it." This went to far as there are NO odds
>> >favoring a match over a non-match in this case of an inconclusive.
>>
>> I even went into detail on the odds, and you ran from it, stupid.
>
>YOU are a pathetic liar Ben. YOU CANNOT show any cites that will
>claim a neutral conclusion CAN FAVOR one outcome,
Why would I cite for *YOUR* assertion, moron?
>if they do, they are
>liars like you!
>
>
>> >YOU LIED.
>
>DEAD SILENCE.
I *KNOW* you lied... here it is again:
Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
number does Robert Caprio favor?
"I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
Okay... three.
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
Oops... just two.
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
Yep... again, only two.
Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will
he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
>> >This has NOTHING to do with me and my interpretation, but I can see
>> >how you would like to make that the issue instead of your blatant lie.
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
>I am not the one who makes lies and then is too stupid to hide them,
>that is YOU! Show us how a neutral conclusion has "odds favoring" one
>side over another again!
Stupid, aren't you? Don't you think you should first quote me *saying* what you
keep asserting?
>> >> Now why can't you start either QUOTING me, or retracting these lies, R=
>obe=3D
>> >rta?
>>
>> >Benita, I have bee QUOTING you and you keep lying about what you
>> >said. =A0A man who lies about his OWN WORDS is the most dishonest of
>> >them all.
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>
>Dishonest, aren't you? Sick, aren't you? Liar, aren't you? WC
>shill, aren't you?
Stupid, aren't you?
>> >> >NOT me. =3DA0Why are you saying that?
>>
>> >> Since you will be totally unable to quote me saying that, it appears o=
>nce=3D
>> > again
>> >> that you're molesting little boys & girls. =3DA0You really should stop=
> that=3D
>> >. =3DA0I'm
>> >> unaware of *any* society that condones child molestation.
>>
>> >Benita you are a liar. =A0I have been quoting you for a week now. =A0YOU
>> >lie about YOUR OWN WORDS!
>>
>> Nope. My words say exactly what they say, and any intelligent person can
>> correctly parse them.
>
>So I guess you are ADMITTING you are NOT intelligent then! YOU said
>"the odds favor" the two fragments coming from one bullet. That is a
>lie. Tis that simple.
The odds *DO* favor the two fragments coming from one bullet. You can't provide
any citation, or logical argument refuting it.
So how can it be a "lie"?
>> >YOU lie and attack me with your sickness
>> >when you said the ODDS FAVOR A MATCH like the WC and LNers claim.
>>
>> The odds *DO* favor a match. The odds that the two fragments come from one
>> bullet are considerably more likely than the odds AGAINST the theory that
>> they came from two bullets.
>
>Liar, aren't you?
And yet, you can't seem to cite...
>How can an neutral conclusion FAVOR one side over
>another.
Keep fighting your strawman, stupid.
> Will he ever explain this in a sentence for us?
>
>
>> But you apparently don't understand this.
>
>I don't waste time understanding lies, I just point out that you lied.
But you apparently don't understand this.
>> >I did NOT put any words into your mouth. YOU are a dispicable liar.
>>
>> Child molester... and now moving into molesting animals. "dispicable"
>> indeed!
>
>At least you are honest ABOUT SOMETHING! Ben is now attacking
>harmless little animals, but I heard this was popular in the gay
>community.
>
>Lurkers, notice how he lies about his own words! I am quoting his OWN
>WORDS and he is lying and saying I am putting words into his mouth.
Child molester... and now moving into molesting animals. "dispicable" indeed!
>> >> Do you suppose that you could go even *one* week without molesting any=
> ch=3D
>> >ildren?
>>
>> >I have gone a lifetime sicko. =A0YOU are the ADMITTED molester,
>> >remember?
>>
>> >=3D93Molesting neighborhood children again...=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 2/8=
>/07)
>>
>> >> >YOU also are listening to Walt too much and he will sink you as the D=
>PD
>> >> >never mentioned a copper-jacketed bullet in the Walker shooting.
>> >> >There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker.
>>
>> >> Yes, moron, there is.
>>
>> >LOL!! Where is it? I'm NOT taking about the WC's lies of evidence,
>>
>> In other words, you know it exists, you'll just deny it.
>
>There is NO evidence that puts LHO at the scene. Even the ONLY
>witness did NOT describe a person who looked like LHO.
In other words, you know it exists, you'll just deny it.
>> >show us where in the official DPD report of the incident does it
>> >mention a copper-jacketed bullet?
>>
>> >> Whether it's credible or persuasive, is another matter... but when you=
> si=3D
>> >mply
>> >> deny that any evidence exists, your just a moron.
>>
>> >YOU call fake stuff evidence, I don't.
>>
>> You refer to ANYTHING that doesn't fit your preconceived theory as
>> "fake", and worry not at all that you can't provide evidence, citation,
>> or even logical argument to support your silly assertions.
>
>Ben, the bullet presented by the WC as the bullet in the Walker
>shooting is NOT the type of bullet found at the scene. They failed to
>call the cop who found it. Walker even said the bullet was NOT the
>same type he saw. YOU have said this yourself, so why are YOU now
>lying about this?
Where's the lie, moron?
>I wonder IF Ben can quote me saying I claim everything is fake when it
>doesn't fit my pre-conceived, silly assertions? I smell another lie.
Why would I quote you on your behavior?
>The DPD report is the ONLY evidence I need.
And yet, when it came to the inventory, the DPD report was the only thing YOU
DID NOT NEED!
Another excellent example - you pick and choose the evidence according to your
faith, and not according to logic and evidence.
>That is the official
>evidence for the Walker shooting, NOT the junk the WC gave us. The WC
>does NOT override the DPD in that case, so why is Ben lying and acting
>like they do?
Moron, aren't you?
>> >Show us that the bullet the WC
>> >gave us is the real bullet fired at Walker! =A0I dare you!
>>
>> Rather stupid of the DPD to substitute a bullet that cannot be tied
>> to the MC, isn't it?
>
>Why?
Another illustration, if we needed it, that you're a moron.
>They knew they would have liars like you and Walt to say, it is
>copper jacketed and even though it couldn't be matched to the MC it
>could still have been fired by it! "Indeed, the odds FAVOR it!"
>
>Nice try WC shill, but we are on to you.
>
>
>> >> You seem to have the same problem that LNT'ers do with evidence. =3DA0=
>You s=3D
>> >imply
>> >> decide for yourself what the facts are.
>>
>> >As you said:
>>
>> >=3D93You seem confused... I accept their *EVIDENCE*, I can make my own
>> >conclusions.
>> >That's why God gave me a brain, to use it.
>>
>> >I accept *ALL* DPD evidence
>>
>> Then you *KNOW FOR A FACT* that evidence exists... but just above, you were
>> denying it.
>
>I deny it is genuine, NOT THAT IT EXISTS!
Then you shouldn't say that there is no evidence.
>WHY must you lie
>constantly?
Stay away from mirrors when you type such sentences...
>> Lied, didn't you?
>
>LOL!!! NO you did.
Lied, didn't you?
>> >that isn't contradicted by other evidence,
>> >and that
>> >appears untainted by the frameup being conducted.
>>
>> >The **"steel jacket"** was found to be very inconvenient for people
>> >such as you, so
>> >you simply ignore it... don't you?=3D94 (Bendsie Holmes =3D96 1/27/06)
>>
>> >Funny Benita didn't have this understanding take on the issue when he
>> >attacked Todd Vaughn, huh? ONLY when Walt is involved do we get the
>> >nice Benita.
>
>Dead silence.
Green smelly monkeys playing with a giraffe.
>> >Ben knows the bullet found at the scene was steel-jacketed as he says
>> >so above, but NOW he and WALT ARE IGNORING IT! =A0But he claims I am
>> >ingoring it. =A0I smell another post in my "Provable Lies of Ben Holmes"
>> >series!
>>
>> I've told you before, moron, the evidence is contradictory. But you can't
>> simply deny it exists.
>
>I'm NOT denying it,
"There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker."
>YOU and Walt are! I know the WC gave us a copper
>jacketed bullet, but I am saying it is NOT the bullet that was found
>at the scene. Why must you lie constantly?
>
>YOU know what this means in Ben's world? Yep, the "Teabag Champ" has
>struck again. He is really in "Gay Brazilian Grappling" (i.e. this
>means gay sex) as he writes about it. It seems he likes small animals
>too. Sshhh.
Don't worry, Rob; I have no intention of releasing your emails publicly.
>> Lt. Day's testimony exists. That's simply a fact.
>
>He testified, that is a fact, what he said is NOT a fact.
You seem to have the idea that in order to be called "evidence", it must "prove"
your preconceived theory.
Sadly for you, not true.
Perhaps this explains your abhorrence of citation.
>> >> >> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never h=
>avi=3D
>> >ng
>> >> >> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballistic=
>s
>> >> >> test, but for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>>
>> >> >Ben you have NOT shown me lying.
>>
>> >> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match." Rob =
>Cap=3D
>> >rio -
>> >> Nov 2nd, 2008.
>>
>> >> "Your logic is all wrong, in ballistics, as in all sciences, a non-mat=
>ch =3D
>> >is an
>> >> EXCLUSION!!! That is why there are ONLY two outcomes - a positive and =
>a
>> >> negative." Rob Caprio - Oct 1st, 2008
>>
>> >> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match." Ro=
>b C=3D
>> >aprio -
>> >> Nov 30th, 2007
>>
>> >> You can keep running from your lies, Robert - I'll just keep right on =
>quo=3D
>> >ting
>> >> them.
>>
>> >Who is running?
>>
>> You. You provably keep snipping and running away.
>
>LOL!! I don't run from liars like you. Prove me wrong, I dare YOU! I
>said there are two outcomes that have proof on their side, and one
>that doesn't.
Actually, no you didn't. You never *have* been able to quote yourself saying
any such thing, prior to your assertion that you'd never denied it.
>Good luck with disproving that one.
Don't need "luck"... just your own words:
Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
number does Robert Caprio favor?
"I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
Okay... three.
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
Oops... just two.
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
Yep... again, only two.
Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will
he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
>> >I have made my point very clear and you HAVE AGREED
>> >WITH ME!
>>
>> No moron, simply untrue.
>
>YOU agreed with me liar.
No moron, simply untrue.
>> >So once again, IF I'm lying you are lying because you said
>> >this?
>>
>> >=3D93Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is n=
>o
>> >non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
>> >the test.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 7/23/09)
>>
>> >That has been my point from the beginning, if you want PROOF you get
>> >two results, IF you want everything you get three.
>>
>> How many "possible outcomes" are there, moron?
>
>See above liar.
"I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>> >> >YOU OTOH claim a neutral result, an
>> >> >inconclusive, FAVORS a side (a match). =3DA0NOW that is a lie.
>>
>> >> Indeed, your STATEMENT is a lie.
>>
>> >YOU are the liar, and you even lie about YOUR OWN WORDS!
>>
>> Animals will not be any better than small children, molester.
>
>Ben is speaking from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE! Lurkers, see how DESPERATE
>BEN IS?
Molesting again, aren't you? Society doesn't recognize sex with animals *OR*
small children as desirable conduct.
>> >> You assert that I've claimed something that I've never claimed.
>>
>> >Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> >=3D93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
>> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=3D85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>>
>> >=3D93It's possible that they did. =A0**Indeed, the odds favor it.**=3D94=
> (Ben
>> >Holmes =3D96 7/14/09)
>>
>> >Is this denial routine the best you can do?
>>
>> I do appreciate that you quote my words - that way, lurkers can see
>> that I did *NOT* say what you keep asserting.
>
>YOU asserted the "odds favored" the two fragments coming from one
>bullet,
Yes... the odds do indeed "favor" the two fragments as coming from one bullet.
>but that is a lie because they only got an inconclusive (a
>neutral) conclusion, thus they CANNOT favor either side.
Then you're labeling *YOURSELF* a liar when you kept trying to assert that these
two fragments came from two bullets...
Rather stupid of you, isn't it?
>YOU are a
>liar and a WC shill!
>
>> It's apparent that you're simply too stupid to figure it out...
>
>NO, you are too stupid to think anyone is going to fall for your
>lies. We all know what you said and what you meant Ben. YOU will not
>change that with sick comments, you ONLY further show what a nutjob
>you are.
>
>Ben says a neutral conclusion FAVORS a side,
Did you really like sheep better than the horse?
>but I am the stupid one.
>LOL!!
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 24, 9:18=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d1cecf3b-577d-40af-8354-3fb49b547...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 23, 3:05=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Walt says...
>>
>> >> >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in his
>> >> >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading his
>f the
>> >> >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>>
>> >> >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>>
>> >> >A difference of opinion or a mistake is NOT the same as lying,
>t
>> >> >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>>
>e
>> >> >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions.
>>
>> >> I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>>
>> >> For example, when he can't understand that an "inconclusive"
>> >> ballistics test (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor
>> >> the Warren Commission's theory - the alternative, of course, is
>> >> that the ballistics examiner would have stated that there was
>> >> *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid chunk of the WC's
>> >> theory of the case.
>>
>> >Absolutely!!......
>>
>> Yet the moron repeatedly calls me a liar for pointing out the obvious.
>
>Ah, the TWO WC SHILLS are supporting each other!
Any intelligent person can come to the same conclusion without agreeing with
Walt or myself on other matters...
The fact that you refuse to provide logical argument on this point, or citation,
is proof enough of your stupidity.
>> He can't seem to understand such an easily understandable topic.
>
>I understand it and I have many more of YOUR WORDS showing you know a
>steel jacketed bullet was found, yet Walt says no such bullet was
>found. Ben said this:
>
>=93When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point it
>out.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/9/09)
>
>So why does Ben NOT point out to Walt that a steel jacketed bullet was
>found at Walker's?? Why does he act like I am the one lying? Because
>they are two WC shills, that is why!
Stupid, aren't you?
>> Robert doesn't stop to think things through, if it's not in one of his
>> favorite books, if it contradicts some of the nonsensical things that
>> pass for "CT", then he's automatically against it.
>
>I want my words QUOTED showing this is how I think.
Okay... here you go:
"I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>We all know this
>is another lie by Ben. Lurkers, from my first post here I had Walt
>and Ben telling me how I thought. They didn't even know me, never met
>me, yet they knew what I thought. This is one of the oldest tricks in
>the LNer playbook.
>
>I am against lies, especially those that support the lies of the WC,
>and you and Walt tell a bunch of them.
Here's a good lie:
"I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
And here's the quotes that demonstrate it to be a lie:
"I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
"There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>> He's the sort of moron that you should keep away from books - since he's
>> apparently brainwashed by those he reads.
>>
>> It doesn't matter who the author is - CHECK THE EVIDENCE AND CITATIONS
>> YOURSELF!
>
>See, more lies and smears.
And yet, this is only common sense. If the moron had done this himself, he'd
have never tried to assert that Oswald was never known to wear a watch, or that
no watch was found among his possessions.
>HOW could Ben, a man I've never met (Thank
>God), know what I have done or not done? This is the same tactic Dave
>Von Con uses. He CAN'T obviously, so he is just lying and making
>things up. This is perfect for a new post in the "Provable Lies of
>Ben Holmes" series.
You have my permission to use it.
>> >Time after time the "experts" used this tactic
>> >which left the impression that although they had not been able to
>> >prove something conclusively....they were leaving the impression that
>> >they wanted people to assume. =A0In the case of the bullets which killed
>> >Tippit they said that they couldn't prove the bullets had been fired
>> >from Oswald's pistol but then went on to say that the barrel of his
>> >pistol was oversized for the S&W .38 Special bullet and therefore
>> >there would be no way to prove ballistically that the bullets had been
>> >fired from his pistol to the exclusion of all others.
>>
>> Of course, they couldn't get what they wanted from Frazier, so they
>> hunted around to find someone who *WOULD* give 'em a taste... Nicol
>> is who they found.
>>
>> Frazier clearly lied, but he was honest enough to try to stay away
>> from BLATANT lying.
>
>Ben thinks there are degrees of lying, huh?
Feel free to refute...
But you won't...
>I guess this is how he
>gets through life being such a liar.
>
>> >The impression
>> >given is:.... Oswald had a pistol that could have fired the bullets
>> >and therefore the probabilty is high that he did fire the bullets that
>> >killed Tippit. =A0 What they deliberately neglected =A0say is:... that a=
>ny
>> >S&W .38 with a two inch barrel would have left the same NON EVIDENCE
>> >on the bullets. =A0 Of course they knew that Jack Ruby had bought
>> >several of the .38 S&W pistols which also wouldn't leave markings on
>> >the bullets that could be traced to a particular pistol. =A0Who knows
>> >how many of those .38 S&W pistols were floating around that seedy
>> >neighborhood that day??
>>
>> >One of my favorite examples of this slight of hand is the FBI handling
>> >of CE 133A... Thet said that they had examined the rifle in Oswald's
>> >hand in CE 133A and had been unable to find any difference between it
>> >and the TSBD rifle (CE 139) thus giving the impression that there was
>> >no difference. =A0 When in fact they certainly had to have known that
>> >the rifle in Oswald's hands in CE 133A had the sling swivels on the
>> >bottom of the barrel while the rifle found in the TSBD =A0( CE 139) had
>> >them on the side of the barrel.
>>
>> >> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about never havi=
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 26, 12:06=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <e6077e9c-b55e-4e3d-a812-d015fcaf0...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>> >On Jul 24, 4:21=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <681bdc3f-d997-4fe0-9940-30e5519e5...@y19g2000yqy.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >On Jul 23, 6:46=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Jul 23, 5:05=3D3DA0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Jul 23, 5:19=3D3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Jul 23, 3:05=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > In article <54cd9c04-b4e0-4d8e-a6f1-f3c1346eb...@e27g2000yqm.=
>goo=3D
>> >gle=3D3D
>> >> >groups.com>,
>> >> >> > > > Walt says...
>>
>> >> >> > > > >In poker it's possible to bluff an oponent into throwing in =
>his
>> >> >> > > > >cards... However, the bluffer has to be an expert on reading=
> hi=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> > > > >opponent if he expects to walk away with his opponents money=
>.. =3D
>> >=3D3DA0=3D3D
>> >> >If the
>> >> >> > > > >bluffer reveals he's bluffing he'll probably lose.
>>
>of po=3D
>> >sts i=3D3D
>> >> >n
>> >> >> > > > >which the title calls Ben Holmes a liar.
>>
>g,
>> >> >> > > > >( though Rob doesn't understand that) and so Rob calls every=
>thi=3D
>> >ng =3D3D
>> >> >that
>> >> >> > > > >he doesn't agree with a "lie".
>>
>who=3D
>> > is=3D3D
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > > > >liar, just as a bluffer reveals he's bluffing by his actions=
>.
>>
>> >> >> > > > I think most of the time Robert is honest, he's just stupid.
>>
>bal=3D
>> >lis=3D3D
>> >> >tics test
>> >> >> > > > (with the Walker bullet, for example) can favor the Warren Co=
>mmi=3D
>> >ssi=3D3D
>> >> >on's theory -
>> >> >> > > > the alternative, of course, is that the ballistics examiner w=
>oul=3D
>> >d h=3D3D
>> >> >ave stated
>> >> >> > > > that there was *NO* match... and thereby devastate a solid ch=
>unk=3D
>> > of=3D3D
>> >> > the WC's
>> >> >> > > > theory of the case.
>>
>eve=3D
>> >r h=3D3D
>> >> >aving
>> >> >> > > > asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a bal=
>lis=3D
>> >tic=3D3D
>> >> >s test, but
>> >> >> > > > for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>>
>tua=3D
>> >n
>> >> >> > > ego which he allows to make a fool of him.
>>
> us h=3D
>> >is
>> >> >> > "hobby tests results" (i.e. his cardboard model of DP) as evidenc=
>e
>> >> >> > INSTEAD OF STICKING TO THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE GIVEN TO US. =3D=
>3DA0W=3D
>> >alt
>> >> >> > always makes it about him and that is a sign of an ego issue.
>>
>> >> >> > > His ego won't allow him to
>o a=3D
>> >dmi=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> > > that he's made a mistake.
>>
>> >> >> > You are a liar Walt as I have admitted many mistakes on here.
>>
>> >> >> Oh really.... Where? When?
>>
>> >> >I have admitted more mistakes than you. I am NOT above making a
>> >> >mistake like every other human being. YOU are the one that has a
>> >> >problem with admitting you offer NOTHING but speculation.
>>
>> >> >Why do you have NO problem with Ben using child molestation as a
>> >> >debate tactic Walt?
>>
>> >> He'd probably *HATE* it if he ever got caught trying to assert that
>> >> I'd said things I've never said.
>>
>ver
>> >> said.
>>
>> >I QUOTE your own words Ben,
>>
>say.
>> You just make up stuff. =A0You can't read, that's your problem. =A0You ca=
>n't argue
>> with what I *actually* say, so you just make up stuff.
>
>Lying about what you said is NOT going to save you. YOU said the
>"odds FAVOR" a match, that is a lie. HERE are your OWN WORDS LIAR:
>
>both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
>=93It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**=94 (Ben
>Holmes =96 7/14/09)
*WHAT'S* possible that they did?
That both limo fragments came from one bullet.
"Indeed, the odds favor it."
What do the odds favor?
That the two fragments came from one bullet.
Moron, aren't you?
>In case may have made a mistake I gave him a chance to retract and he
>still said the same thing!
>
>=93Care to retract your lie that the inconclusive "favors" the WC's side
>in this case?=94 (Robert)
>
>=93How can I retract it? It's the truth.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/20/09)
>
>What else can I do Lurkers?
Tell the truth.
>> >you are just using this sick tactic to try
>> >and get me back off of your LIES! =A0It won't work. =A0It may have worke=
>d
>> >in the past, I don't know, but you have called so many people this
>> >sick thing it has NO effect anymore -- especially when I have you
>> >admitting it yourself!
>>
>> You see? =A0Another perfect example!
>
>Is Ben lying about calling many folks child molestors? If so, Google
>this topic folks and see how often he has used this method.
And then, look immediately above each example, and read what it's in reference
to.
>> >I do NOT lie about what you say, you just claim I do to try and wiggle
>> >out of your lies. =A0Tis that simple.
>>
>> Don't worry Rob - I'll continue to post *YOUR* exact quotes that
>> contradict each other - and demonstrate your lack of character.
>> Here it is again:
>
>Distraction won't work liar! I said what I said and I stand by it.
>Ben thinks an inconclusive (a neutral conclusion) can FAVOR one side
And yet, despite my *CONSTANT* denial that I've *EVER* said this, our favorite
child molester just keeps molesting away.
>that is why he thinks this outcome is so important. He is a liar and
>a WC shill.
>
>
>> Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
>> number does Robert Caprio favor?
>>
>> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>>
>> Okay... three.
>>
>> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>>
>> Oops... just two.
>>
>> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>>
>> Yep... again, only two.
>>
>> Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number?
>> And will he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he
>> has been doing?
>
>Been there, done that. NOW prove me wrong liar.
Can't prove a negative. You *STILL* cannot quote yourself asserting that there
are three possible outcomes prior to your assertion that you'd never denied it.
Lied, didn't you?
>> Probably not... snip, run, and lie are Robert's only tactics these days.
>
>Liar, aren't you?
And yet, snip, run, and lie are your only tactics these days.
>A neutral conclusion CAN FAVOR one side over
>another, NOW THAT IS PRICELESS!
>
>Lurkers, notice how this man uses this site for his advertising. The
>only other one who does this is Dave Von Con. Both are obsessed with
>correct spelling and grammer. Both write articles. Both lie to the
>benefit of the WC. Hmmm.
Moron, aren't you?
Robert
> In article <6eb0df7f-dcda-4674-91cc-b6f8cadb1...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert says...
> >> >> >They did SAY THIS via Frazier.
>
> >> >> No moron, they did *NOT*. I defy you to cite Frazier. In neither the W=
> >alker
> >> >> bullet nor the two larger limo fragments... Frazier did *NOT* state th=
> >at
> >> >> there was no match.
>
> >> >First of all, I will not even discuss the Walker bullet
>
> >> Then why are you willing to lie, then run away when I defy you to
> >> produce a citation supporting what you said?
>
> >Who is lying besides you? He is running besides you? Who is using a
> >sick distraction (child molestation) beyond you?
>
> Then why are you willing to lie, then run away when I defy you to produce a
> citation supporting what you said?
NOTICE HOW Ben EDITED this point. There is NO chain of custody for
the WC's alleged bullet (CE573) in the Walker case yet he seperated
this from the point above as this is why it is a waste of time to
discuss this bullet.
> >> >because we
> >> >know there is NO chain of custody for it and it does NOT match the
> >> >type of bullet in the DPD report immediately after the shooting. Thus
> >> >the bullet presented by the WC is NOT the bullet fired at Walker.
>
> >> Pretty stupid of the DPD not to produce a bullet fired out of the MC.
>
> >Why?
>
> I'm quite sure that that one simply went right over your head. Why don't you
> pretend to be the DPD, trying to frame Oswald, and tell *US* what you would do?\
How does Ben know it was the DPD who framed LHO?
> Maybe then, you'll figure it out.
I know what you are saying, why put a bullet into play that could NOT
be linked to the MC. Who knows? That calls for speculation, and I'm
not going there. The point is someone did do that as CE573 is NOT the
bullet that was found at Walker's house on 4/10/63. Why don't you
share your evidence for us that shows it was the DPD who did this?
> >The Walker shooting happened in April of 1963, they had NO way of
> >knowing the MC would be the alleged assassination rifle in late
> >November of 1963. NOW did they?
>
> This is sheer nonsense, stupid.
ONLY to a WC shill.
> You're implying that bullets were swapped, BUT SWAPPED BACK IN APRIL OF 1963???
> How stupid is that?
Who has the reading problem now? I am NOT implying that at all. What
I am saying is the bullet recovered at the scene was mentioned as a
"steel jacketed" type in the DPD report. Many media outlets reported
it as being of a 30.06 caliber as well. Thus, how did we wind up with
a copper jacketed 6.5mm version for the WC's exhibits?
YOU know the penalty for putting words into my mouth so I warn you to
stop.
> If bullets were swapped, they were SWAPPED AT THE TIME WHEN THEY KNEW WHAT
> WEAPON IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN FIRED OUT OF!
I am NOT mentioning swapped, YOU are. I am asking you to explain how
the WC presented a bullet TOTALLY different from the one found at the
scene. I'll let others decide how this happened for themselves.
> Even a moron can figure this out...
Agreed, so tell us who did it then. YOU said it was the DPD, do you
have evidence for this?
> >They reported what was found, and it was NOT a copper jacketed bullet.
>
> >> That's even more stupidity than I would attribute to you.
See, he SKIPS this part.
> >YOU are the stupid one, and a liar to boot. Show us how the DPD would
> >know the MC would be the alleged murder weapon used by LHO in late
> >November in APRIL! I dare you!
>
> Sorry stupid, I don't play games with strawmen. I'm not, unfortunately for you,
> a moron - so I don't have to pretend that any bullet swapping must have been
> done before the DPD knew which rifle was involved.
That was NOT my point! My point was they reported honestly in 4/63 as
to what type of bullet was fired at Walker because they had NO idea
they would need to link a copper jacketed bullet to LHO in 11/63!
ONLY Walt is insisted LHO fired at Walker with his Carcano, but Ben
has NO problem with that part, how come?
> >> >Frazier was NOT the right man to be even discussing this as he lacked
> >> >spectographic credentials in the first place.
>
> >> Do you even understand what you're saying?
>
> >Yes, bullet comparison coming from one bullet was outside of Frazier's
> >expertise as you need a chemistry background. Frazier was a firearms
> >ID expert meaning he specialized in matching guns and bullets, but NOT
> >bullet fragments to each other.
>
> Yep... I didn't think you understood it. *STILL* can't find that other pencil.
Don't need to as Gallagher said they did NOT match and he had the
EXPERTISE to know.
It is a neutral conclusion, it does NOT favor a match or a non-match!
ONLY liars like you and the WC claim it favors a MATCH side to keep
the bullets fired to three so you can still blame LHO.
> And because you never did, you never demonstrated that you understood what the
> topic was that Frazier is discussing.
I don't debate strawmen. The point is you GOT NO MATCH, thus you have
NO way of claiming ONLY three shots were fired.
> >> >Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of the actual bullets that you have
> >> >been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle,
> >> >and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
>
> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket
> >> >fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet,
> >> >then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet
> >> >in two parts.
>
> >> >Mr. McCLOY - And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from
> >> >one bullet or two separate ones?
>
> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>
> >> >Mr. EISENBERG - When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at
> >> >the minimum?
>
> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - I meant at least two bullets.
>
> >> >Mr. McCLOY - There were at least two different bullets?
>
> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - At least two, yes.
>
> >> >This really sounds unsure to me, but Ben thinks it FAVORS THE WC'S
> >> >CLAIM OF ONE BULLET!
>
> >> I told you that you can't molest cats... stick with larger dogs and sheep.
>
> >Sorry, Ben, see below. YOU said it and now you are trying to distract
> >from the issue by using sick stuff. YOU are a liar and a sicko.
>
> No molester, I *NEVER* said it. I'm beginning to think you enjoy asserting your
> molesting activities.
Ben, you are nutjob and a disgrace to every man and women who has
donned the Marine uniform. YOU said it and I have quoted you saying
it. YOU can't lie your way out of this homo by using YOUR SICK HABITS
on me.
Ben is into animals NOW (perhaps he always was?):
“Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.” (Ben Holmes
– 7/24/09)
He KNOWS it it perverted but he CAN'T help himself!
> >> >=3D93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
> >> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=3D85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
> >> >=3D93It's possible that they did. =A0**Indeed, the odds favor it.**=3D94=
> > (Ben
> >> >Holmes =3D96 7/14/09)
These ARE HIS WORDS and he is lying about them. He is claiming I am
putting words into his mouth when he words are perfectly clear for all
to see. He is claiming a neutral result can FAVOR a side.
> >> >> You're a liar, moron.
>
> >> >You are the liar, and you you are a bad one too.
>
> >> You're a liar, moron.
>
> >YOU are a sicko and a liar WC Shill.
>
> You're a liar, moron.
You are a sicko and a WC Shill.
> >> >> >YOU are the one saying the
> >> >> >inconclusive FAVORED a match,
>
> >> >> Still molesting children, aren't you?
>
> >> >Please, quit projecting your sickness onto me and others. =A0Ben said
> >> >this about his sickness:
>
> >> >=3D93Child molesting is a seriously sick pre-occupation, Rob.=3D94 (Ben =
> >Holmes
> >> >=3D96 12/11/08)
>
> >> >For once Ben is telling the truth, let's hope he gets the help he
> >> >needs.
>
> >> Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.
>
> >It is Ben, SO DON'T DO IT!
>
> Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.
So DON'T DO IT Ben!
But he will. It is big in the gay community I hear and Ben is very
active in this area. He likes to work the turnpikes in Caleeeefornia
and service the truck drivers in the bathroom like George Michael (or
was it "Boy George"?).
> >> >> If you'd ever take the time to *READ* what someone is saying, instead =
> >of =3D
> >> >trying
> >> >> to force your own understanding into someone's mouth, you'd be far mor=
> >e
> >> >> credible.
>
> >> >YOU can explain it to us. Point by point. YOU are the one that
> >> >writes in a cryptic style Ben, I have told you this for a long time.
> >> >I'm sure most people on here would agree you hide your point as your
> >> >main goal is to catch someone in a mistake that you can call a lie.
>
> >> And yet, even when I go into exquisite detail, what we see from you
> >> most often is "Who cares?", then a repeat of your lies.
>
> >Liar, aren't you? YOU never go into "exquisite" detail, you just
> >continue to lie even when your own words are quoted. YOU then use
> >sick distractions to try and bail yourself out.
>
> And yet, even when I go into exquisite detail, what we see from you most often
> is "Who cares?", then a repeat of your lies.
Ben LIES ABOUT HIS OWN WORDS and blames me instead and uses his sick
habits as a distraction.
> >> >> I've previously stated in print, in this forum, TO YOU, that an
> >> >> "inconclusive" does not *FORBID* a match. It also, of course,
> >> >> does not forbid a *NON-MATCH*.
>
> >> >Yes, I have this quote. IT is neutral, that is my point.
>
> >> There is *NOTHING* in that statement that says what you keep asserting I
> >> said.
>
> >BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE STATEMENT I AM REFERRING TO LIAR,
>
> Then why bother to quote it, stupid?
Because it shows you AGREE with me that an inconclusive is a NEUTRAL
answer, thus it shows what I am saying is the same thing you said!
Thus you are lying when you call me a liar.
> >AND YOU KNOW
> >IT! This is the one:
>
> >=93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
> >=93It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it.**=94 (Ben
> >Holmes =96 7/14/09)
>
> That statement doesn't say what you assert either. Your statement that this
> "ALLOWS the shills to claim both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET" was
> answered by me as "It's possible that they did. **Indeed, the odds favor it."
> It says *NOTHING* that supports your lie, moron.
Liar, aren't you? YOU are stating the odds favor both limo fragments
came from ONE bullet, and there is NO way you can prove this because
they were UNABLE to match them! Thus this claim is nothing but
opinion and when you added the "odds favor it" you lied as a neutral
conclusion CANNOT FAVOR A SIDE! I would lie if I said the odds
favored they came from seperate bullets. I have NOT said that though,
have I? This would be a very gray area for the jury to decide, but
most who are NOT familiar with science would lean towards more bullets
simply because they did NOT match. I'm not saying this is correct, it
is just how the average person would think in this case since they
"experts" for the WC could NOT match them.
> "It's possible that they did"
Just as possible they did NOT. That is the point. The odds don't
favor a side liar.
> What's possible?
>
> That the two larger limo fragments came from one bullet.
Yes, it is EQUALLY possible they came from two or more bullets.
> And it is *INDEED* possible.
Just as it is "INDEED" possible they came from two or more bullets.
> "Indeed, the odds favor it"
A neutral conclusion CANNOT FAVOR a side liar.
> Favor what?
>
> That the two larger limo fragments came from one bullet.
>
> How do we know this?
>
> I gave a long answer, and your response was "Who cares?"... so if you are
> interested, you can go look it up again.
There is NO reasoning for your lie. It is a blatant lie. There is AS
MUCH OF A CHANCE THEY CAME FROM TWO OR MORE BULLETS AS IF THEY CAME
FROM ONE. There is NO "favoring" in this area.
> BUT NO-WHERE IN THAT STATEMENT DOES IT SAY "a neutral result, an inconclusive,
> FAVORS a side (a match)"
Doesn't have to as I made it clear that WC shills say they came from
ONE bullet and you said the "odds favor it." YOU lied and you lie
again by claiming I am putting words into your mouth. YOU are a liar.
> You can continue to lie, moron, and I'll continue to make public your child &
> animal molesting emails, or you can start debating what I ACTUALLY say, and
> provide citations.
I AM DEBATING WHAT YOU SAY, YOU ARE LYING ABOUT IT AND BLAIMING ME TO
DISTRACT! Make those invisible emails public as I have NEVER emailed
in my life and never will. YOU are a despicable man who uses the
dreadful sin of child molestation as a debate tactic. Jesus is
watching you Ben Holmes and you better repent or you will be spending
a long time in the lake of fire.
> Your choice.
Threats don't scare me. I am being honest in what you said WITHOUT
EDITING like you do to me. I did NOT tell you to say "odds favor" a
match when we are dealing with a neutral answer, you did that ALL BY
YOURSELF.
YOUR sickness will not stop me, only a retraction of YOUR lie will.
> >So we see all that sick stuff Ben has been using for me "putting words
> >into his mouth" is just ANOTHER lie by him.
DEAD SILENCE.
> >> >> I've *NEVER* stated that an inconclusive finding *FAVORS* one or the o=
> >ther.
>
> >> >What is this:
>
> >> >=3D93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
> >> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=3D85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
> >> >=3D93It's possible that they did. =A0**Indeed, the odds favor it.**=3D94=
> > (Ben
> >> >Holmes =3D96 7/14/09)
>
> >> The odds *DO* favor that the two larger fragments came from one bullet.
> >> I even detailed the explanation why, and you pulled your "Who Cares?" answer.
>
> >WC Shill aren't you? A neutral conclusion CANNOT FAVOR an outcome
> >liar.
>
> And yet, there's a person in jail now because the ballistics came back
> "inconclusive" - as in the court case I cited.
I'm sure they used NAA to do this. IF not, they had strong evidence
in other areas. I have said an inconclusive BY ITSELF proves nothing
(and favors nothing). Surely you are NOT suggesting the WC had strong
evidence of LHO's guilt in other areas, are you?
> >There is NO firm proof either way for the two fragments so to
> >insist they FAVOR being from one bullet is a lie.
>
> The "inconclusive" result is not what "favors" the two fragments as coming from
> one bullet. The *odds* do that - as I explained.
ODDS are not relevant in a court of law. This is NOT Las Vegas. YOU
are lying to the benefit of the WC. Tis that simple.
> Why can't you understand that, moron?
I don't try and understand why you lie, I just point them out.
> >> IT DOES NOT STATE THAT AN "INCONCLUSIVE FINDING *FAVORS* ONE OR THE OTHER".
>
> >YOU are saying it
>
> Then all you have to do is QUOTE ME SAYING IT!
Already did liar, like hundred times. YOUR denial of it does NOT
change the FACT you are lying.
> But until you do, I'm going to continue to make your emails concerning your
> molesting activities public.
Go ahead as I know I have NEVER emailed you in my life and never plan
to either. YOU are the ONE with a sickness so great it is scary. HOW
could Ben think any "lurker" would ever side with him when he displays
this kind of sickness? IF he is a CTer, and that is a BIG IF, I am so
embarrased and disgusted by him.
> >and the only thing you can base this on is the
> >inconclusive.
>
> How can that be, stupid? I *SAID* that I base that statement on the odds. You
> know, probability theory... something you can't understand.
YOU CANNOT PROVE ODDS LIAR. Nice try.
The odds are the same for them coming from two or more bullets as
well. YOU are a blatant liar.
> >YOU are a liar no matter how you slice it.
>
> >> You're sick when you begin molesting animals Robert Caprio.
>
> >YOU are sick liar who will use any attempt to DISTORT his own lies. I
> >have NOT put words into your mouth, you did that all by yourself
> >sicko.
>
> And yet, you can't seem to quote me saying what you're asserting that I said...
> why is that, moron?
I have done it many times, YOUR DENIAL of what it means does NOT
change this FACT. YOU are claiming the "odds favor" a match when you
CANNOT PROVE this as all you have to go on is a NEUTRAL conclusion.
YOU are a liar and a WC Shill.
> >> >I didn't type this and claim you said it Ben, thus your sick child
> >> >molesting comments are off base. YOU said it, and I'm just calling
> >> >you on it.
Dead Silence.
> >> I said what I ACTUALLY said, not what you try to twist it into.
>
> >ONLY you see that way as the point is there was NO firm proof the
> >bullets came from one bullet (or two) so it is a lie for anyone to
> >claim they did.
>
> Then you'll have to label yourself a liar, as you've claimed that the two larger
> fragments came from *TWO* bullets... based on the "inconclusive" results.
I knew this liar would try this eventually. Show me where I said the
ODDS FAVOR them coming from two bullets? I may have said my OPINION
is they did at one point a year and half ago (I know I have NOT said
that in this go round) BUT I never said the odds favor they did.
As I said before, most normal jurors would assume they did come from
two or more bullets because they are unfamiliar with scientific
results, so the FACT they could NOT match them would lead most to
suspect they were NOT from one bullet or they would have gotten a
match. I'm NOT saying this correct in the scientific world, but it is
correct in the REAL world.
> >YOU claimed it, thus you lied,
>
> The odds favor the sun rising tomorrow.
Nice try, but that is NOT the same thing. YOU lied, just admit it and
retract and we can move on.
It has to burn Ben that a "moron" constantly shows what a liar he is
and he has failed to show me to be a liar once.
> >but instead of being a
> >man about it you are lying even more and using sick stuff to save
> >yourself.
>
> Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
> number does Robert Caprio favor?
We have been over this and your claim of the "odds favoring" a match
has shown my point so clearly. There are two outcomes that are FIRM
PROOF. A third outcome is meaningless by itself and CANNOT FAVOR A
SIDE.
> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>
> Okay... three.
>
> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>
> Oops... just two.
>
> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>
> Yep... again, only two.
>
> Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will
> he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
Ben, you have major lies to deal with and wasting time on things that
are not lies by me is NOT how you should be spending your time. See
above for details. YOU even agree with me and have said so.
> >> >I said the inconclusive allows LNers and shills to claim the two
> >> >fragments came from one bullet and you said "It's possible they did."
>
> >> It *IS* possible that the two fragments came from one bullet.
>
> >Just as much as if they came from two! That is the point liar.
>
> No, *NOT* "just as much". The odds would favor one bullet.
So he continues the lie folks. HOW can a NEUTRAL result FAVOR a side?
> Let me give you a simple analogy, which I'm sure you *STILL* won't understand.
> Let's toss $5 worth of pennies into that limo. One of them hits the door's
> armrest and balances on it's edge. You remark - "What are the odds of *that*
> happening?" I'll reply that no matter what the odds, the odds against *TWO*
> pennies balancing on their edge in that limo is quite a bit higher.
This is another wasted and stupid analogy, but what can one expect
from Ben and Walt? There were SCIENTIFIC tests involved in trying to
match the two limo fragments (which have NO chain of custody by the
way) that included testing their ORGANIC COMPOUNDS! This is hardly
the same as "tossing pennies" into the limo. NOW if they cut up the
pennies and tested them in the same ways it would be like the tests
done on the two limo fragments.
> Same with bullets. You have one bullet that broke into three pieces, and the
> middle piece is missing.
This is a CLAIM liar, it is NOT a fact. HOW can one determine
anything IF you don't even know if the premise is correct! There is
no proof ONE bullet broke into three pieces, now is there?
> Now the odds that you will find just the nose, and
> just the base of a bullet, with the middle part missing, is certainly quite
> high, but the odds of TWO bullets, each fragmenting into three pieces, BOTH
> middle pieces missing, and *ONE* nose from one bullet, and *ONE* base from the
> other bullet, being all that's left, is quite a bit higher.
So Ben is admitting he is giving odds to a scenario he CAN'T EVEN
PROVE is correct, huh? YOUR first step is to prove ONE FMJ bullet
broke into THREE pieces. Then you have to prove this ONE FMJ bullet
was ever INSIDE JFK and/or JBC to make it relevant to the case. Can
you do this?
Secondly, the two fragments they did have did NOT match each other, so
you are left with conjecture even IF you could prove the first one.
> Thus, the odds favor the two larger fragments coming from *ONE* bullet.
ONLY in your convoluted WC Shill world. Prove the ONE FMJ broke into
three pieces and was ever inside JFK and/or JBC first. Then explain
IF they came from the same bullet why they did NOT match?
> Now, last time I explained this we got your "Who cares?" answer. I suspect this
> time we'll hear whining about my analogy, and how it has nothing to do with
> bullet fragments.
It doesn't, and you are taking the CLAIM OF THE WC literally when they
never proved it in the first place.
> But it doesn't matter... Lurkers will understand.
The ONLY lurkers who will "understand" are those that support the WC's
conclusion.
> >> GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, MORON!
>
> >Read below, I didn't say there was anything wrong with that, now did
> >I? I want a retraction!
>
> Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
> number does Robert Caprio favor?
He is so dishonest, he can't even offer a retraction for a simple lie
like this one.
> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>
> Okay... three.
>
> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>
> Oops... just two.
>
> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>
> Yep... again, only two.
>
> Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will
> he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
>
> >> >Nothing wrong with that as they could have just as much as the could
> >> >NOT have. But then you shot yourself in the foot with the next part.
> >> >"Indeed, the odds favor it." This went to far as there are NO odds
> >> >favoring a match over a non-match in this case of an inconclusive.
>
> >> I even went into detail on the odds, and you ran from it, stupid.
>
> >YOU are a pathetic liar Ben. YOU CANNOT show any cites that will
> >claim a neutral conclusion CAN FAVOR one outcome,
>
> Why would I cite for *YOUR* assertion, moron?
NO, you made it and NOW are running from it. What a coward.
> >if they do, they are
> >liars like you!
>
> >> >YOU LIED.
>
> >DEAD SILENCE.
>
> I *KNOW* you lied... here it is again:
And yet you CAN'T SHOW I LIED, AND IN FACT YOU AGREED WITH ME!
“Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no
non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
the test.” (Ben Holmes – 7/23/09)
Thanks for the support!
>
> Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
> number does Robert Caprio favor?
>
> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>
> Okay... three.
>
> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>
> Oops... just two.
>
> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>
> Yep... again, only two.
>
> Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will
> he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
>
> >> >This has NOTHING to do with me and my interpretation, but I can see
> >> >how you would like to make that the issue instead of your blatant lie.
>
> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>
> >I am not the one who makes lies and then is too stupid to hide them,
> >that is YOU! Show us how a neutral conclusion has "odds favoring" one
> >side over another again!
>
> Stupid, aren't you? Don't you think you should first quote me *saying* what you
> keep asserting?
YOU said the odds favor a match and then you give us some stupid
analogy as your reasoning? Come on liar, we know you are a WC Shill.
I don't refute UNPROVEN claims you make. That is your job.
> So how can it be a "lie"?
There is no way to prove ONE FMJ broke into three pieces in the first
place AFTER it exited JFK as the WC claimed, thus your WHOLE reasoning
is based on an UNSUPPORTED CLAIM. To support this claim in anyway will
only lead to more lies and you proved that for us.
> >> >YOU lie and attack me with your sickness
> >> >when you said the ODDS FAVOR A MATCH like the WC and LNers claim.
>
> >> The odds *DO* favor a match. The odds that the two fragments come from one
> >> bullet are considerably more likely than the odds AGAINST the theory that
> >> they came from two bullets.
>
> >Liar, aren't you?
>
> And yet, you can't seem to cite...
Don't have to cite for common sense.
YOU used a faulty premise as IF it were a FACT and then lied about
what it meant JUST LIKE THE WC DID!
> >How can an neutral conclusion FAVOR one side over
> >another.
>
> Keep fighting your strawman, stupid.
YOU said the "odds favor" a match, didn't you?
> > Will he ever explain this in a sentence for us?
>
> >> But you apparently don't understand this.
>
> >I don't waste time understanding lies, I just point out that you lied.
>
> But you apparently don't understand this.
>
> >> >I did NOT put any words into your mouth. YOU are a dispicable liar.
>
> >> Child molester... and now moving into molesting animals. "dispicable"
> >> indeed!
>
> >At least you are honest ABOUT SOMETHING! Ben is now attacking
> >harmless little animals, but I heard this was popular in the gay
> >community.
>
> >Lurkers, notice how he lies about his own words! I am quoting his OWN
> >WORDS and he is lying and saying I am putting words into his mouth.
>
> Child molester... and now moving into molesting animals. "dispicable" indeed!
Ben loves animals and "Gay Brazilian Grappling" (codeword for gay sex)
as he writes articles about it.
> >> >> Do you suppose that you could go even *one* week without molesting any=
> > ch=3D
> >> >ildren?
>
> >> >I have gone a lifetime sicko. =A0YOU are the ADMITTED molester,
> >> >remember?
>
> >> >=3D93Molesting neighborhood children again...=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 2/8=
> >/07)
>
> >> >> >YOU also are listening to Walt too much and he will sink you as the D=
> >PD
> >> >> >never mentioned a copper-jacketed bullet in the Walker shooting.
> >> >> >There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker.
>
> >> >> Yes, moron, there is.
>
> >> >LOL!! Where is it? I'm NOT taking about the WC's lies of evidence,
>
> >> In other words, you know it exists, you'll just deny it.
>
> >There is NO evidence that puts LHO at the scene. Even the ONLY
> >witness did NOT describe a person who looked like LHO.
>
> In other words, you know it exists, you'll just deny it.
I know all the evidence in this case, but it fails to prove what you
assert it proves. YOU are a liar.
> >> >show us where in the official DPD report of the incident does it
> >> >mention a copper-jacketed bullet?
>
> >> >> Whether it's credible or persuasive, is another matter... but when you=
> > si=3D
> >> >mply
> >> >> deny that any evidence exists, your just a moron.
>
> >> >YOU call fake stuff evidence, I don't.
>
> >> You refer to ANYTHING that doesn't fit your preconceived theory as
> >> "fake", and worry not at all that you can't provide evidence, citation,
> >> or even logical argument to support your silly assertions.
>
> >Ben, the bullet presented by the WC as the bullet in the Walker
> >shooting is NOT the type of bullet found at the scene. They failed to
> >call the cop who found it. Walker even said the bullet was NOT the
> >same type he saw. YOU have said this yourself, so why are YOU now
> >lying about this?
>
> Where's the lie, moron?
YOU are supporting CE573 by saying I claim everything is "fake" IF I
don't agree with, remember?
> >I wonder IF Ben can quote me saying I claim everything is fake when it
> >doesn't fit my pre-conceived, silly assertions? I smell another lie.
>
> Why would I quote you on your behavior?
CE573 is fake, but I don't have to claim it as like so much other
evidence in this case it HAS NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY, thus it is
worthless.
> >The DPD report is the ONLY evidence I need.
>
> And yet, when it came to the inventory, the DPD report was the only thing YOU
> DID NOT NEED!
Because the was put together with an illegal search! \
> Another excellent example - you pick and choose the evidence according to your
> faith, and not according to logic and evidence.
Nice try WC Shill, but I accept all the evidence the WC gave us and
then I show how it is wrong or worthless. YOU seem to accept it and
state it supports the assertion it is tied to in most cases. WC
Shill, aren't you?
> >That is the official
> >evidence for the Walker shooting, NOT the junk the WC gave us. The WC
> >does NOT override the DPD in that case, so why is Ben lying and acting
> >like they do?
>
> Moron, aren't you?
So to say the DPD is the official evidence in a case that happened in
April 1963 is equivalent to being a "moron" to Ben. What a liar this
guy is, huh?
> >> >Show us that the bullet the WC
> >> >gave us is the real bullet fired at Walker! =A0I dare you!
>
> >> Rather stupid of the DPD to substitute a bullet that cannot be tied
> >> to the MC, isn't it?
>
> >Why?
>
> Another illustration, if we needed it, that you're a moron.
IF you wouLD stop EDITING you would see the rest below! See the
dishonest things Ben has to do to make a claim?
> >They knew they would have liars like you and Walt to say, it is
> >copper jacketed and even though it couldn't be matched to the MC it
> >could still have been fired by it! "Indeed, the odds FAVOR it!"
See? He SKIPS the rest of it.
> >Nice try WC shill, but we are on to you.
>
> >> >> You seem to have the same problem that LNT'ers do with evidence. =3DA0=
> >You s=3D
> >> >imply
> >> >> decide for yourself what the facts are.
>
> >> >As you said:
>
> >> >=3D93You seem confused... I accept their *EVIDENCE*, I can make my own
> >> >conclusions.
> >> >That's why God gave me a brain, to use it.
>
> >> >I accept *ALL* DPD evidence
>
> >> Then you *KNOW FOR A FACT* that evidence exists... but just above, you were
> >> denying it.
>
> >I deny it is genuine, NOT THAT IT EXISTS!
>
> Then you shouldn't say that there is no evidence.
That can withstand a cross-examination or even be allowed into a court
of law. Ben has a problem with this area as he thinks things with NO
chain of custody are evidence even though NO court would allow them to
be admitted into the record. ALL LNers have a problem with this area,
NOT just Ben, as they claim this would NOT bar their evidence, but
they are liars. Ben, like ALL LNers, argues we are NOT in a court of
law as if murder cases are tried on the internet!
> >WHY must you lie
> >constantly?
>
> Stay away from mirrors when you type such sentences...
Liar, aren't you? WC Shill, aren't you?
> >> Lied, didn't you?
>
> >LOL!!! NO you did.
>
> Lied, didn't you?
>
> >> >that isn't contradicted by other evidence,
> >> >and that
> >> >appears untainted by the frameup being conducted.
>
> >> >The **"steel jacket"** was found to be very inconvenient for people
> >> >such as you, so
> >> >you simply ignore it... don't you?=3D94 (Bendsie Holmes =3D96 1/27/06)
>
> >> >Funny Benita didn't have this understanding take on the issue when he
> >> >attacked Todd Vaughn, huh? ONLY when Walt is involved do we get the
> >> >nice Benita.
>
> >Dead silence.
>
> Green smelly monkeys playing with a giraffe.
See you quote him and he runs and lies. What a dispicable man.
> >> >Ben knows the bullet found at the scene was steel-jacketed as he says
> >> >so above, but NOW he and WALT ARE IGNORING IT! =A0But he claims I am
> >> >ingoring it. =A0I smell another post in my "Provable Lies of Ben Holmes"
> >> >series!
>
> >> I've told you before, moron, the evidence is contradictory. But you can't
> >> simply deny it exists.
>
> >I'm NOT denying it,
>
> "There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker."
More EDITING! THERE ISN'T AS THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU GOT (AS ALL WC
SHILLS HAVE) IS LACKING IN A CHAIN OF CUSTODY, THUS IT IS WORTHLESS!
> >YOU and Walt are! I know the WC gave us a copper
> >jacketed bullet, but I am saying it is NOT the bullet that was found
> >at the scene. Why must you lie constantly?
>
> >YOU know what this means in Ben's world? Yep, the "Teabag Champ" has
> >struck again. He is really in "Gay Brazilian Grappling" (i.e. this
> >means gay sex) as he writes about it. It seems he likes small animals
> >too. Sshhh.
>
> Don't worry, Rob; I have no intention of releasing your emails publicly.
OF course NOT as this is JUST ANOTHER LIE BY YOU! Ben can't stop
lying.
> >> Lt. Day's testimony exists. That's simply a fact.
>
> >He testified, that is a fact, what he said is NOT a fact.
>
> You seem to have the idea that in order to be called "evidence", it must "prove"
> your preconceived theory.
Quote me saying that? Testimony is a claim, NOT a fact.
> Sadly for you, not true.
Of course NOT, that is why I NEVER SAID IT LIAR! What I have said is
the strongest evidence DOES prove something and the WC seemed totally
lacking in this kind of evidence in regards to the shootings in this
case.
Liar, aren't you? That has ALWAYS been my assertion.
> >Good luck with disproving that one.
>
> Don't need "luck"... just your own words:
Go ahead, but let's show everyone HOW YOU AGREED WITH ME FIRST, OKAY?
“Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no
non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
the test.” (Ben Holmes – 7/23/09)
See? Two firm outcomes and one inconclusive (neutral) outcome. Ben of
course is adding the word "proof" to the inconclusive when it is
apparent to everyon it just reflects NO match or a non-match was NOT
reached.
> Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
> number does Robert Caprio favor?
>
> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>
> Okay... three.
>
> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>
> Oops... just two.
>
> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>
> Yep... again, only two.
>
> Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And will
> he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doing?
>
> >> >I have made my point very clear and you HAVE AGREED
> >> >WITH ME!
>
> >> No moron, simply untrue.
>
> >YOU agreed with me liar.
>
> No moron, simply untrue.
“Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no
non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
the test.” (Ben Holmes – 7/23/09)
> >> >So once again, IF I'm lying you are lying because you said
> >> >this?
>
> >> >=3D93Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is n=
> >o
> >> >non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
> >> >the test.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 7/23/09)
>
> >> >That has been my point from the beginning, if you want PROOF you get
> >> >two results, IF you want everything you get three.
>
> >> How many "possible outcomes" are there, moron?
>
> >See above liar.
>
> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>
> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>
> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>
> >> >> >YOU OTOH claim a neutral result, an
> >> >> >inconclusive, FAVORS a side (a match). =3DA0NOW that is a lie.
>
> >> >> Indeed, your STATEMENT is a lie.
>
> >> >YOU are the liar, and you even lie about YOUR OWN WORDS!
>
> >> Animals will not be any better than small children, molester.
>
> >Ben is speaking from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE! Lurkers, see how DESPERATE
> >BEN IS?
>
> Molesting again, aren't you? Society doesn't recognize sex with animals *OR*
> small children as desirable conduct.
Ben WOULD KNOW ABOUT WHAT SOCIETY ACCEPTS IN THESE AREAS SINCE HIS
SICKNESS DATES TO WHEN HE WAS A KID!
> >> >> You assert that I've claimed something that I've never claimed.
>
> >> >Liar, aren't you?
>
> >> >=3D93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
> >> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=3D85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>
> >> >=3D93It's possible that they did. =A0**Indeed, the odds favor it.**=3D94=
> > (Ben
> >> >Holmes =3D96 7/14/09)
>
> >> >Is this denial routine the best you can do?
>
> >> I do appreciate that you quote my words - that way, lurkers can see
> >> that I did *NOT* say what you keep asserting.
>
> >YOU asserted the "odds favored" the two fragments coming from one
> >bullet,
>
> Yes... the odds do indeed "favor" the two fragments as coming from one bullet.
ONLY based on a false premise that was NEVER even attempted to be
proven. Ben likes the lies of the WC and then he claims they are
FACT, thus he is a liar too!
> >but that is a lie because they only got an inconclusive (a
> >neutral) conclusion, thus they CANNOT favor either side.
>
> Then you're labeling *YOURSELF* a liar when you kept trying to assert that these
> two fragments came from two bullets...
Prove it. I gave an opinion at most, I never said the "odds favor it"
based on the inconclusive. The liar is up to more tricks.
> Rather stupid of you, isn't it?
Never did it, so no it isn't.
> >YOU are a
> >liar and a WC shill!
>
> >> It's apparent that you're simply too stupid to figure it out...
>
> >NO, you are too stupid to think anyone is going to fall for your
> >lies. We all know what you said and what you meant Ben. YOU will not
> >change that with sick comments, you ONLY further show what a nutjob
> >you are.
>
> >Ben says a neutral conclusion FAVORS a side,
>
> Did you really like sheep better than the horse?
Ben likes RHETORICAL questions to himself. I would guess would like a
sheep better because he is soooooo short!
Walt
I can't answer for Ben but, I KNOW the DPD created fake photos of the
so called "Sniper's Nest" and gave them to the Warren Commission and
then swore that they were taken of the so called "sniper's nest"
before anything was disturbed. I KNOW this to be a FACT and so could
you.... if you'd get your head outta yer ass and do some honest
research.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip found at the
scene. And IF IF IF that rifle had been fired from the so called
"Sniper's Nest" there SHOULD have been a clip lying on the
floor....THAT is a FACT!! There was a clip in the rifle that they
overlooked, simply because the cops didn't know anything about a
Mannlicher Carcano. There WAS a clip in the rifle that the person who
hid the rifle put there BEFORE the shooting, and BEFORE he hid it
INSIDE a cavern of boxes. We can see with our own eyes that there was
a clip in the rifle when Lt Day left the TSBD with the rifle, because
it it sticking out of the port on the bottom of the rifle. It is
hanging precariously out of the rifle and about to fall completely
out...but Lt. Day is blissfully unaware that the clip is about to drop
out. At that point in time he probably wouldn't have known the
importance of that clip. ie; The Mannlicher Carcano is useless as a
firearm if there is no clip with the rifle. It cannot be used as a
single shot rifle. The clip is an integral part of the loading
mechanism and if there is no clip the gun is useless as a firearm. I
doubt that Day knew the clip was hanging there and about to drop out
and become lost.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 26, 12:56=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <6eb0df7f-dcda-4674-91cc-b6f8cadb1...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>
>
>> >> >> >They did SAY THIS via Frazier.
>>
>e W=3D
>> >alker
>> >> >> bullet nor the two larger limo fragments... Frazier did *NOT* state=
> th=3D
>> >at
>> >> >> there was no match.
>>
>> >> >First of all, I will not even discuss the Walker bullet
>>
>> >> Then why are you willing to lie, then run away when I defy you to
>> >> produce a citation supporting what you said?
>>
>a
>> >sick distraction (child molestation) beyond you?
>>
>> Then why are you willing to lie, then run away when I defy you to
>> produce a citation supporting what you said?
>
>NOTICE HOW Ben EDITED this point.
No editing performed.
>There is NO chain of custody for
>the WC's alleged bullet (CE573) in the Walker case yet he seperated
>this from the point above as this is why it is a waste of time to
>discuss this bullet.
Then why are you willing to lie, then run away when I defy you to produce a
citation supporting what you said?
>> >> >because we
>> >> >know there is NO chain of custody for it and it does NOT match the
>> >> >type of bullet in the DPD report immediately after the shooting. Thus
>> >> >the bullet presented by the WC is NOT the bullet fired at Walker.
>>
>> >> Pretty stupid of the DPD not to produce a bullet fired out of the MC.
>>
>> >Why?
>>
>> I'm quite sure that that one simply went right over your head. Why don't
>> you pretend to be the DPD, trying to frame Oswald, and tell *US* what
>> you would do?
>
>How does Ben know it was the DPD who framed LHO?
I really didn't think you'd have the intelligence to do so...
I was right...
>> Maybe then, you'll figure it out.
>
>I know what you are saying, why put a bullet into play that could NOT
>be linked to the MC. Who knows? That calls for speculation, and I'm
>not going there. The point is someone did do that as CE573 is NOT the
>bullet that was found at Walker's house on 4/10/63. Why don't you
>share your evidence for us that shows it was the DPD who did this?
You *FIRST* must establish that it wasn't the same bullet. But citations seem
beyond you...
>> >The Walker shooting happened in April of 1963, they had NO way of
>> >knowing the MC would be the alleged assassination rifle in late
>> >November of 1963. =A0NOW did they?
>>
>> This is sheer nonsense, stupid.
>
>ONLY to a WC shill.
And yet, you can't defend it.
>> You're implying that bullets were swapped, BUT SWAPPED BACK IN APRIL
>> OF 1963??? How stupid is that?
>
>Who has the reading problem now? I am NOT implying that at all.
Then why did 'they' have to know anything at all back in April, moron?
>What I am saying is the bullet recovered at the scene was mentioned as a
>"steel jacketed" type in the DPD report. Many media outlets reported
>it as being of a 30.06 caliber as well. Thus, how did we wind up with
>a copper jacketed 6.5mm version for the WC's exhibits?
>
>YOU know the penalty for putting words into my mouth so I warn you to
>stop.
All you have to do, moron, is quote me.
>> If bullets were swapped, they were SWAPPED AT THE TIME WHEN THEY KNEW
>> WHAT WEAPON IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN FIRED OUT OF!
>
>I am NOT mentioning swapped, YOU are.
Then tell us why anyone had to know *anything* back in April.
But you won't.
Moron...
>I am asking you to explain how
>the WC presented a bullet TOTALLY different from the one found at the
>scene. I'll let others decide how this happened for themselves.
Of course you will, you cannot provide any logical explanation.
>> Even a moron can figure this out...
>
>Agreed, so tell us who did it then. YOU said it was the DPD, do you
>have evidence for this?
I said *WHAT*... quote me, moron.
>> >They reported what was found, and it was NOT a copper jacketed bullet.
>>
>> >> That's even more stupidity than I would attribute to you.
>
>See, he SKIPS this part.
Those were, in fact, my words.
Moron, aren't you?
>> >YOU are the stupid one, and a liar to boot. =A0Show us how the DPD would
>> >know the MC would be the alleged murder weapon used by LHO in late
>> >November in APRIL! =A0I dare you!
>>
>> Sorry stupid, I don't play games with strawmen. I'm not, unfortunately
>> for you, a moron - so I don't have to pretend that any bullet swapping
>> must have been done before the DPD knew which rifle was involved.
>
>That was NOT my point!
What did anyone have to "know" in April, moron?
>My point was they reported honestly in 4/63 as
>to what type of bullet was fired at Walker because they had NO idea
>they would need to link a copper jacketed bullet to LHO in 11/63!
>ONLY Walt is insisted LHO fired at Walker with his Carcano, but Ben
>has NO problem with that part, how come?
Because the evidence is contradictory, stupid.
>> >> >Frazier was NOT the right man to be even discussing this as he lacked
>> >> >spectographic credentials in the first place.
>>
>> >> Do you even understand what you're saying?
>>
>> >Yes, bullet comparison coming from one bullet was outside of Frazier's
>> >expertise as you need a chemistry background. Frazier was a firearms
>> >ID expert meaning he specialized in matching guns and bullets, but NOT
>> >bullet fragments to each other.
>>
>> Yep... I didn't think you understood it. *STILL* can't find that other
>> pencil.
>
>Don't need to as Gallagher said they did NOT match and he had the
>EXPERTISE to know.
I defy you to produce such testimony.
But you won't. So I'll go ahead and label you a liar right now.
>> "bullet comparison coming from one bullet" is done just the same as
>> comparing one bullet with another 'test' bullet. You examine lands
>> & grooves with a comparison microscope... or you match up areas that
>> were next to each other.
Dead silence...
>> >> >John F. Gallagher was
>> >> >the man with the background for this type of testing, but the WC
>> >> >waited UNTIL 9/15/64 to depose him and then spent less than an hour
>> >> >with him.
>>
>> >> >Mr. REDLICH. Very briefly, what has been the nature of your
>> >> >affiliation with the FBI?
>>
>> >> >Mr. GALLAGHER. The greater part of that 18 years I have been assigned
>> >> >to the FBI Laboratory, and in particular to the Physics and Chemistry
>> >> >Section. I work in the spectrographic unit of the FBI Laboratory.
>>
>> >> >Gallagher did the actual tests on the two fragments to see if they
>> >> >came from the same bullet or not, but he was kept at arms length by
>> >> >the WC. =3DA0Here is what Frazier testified to on this matter regardi=
>ng
>> >> >the two fragments.
>>
>> >> > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567;
>> >> >and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
>>
>> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>>
>> >> >Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>>
>> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - **There is not enough of the two fragments in
>> >> >unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments
>> >> >actually fit together.**
>> >> >However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, suc=
>h
>> >> >as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section
>> >> >of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
>> >> >course, they could be parts of separate bullets.
>>
>> >> >This is called tap-dancing. It could be, but then it could be not.
>>
>> >> Doesn't matter *what* you call it, you clearly don't understand it.
>>
>> >Right, it is a a neutral conclusion, thus it CANNOT FAVOR an outcome
>> >as you claim.
>>
>> Doesn't matter *what* you call it, you clearly don't understand it. Never
>> *DID* find that second pencil, did you?
>
>It is a neutral conclusion, it does NOT favor a match or a non-match!
Yep... that's true.
>ONLY liars like you and the WC claim it favors a MATCH side to keep
>the bullets fired to three so you can still blame LHO.
And yet, you can't quote me making any such assertion.
>> And because you never did, you never demonstrated that you understood
>> what the topic was that Frazier is discussing.
>
>I don't debate strawmen. The point is you GOT NO MATCH, thus you have
>NO way of claiming ONLY three shots were fired.
It was not *POSSIBLE* to get a match, even if the middle section of the bullet
was removed while Frazier was watching.
>> >> >Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of the actual bullets that you hav=
>e
>> >> >been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle,
>> >> >and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
>>
>> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacke=
>t
>> >> >fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet,
>> >> >then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet
>> >> >in two parts.
>>
>> >> >Mr. McCLOY - And you cannot tell whether these two particles came fro=
>m
>> >> >one bullet or two separate ones?
>>
>> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>>
>> >> >Mr. EISENBERG - When you say "two at the maximum," do you mean two at
>> >> >the minimum?
>>
>> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - I meant at least two bullets.
>>
>> >> >Mr. McCLOY - There were at least two different bullets?
>>
>> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - At least two, yes.
>>
>> >> >This really sounds unsure to me, but Ben thinks it FAVORS THE WC'S
>> >> >CLAIM OF ONE BULLET!
>>
>> >> I told you that you can't molest cats... stick with larger dogs and sh=
>eep.
>>
>> >Sorry, Ben, see below. YOU said it and now you are trying to distract
>> >from the issue by using sick stuff. YOU are a liar and a sicko.
>>
>> No molester, I *NEVER* said it. I'm beginning to think you enjoy
>> asserting your molesting activities.
>
>Ben, you are nutjob and a disgrace to every man and women who has
>donned the Marine uniform. YOU said it and I have quoted you saying
>it. YOU can't lie your way out of this homo by using YOUR SICK HABITS
>on me.
>
>Ben is into animals NOW (perhaps he always was?):
>
>=93Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.=94 (Ben Holmes
>=96 7/24/09)
>
>He KNOWS it it perverted but he CAN'T help himself!
No molester, I *NEVER* said it. I'm beginning to think you enjoy asserting your
molesting activities.
>> >> >=3D3D93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to cl=
>aim
>> >> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=3D3D85 (Robert, edited by Be=
>n)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93It's possible that they did. =3DA0**Indeed, the odds favor it.=
>**=3D3D94=3D
>> > (Ben
>> >> >Holmes =3D3D96 7/14/09)
>
>These ARE HIS WORDS and he is lying about them. He is claiming I am
>putting words into his mouth when he words are perfectly clear for all
>to see. He is claiming a neutral result can FAVOR a side.
No molester, Never said any such thing. Indeed, when I went into detail
explaining this, your comment was "Who cares?".
>> >> >> You're a liar, moron.
>>
>> >> >You are the liar, and you you are a bad one too.
>>
>> >> You're a liar, moron.
>>
>> >YOU are a sicko and a liar WC Shill.
>>
>> You're a liar, moron.
>
>You are a sicko and a WC Shill.
You're a liar, moron.
>> >> >> >YOU are the one saying the
>> >> >> >inconclusive FAVORED a match,
>>
>> >> >> Still molesting children, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >Please, quit projecting your sickness onto me and others. =3DA0Ben sa=
>id
>> >> >this about his sickness:
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Child molesting is a seriously sick pre-occupation, Rob.=3D3D9=
>4 (Ben =3D
>> >Holmes
>> >> >=3D3D96 12/11/08)
>>
>> >> >For once Ben is telling the truth, let's hope he gets the help he
>> >> >needs.
>>
>> >> Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.
>>
>> >It is Ben, SO DON'T DO IT!
>>
>> Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.
>
>So DON'T DO IT Ben!
>
>But he will. It is big in the gay community I hear and Ben is very
>active in this area. He likes to work the turnpikes in Caleeeefornia
>and service the truck drivers in the bathroom like George Michael (or
>was it "Boy George"?).
Moving to molesting animals is still perverted, Robert.
>> >> >> If you'd ever take the time to *READ* what someone is saying, inste=
>ad =3D
>> >of =3D3D
>> >> >trying
>> >> >> to force your own understanding into someone's mouth, you'd be far =
>mor=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> credible.
>>
>> >> >YOU can explain it to us. Point by point. =A0YOU are the one that
>> >> >writes in a cryptic style Ben, I have told you this for a long time.
>> >> >I'm sure most people on here would agree you hide your point as your
>> >> >main goal is to catch someone in a mistake that you can call a lie.
>>
>> >> And yet, even when I go into exquisite detail, what we see from you
>> >> most often is "Who cares?", then a repeat of your lies.
>>
>> >Liar, aren't you? =A0YOU never go into "exquisite" detail, you just
>> >continue to lie even when your own words are quoted. =A0YOU then use
>> >sick distractions to try and bail yourself out.
>>
>> And yet, even when I go into exquisite detail, what we see from you
>> most often is "Who cares?", then a repeat of your lies.
>
>Ben LIES ABOUT HIS OWN WORDS and blames me instead and uses his sick
>habits as a distraction.
And yet, even when I go into exquisite detail, what we see from you most often
is "Who cares?", then a repeat of your lies.
>> >> >> I've previously stated in print, in this forum, TO YOU, that an
>> >> >> "inconclusive" does not *FORBID* a match. It also, of course,
>> >> >> does not forbid a *NON-MATCH*.
>>
>> >> >Yes, I have this quote. IT is neutral, that is my point.
>>
>> >> There is *NOTHING* in that statement that says what you keep asserting=
> I
>> >> said.
>>
>> >BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE STATEMENT I AM REFERRING TO LIAR,
>>
>> Then why bother to quote it, stupid?
>
>Because it shows you AGREE with me that an inconclusive is a NEUTRAL
>answer,
Of course, stupid. But "neutral" isn't precisely correct either, since I gave
you a citation of a court case where a man was convicted *WITH* an
"inconclusive" ballistics test. I rather doubt that *he* thought it was
"neutral".
It's as valid a result as a match or a non-match... and has meaning.
>thus it shows what I am saying is the same thing you said!
>Thus you are lying when you call me a liar.
>
>
>> >AND YOU KNOW
>> >IT! =A0This is the one:
>>
>> >=3D93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to claim
>> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=3D85 (Robert, edited by Ben)
>>
>> >=3D93It's possible that they did. =A0**Indeed, the odds favor it.**=3D94=
> (Ben
>> >Holmes =3D96 7/14/09)
>>
>> That statement doesn't say what you assert either. =A0Your statement that=
> this
>> "ALLOWS the shills to claim both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET" was
>> answered by me as "It's possible that they did. =A0**Indeed, the odds fav=
>or it."
>> It says *NOTHING* that supports your lie, moron.
>
>Liar, aren't you?
How can explaining my own statement in detail be a "lie", stupid?
>YOU are stating the odds favor both limo fragments
>came from ONE bullet,
Yep... they do. As I've explained, and you've been unable to refute.
>and there is NO way you can prove this because
>they were UNABLE to match them!
Being unable to ballistically match two fragments does *NOT* prove that they are
from separate bullets, moron.
>Thus this claim is nothing but
>opinion and when you added the "odds favor it" you lied as a neutral
>conclusion CANNOT FAVOR A SIDE!
Nor have I ever said so. Moron, aren't you?
>I would lie if I said the odds
>favored they came from seperate bullets. I have NOT said that though,
>have I? This would be a very gray area for the jury to decide, but
>most who are NOT familiar with science
And that, of course, is the problem...
Yours as well...
>would lean towards more bullets
>simply because they did NOT match. I'm not saying this is correct, it
>is just how the average person would think in this case since they
>"experts" for the WC could NOT match them.
>
>
>
>> "It's possible that they did"
>
>Just as possible they did NOT.
No, its *NOT* just as possible. The odds *DO* favor only a single bullet, as
I've carefully explained to you.
But probability theory is out of your understanding, isn't it?
>That is the point. The odds don't
>favor a side liar.
Odds usually *DO* favor one side or the other. Odds are rarely balanced in
perfect 50/50 harmony.
Stupid, aren't you?
>> What's possible?
>>
>> That the two larger limo fragments came from one bullet.
>
>Yes, it is EQUALLY possible they came from two or more bullets.
No, it's *NOT* "equally possible".
>> And it is *INDEED* possible.
>
>Just as it is "INDEED" possible they came from two or more bullets.
Yes, it is indeed possible that they came from two or more bullets... the odds
are against it, however.
>> "Indeed, the odds favor it"
>
>A neutral conclusion CANNOT FAVOR a side liar.
Odds can, and do.
>> Favor what?
>>
>> That the two larger limo fragments came from one bullet.
>>
>> How do we know this?
>>
>> I gave a long answer, and your response was "Who cares?"... so if you are
>> interested, you can go look it up again.
>
>There is NO reasoning for your lie.
And yet, I provided it.
You can't refute it.
>It is a blatant lie. There is AS
>MUCH OF A CHANCE THEY CAME FROM TWO OR MORE BULLETS AS IF THEY CAME
>FROM ONE. There is NO "favoring" in this area.
Untrue.
>> BUT NO-WHERE IN THAT STATEMENT DOES IT SAY "a neutral result,
>> an inconclusive, FAVORS a side (a match)"
>
>Doesn't have to
It does if you keep asserting that I said it, stupid!
>as I made it clear that WC shills say they came from
>ONE bullet and you said the "odds favor it." YOU lied and you lie
>again by claiming I am putting words into your mouth. YOU are a liar.
If you state that I asserted that the odds favor it, you'd be correct. But
instead, you're asserting something that you admit ("Doesn't have to...") I
never said.
You just enjoy being labeled a child molester, is my guess...
>> You can continue to lie, moron, and I'll continue to make public
>> your child & animal molesting emails, or you can start debating
>> what I ACTUALLY say, and provide citations.
>
>I AM DEBATING WHAT YOU SAY, YOU ARE LYING ABOUT IT AND BLAIMING ME TO
>DISTRACT! Make those invisible emails public as I have NEVER emailed
>in my life and never will. YOU are a despicable man who uses the
>dreadful sin of child molestation as a debate tactic. Jesus is
>watching you Ben Holmes and you better repent or you will be spending
>a long time in the lake of fire.
>
>> Your choice.
>
>Threats don't scare me. I am being honest in what you said WITHOUT
>EDITING like you do to me.
Why don't you explain this "editing" you keep accusing me of.
>I did NOT tell you to say "odds favor" a
>match when we are dealing with a neutral answer, you did that ALL BY
>YOURSELF.
Yep... but you don't assert that I said that the odds favor it, you keep
asserting that I said something else that you ADMIT I never said.
And each time you assert that I said something I never said, I'll do the same
for you. "As ye sow..."
>YOUR sickness will not stop me, only a retraction of YOUR lie will.
By all means, Robert... simply quote the "lie", and the citation that shows it
to be a lie.
>> >So we see all that sick stuff Ben has been using for me "putting words
>> >into his mouth" is just ANOTHER lie by him.
>
>DEAD SILENCE.
Examples abound in this very post.
>> >> >> I've *NEVER* stated that an inconclusive finding *FAVORS* one or th=
>e o=3D
>> >ther.
>>
>> >> >What is this:
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to cl=
>aim
>> >> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=3D3D85 (Robert, edited by Be=
>n)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93It's possible that they did. =3DA0**Indeed, the odds favor it.=
>**=3D3D94=3D
>> > (Ben
>> >> >Holmes =3D3D96 7/14/09)
>>
>> >> The odds *DO* favor that the two larger fragments came from one bullet=
>.
>> >> I even detailed the explanation why, and you pulled your "Who Cares?" =
>answer.
>>
>> >WC Shill aren't you? A neutral conclusion CANNOT FAVOR an outcome
>> >liar.
>>
>> And yet, there's a person in jail now because the ballistics came back
>> "inconclusive" - as in the court case I cited.
>
>I'm sure they used NAA to do this.
Not needed.
>IF not, they had strong evidence
>in other areas. I have said an inconclusive BY ITSELF proves nothing
>(and favors nothing). Surely you are NOT suggesting the WC had strong
>evidence of LHO's guilt in other areas, are you?
Citation provided, and you're simply denying and running away...
>> >There is NO firm proof either way for the two fragments so to
>> >insist they FAVOR being from one bullet is a lie.
>>
>> The "inconclusive" result is not what "favors" the two fragments
>> as coming from one bullet. The *odds* do that - as I explained.
>
>ODDS are not relevant in a court of law.
Feel free to cite.
But you won't.
>This is NOT Las Vegas. YOU
>are lying to the benefit of the WC. Tis that simple.
>
>
>> Why can't you understand that, moron?
>
>I don't try and understand why you lie, I just point them out.
>
>
>> >> IT DOES NOT STATE THAT AN "INCONCLUSIVE FINDING *FAVORS* ONE OR THE OT=
>HER".
>>
>> >YOU are saying it
>>
>> Then all you have to do is QUOTE ME SAYING IT!
>
>Already did liar, like hundred times. YOUR denial of it does NOT
>change the FACT you are lying.
Then all you have to do is QUOTE ME SAYING IT!
>> But until you do, I'm going to continue to make your emails concerning
>> your molesting activities public.
>
>Go ahead as I know I have NEVER emailed you in my life and never plan
>to either. YOU are the ONE with a sickness so great it is scary. HOW
>could Ben think any "lurker" would ever side with him when he displays
>this kind of sickness? IF he is a CTer, and that is a BIG IF, I am so
>embarrased and disgusted by him.
I'm not the one first putting words into someone else's mouth, moron...
>> >and the only thing you can base this on is the
>> >inconclusive.
>>
>> How can that be, stupid? I *SAID* that I base that statement on the
>> odds. You know, probability theory... something you can't understand.
>
>YOU CANNOT PROVE ODDS LIAR. Nice try.
You clearly don't know anything about probability theory to say such a silly
thing.
>The odds are the same for them coming from two or more bullets as
>well.
How silly!
> YOU are a blatant liar.
>
>
>> >YOU are a liar no matter how you slice it.
>>
>> >> You're sick when you begin molesting animals Robert Caprio.
>>
>> >YOU are sick liar who will use any attempt to DISTORT his own lies. =A0I
>> >have NOT put words into your mouth, you did that all by yourself
>> >sicko.
>>
>> And yet, you can't seem to quote me saying what you're asserting that
>> I said... why is that, moron?
>
>I have done it many times, YOUR DENIAL of what it means does NOT
>change this FACT. YOU are claiming the "odds favor" a match when you
>CANNOT PROVE this as all you have to go on is a NEUTRAL conclusion.
>
>YOU are a liar and a WC Shill.
And yet, you can't seem to quote me saying what you're asserting that I said...
why is that, moron?
>> >> >I didn't type this and claim you said it Ben, thus your sick child
>> >> >molesting comments are off base. YOU said it, and I'm just calling
>> >> >you on it.
>
>Dead Silence.
What "dead silence?" The response is directly below.
>> >> I said what I ACTUALLY said, not what you try to twist it into.
>>
>> >ONLY you see that way as the point is there was NO firm proof the
>> >bullets came from one bullet (or two) so it is a lie for anyone to
>> >claim they did.
>>
>> Then you'll have to label yourself a liar, as you've claimed that the
>> two larger fragments came from *TWO* bullets... based on the
>> "inconclusive" results.
>
>I knew this liar would try this eventually. Show me where I said the
>ODDS FAVOR them coming from two bullets?
You didn't. You simply asserted that because they could not be matched to each
other, they must have been two separate bullets.
>I may have said my OPINION
>is they did at one point a year and half ago (I know I have NOT said
>that in this go round) BUT I never said the odds favor they did.
Nor did I say that you did. Strawmen are quite wonderful, aren't they?
>As I said before, most normal jurors would assume they did come from
>two or more bullets because they are unfamiliar with scientific
>results,
As are you.
>so the FACT they could NOT match them would lead most to
>suspect they were NOT from one bullet
Surely you're not trying to suggest that an "inconclusive" 'favors' a result,
moron?
>or they would have gotten a
>match. I'm NOT saying this correct in the scientific world, but it is
>correct in the REAL world.
Incorrect.
>> >YOU claimed it, thus you lied,
>>
>> The odds favor the sun rising tomorrow.
>
>Nice try, but that is NOT the same thing.
Of course it is. I stated a scientific fact. The odds *DO* favor that the sun
will "rise" tomorrow.
>YOU lied, just admit it and
>retract and we can move on.
But the sun *WILL* rise tomorrow. Why would I want to retract a virtual
certainty?
>It has to burn Ben that a "moron" constantly shows what a liar he is
>and he has failed to show me to be a liar once.
If such ever happened, I'm sure it would be a wonder to me...
>> >but instead of being a
>> >man about it you are lying even more and using sick stuff to save
>> >yourself.
>>
>> Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
>> number does Robert Caprio favor?
>
>We have been over this
Yet you still refuse to provide a quote of you saying so before your assertion
that you'd never denied it. Why is that, stupid?
>and your claim of the "odds favoring" a match
>has shown my point so clearly. There are two outcomes that are FIRM
>PROOF. A third outcome is meaningless by itself and CANNOT FAVOR A
>SIDE.
And yet, a man is in jail today because of an inconclusive ballistics test.
>> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>>
>> Okay... three.
>>
>> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>>
>> Oops... just two.
>>
>> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>>
>> Yep... again, only two.
>>
>> Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number?
>> And will he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he
>> has been doing?
>
>Ben, you have major lies to deal with
Where are they, moron?
>and wasting time on things that
>are not lies by me
And yet, you can't refute the simple assertions you made.
>is NOT how you should be spending your time. See
>above for details. YOU even agree with me and have said so.
I realize that you'd prefer this to go away... but it won't.
>> >> >I said the inconclusive allows LNers and shills to claim the two
>> >> >fragments came from one bullet and you said "It's possible they did."
>>
>> >> It *IS* possible that the two fragments came from one bullet.
>>
>> >Just as much as if they came from two! That is the point liar.
>>
>> No, *NOT* "just as much". The odds would favor one bullet.
>
>So he continues the lie folks. HOW can a NEUTRAL result FAVOR a side?
Never said that, molester.
>> Let me give you a simple analogy, which I'm sure you *STILL* won't
>> understand. Let's toss $5 worth of pennies into that limo. One of them
>> hits the door's armrest and balances on it's edge. You remark - "What
>> are the odds of *that* happening?" I'll reply that no matter what the
>> odds, the odds against *TWO* pennies balancing on their edge in that
>> limo is quite a bit higher.
>
>This is another wasted and stupid analogy,
Yep... I *predicted* this response. Yet you can't refute it.
>but what can one expect
>from Ben and Walt? There were SCIENTIFIC tests involved in trying to
>match the two limo fragments (which have NO chain of custody by the
>way) that included testing their ORGANIC COMPOUNDS!
Which are meaningless... and scientifically unreliable. They require conditions
that don't exist in the manufacture of bullets.
>This is hardly
>the same as "tossing pennies" into the limo.
I'm discussing *ODDS*, not NAA tests, moron. You never can follow a simple
debate.
>NOW if they cut up the
>pennies and tested them in the same ways it would be like the tests
>done on the two limo fragments.
That would have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with probability theory, or that the
odds favor the two fragments coming from just one bullet.
>> Same with bullets. You have one bullet that broke into three pieces,
>> and the middle piece is missing.
>
>This is a CLAIM liar, it is NOT a fact.
Then all you have to do is provide a citation for the missing middle portion.
But you can't.
>HOW can one determine
>anything IF you don't even know if the premise is correct! There is
>no proof ONE bullet broke into three pieces, now is there?
You have the nose portion, you have the base portion, YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE OR
CITATION FOR THE MIDDLE SECTION... moron, aren't you?
>> Now the odds that you will find just the nose, and
>> just the base of a bullet, with the middle part missing, is certainly
>> quite high, but the odds of TWO bullets, each fragmenting into three
>> pieces, BOTH middle pieces missing, and *ONE* nose from one bullet, and
>> *ONE* base from the other bullet, being all that's left, is quite a bit
>> higher.
>
>So Ben is admitting he is giving odds to a scenario he CAN'T EVEN
>PROVE is correct, huh?
Nope. I'm providing an accurate depiction of the difference of odds in two
different scenarios.
That you cannot refute.
>YOUR first step is to prove ONE FMJ bullet
>broke into THREE pieces.
Already done.
>Then you have to prove this ONE FMJ bullet
>was ever INSIDE JFK and/or JBC to make it relevant to the case. Can
>you do this?
Don't have to. The argument is whether the two larger fragments came from one
or two bullets, not whether they were the cause of any injuries.
>Secondly, the two fragments they did have did NOT match each other,
Untrue. "inconclusive" is not a non-match.
>so you are left with conjecture even IF you could prove the first one.
>
>> Thus, the odds favor the two larger fragments coming from *ONE* bullet.
>
>ONLY in your convoluted WC Shill world. Prove the ONE FMJ broke into
>three pieces
Already done.
>and was ever inside JFK and/or JBC first.
Not a prerequisite.
>Then explain
>IF they came from the same bullet why they did NOT match?
Untrue premise.
>> Now, last time I explained this we got your "Who cares?" answer. I suspect
>> this time we'll hear whining about my analogy,
Crystal ball still 100% correct...
>> and how it has nothing to do with bullet fragments.
>
>It doesn't, and you are taking the CLAIM OF THE WC literally when they
>never proved it in the first place.
JFK *STILL* died on 11/22/63.
>> But it doesn't matter... Lurkers will understand.
>
>The ONLY lurkers who will "understand" are those that support the WC's
>conclusion.
Not everyone is a moron.
>> >> GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, MORON!
>>
>> >Read below, I didn't say there was anything wrong with that, now did
>> >I? =A0I want a retraction!
>>
>> Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
>> number does Robert Caprio favor?
>
>He is so dishonest, he can't even offer a retraction for a simple lie
>like this one.
Where's the lie, moron? The following are YOUR words...
>> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>>
>> Okay... three.
>>
>> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>>
>> Oops... just two.
>>
>> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>>
>> Yep... again, only two.
>>
>> Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number?
>> And will he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he
>> has been doing?
Now we have the answer...
>> >> >Nothing wrong with that as they could have just as much as the could
>> >> >NOT have. But then you shot yourself in the foot with the next part.
>> >> >"Indeed, the odds favor it." This went to far as there are NO odds
>> >> >favoring a match over a non-match in this case of an inconclusive.
>>
>> >> I even went into detail on the odds, and you ran from it, stupid.
>>
>> >YOU are a pathetic liar Ben. YOU CANNOT show any cites that will
>> >claim a neutral conclusion CAN FAVOR one outcome,
>>
>> Why would I cite for *YOUR* assertion, moron?
>
>NO, you made it and NOW are running from it. What a coward.
Yet you can't quote any such thing.
>> >if they do, they are
>> >liars like you!
>>
>> >> >YOU LIED.
>>
>> >DEAD SILENCE.
>>
>> I *KNOW* you lied... here it is again:
>
>And yet you CAN'T SHOW I LIED, AND IN FACT YOU AGREED WITH ME!
>
>=93Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no
>non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
>the test.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/23/09)
>
>Thanks for the support!
You disagreed with this in the post above. You asserted that an "inconclusive"
was a non-match.
>> Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
>> number does Robert Caprio favor?
>>
>> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>>
>> Okay... three.
>>
>> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>>
>> Oops... just two.
>>
>> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>>
>> Yep... again, only two.
>>
>> Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number?
>> And will he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he
>> has been doing?
>>
>> >> >This has NOTHING to do with me and my interpretation, but I can see
>> >> >how you would like to make that the issue instead of your blatant lie=
>.
>>
>> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >I am not the one who makes lies and then is too stupid to hide them,
>> >that is YOU! =A0Show us how a neutral conclusion has "odds favoring" one
>> >side over another again!
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you? Don't you think you should first quote me *saying*
>> what you keep asserting?
>
>YOU said the odds favor a match
Yep... they do.
>and then you give us some stupid
>analogy as your reasoning?
An analogy that you clearly didn't understand... confusing odds with NAA.
> Come on liar, we know you are a WC Shill.
>
>
>> >> >> Now why can't you start either QUOTING me, or retracting these lies=
>, R=3D
>> >obe=3D3D
>> >> >rta?
>>
>> >> >Benita, I have bee QUOTING you and you keep lying about what you
>> >> >said. =3DA0A man who lies about his OWN WORDS is the most dishonest o=
>f
>> >> >them all.
>>
>> >> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >Dishonest, aren't you? =A0Sick, aren't you? =A0Liar, aren't you? =A0WC
>> >shill, aren't you?
>>
>> Stupid, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >> >NOT me. =3D3DA0Why are you saying that?
>>
>> >> >> Since you will be totally unable to quote me saying that, it appear=
>s o=3D
>> >nce=3D3D
>> >> > again
>> >> >> that you're molesting little boys & girls. =3D3DA0You really should=
> stop=3D
>> > that=3D3D
>> >> >. =3D3DA0I'm
>> >> >> unaware of *any* society that condones child molestation.
>>
>> >> >Benita you are a liar. =3DA0I have been quoting you for a week now. =
>=3DA0YOU
>> >> >lie about YOUR OWN WORDS!
>>
>> >> Nope. My words say exactly what they say, and any intelligent person c=
>an
>> >> correctly parse them.
>>
>> >So I guess you are ADMITTING you are NOT intelligent then! =A0YOU said
>> >"the odds favor" the two fragments coming from one bullet. =A0That is a
>> >lie. Tis that simple.
>>
>> The odds *DO* favor the two fragments coming from one bullet. You can't
>> provide any citation, or logical argument refuting it.
>
>I don't refute UNPROVEN claims you make. That is your job.
If you can't refute it, lurkers will take note.
>> So how can it be a "lie"?
>
>There is no way to prove ONE FMJ broke into three pieces in the first
>place AFTER it exited JFK as the WC claimed,
And yet, in tests conducted at the request of the WC - this is precisely what
happened with test skulls.
Embarrassing, isn't it?
>thus your WHOLE reasoning
>is based on an UNSUPPORTED CLAIM.
It's based on evidence.
>To support this claim in anyway will
>only lead to more lies and you proved that for us.
>
>
>> >> >YOU lie and attack me with your sickness
>> >> >when you said the ODDS FAVOR A MATCH like the WC and LNers claim.
>>
>> >> The odds *DO* favor a match. The odds that the two fragments come from=
> one
>> >> bullet are considerably more likely than the odds AGAINST the theory t=
>hat
>> >> they came from two bullets.
>>
>> >Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> And yet, you can't seem to cite...
>
>Don't have to cite for common sense.
A common claim of David Von Pein, as I seem to remember...
>YOU used a faulty premise as IF it were a FACT and then lied about
>what it meant JUST LIKE THE WC DID!
>
>
>> >How can an neutral conclusion FAVOR one side over
>> >another.
>>
>> Keep fighting your strawman, stupid.
>
>YOU said the "odds favor" a match, didn't you?
Yep... that *IS* what I said.
>> > Will he ever explain this in a sentence for us?
>>
>> >> But you apparently don't understand this.
>>
>> >I don't waste time understanding lies, I just point out that you lied.
>>
>> But you apparently don't understand this.
>>
>> >> >I did NOT put any words into your mouth. YOU are a dispicable liar.
>>
>> >> Child molester... and now moving into molesting animals. "dispicable"
>> >> indeed!
>>
>> >At least you are honest ABOUT SOMETHING! =A0Ben is now attacking
>> >harmless little animals, but I heard this was popular in the gay
>> >community.
>>
>> >Lurkers, notice how he lies about his own words! =A0I am quoting his OWN
>> >WORDS and he is lying and saying I am putting words into his mouth.
>>
>> Child molester... and now moving into molesting animals. "dispicable" ind=
>eed!
>
>Ben loves animals and "Gay Brazilian Grappling" (codeword for gay sex)
>as he writes articles about it.
Child molester... and now moving into molesting animals. "dispicable" indeed!
>> >> >> Do you suppose that you could go even *one* week without molesting =
>any=3D
>> > ch=3D3D
>> >> >ildren?
>>
>> >> >I have gone a lifetime sicko. =3DA0YOU are the ADMITTED molester,
>> >> >remember?
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Molesting neighborhood children again...=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes =
>=3D3D96 2/8=3D
>> >/07)
>>
>> >> >> >YOU also are listening to Walt too much and he will sink you as th=
>e D=3D
>> >PD
>> >> >> >never mentioned a copper-jacketed bullet in the Walker shooting.
>> >> >> >There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker.
>>
>> >> >> Yes, moron, there is.
>>
>> >> >LOL!! Where is it? I'm NOT taking about the WC's lies of evidence,
>>
>> >> In other words, you know it exists, you'll just deny it.
>>
>> >There is NO evidence that puts LHO at the scene. =A0Even the ONLY
>> >witness did NOT describe a person who looked like LHO.
>>
>> In other words, you know it exists, you'll just deny it.
>
>I know all the evidence in this case,
You clearly don't know the evidence that showed how FMJ ammo fragmented when
hitting a skull.
>but it fails to prove what you
>assert it proves.
And yet, it does *PRECISELY* this.
> YOU are a liar.
>
>
>> >> >show us where in the official DPD report of the incident does it
>> >> >mention a copper-jacketed bullet?
>>
>> >> >> Whether it's credible or persuasive, is another matter... but when =
>you=3D
>> > si=3D3D
>> >> >mply
>> >> >> deny that any evidence exists, your just a moron.
>>
>> >> >YOU call fake stuff evidence, I don't.
>>
>> >> You refer to ANYTHING that doesn't fit your preconceived theory as
>> >> "fake", and worry not at all that you can't provide evidence, citation=
>,
>> >> or even logical argument to support your silly assertions.
>>
>> >Ben, the bullet presented by the WC as the bullet in the Walker
>> >shooting is NOT the type of bullet found at the scene. =A0They failed to
>> >call the cop who found it. =A0Walker even said the bullet was NOT the
>> >same type he saw. =A0YOU have said this yourself, so why are YOU now
>> >lying about this?
>>
>> Where's the lie, moron?
>
>YOU are supporting CE573 by saying I claim everything is "fake" IF I
>don't agree with, remember?
That, of course, is true. You *DO* claim things are "fake" or not evidence if
you don't like it.
>> >I wonder IF Ben can quote me saying I claim everything is fake when it
>> >doesn't fit my pre-conceived, silly assertions? =A0I smell another lie.
>>
>> Why would I quote you on your behavior?
>
>CE573 is fake, but I don't have to claim it as like so much other
>evidence in this case it HAS NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY, thus it is
>worthless.
Then you have nothing to talk about, do you?
>> >The DPD report is the ONLY evidence I need.
>>
>> And yet, when it came to the inventory, the DPD report was the only
>> thing YOU DID NOT NEED!
>
>Because the was put together with an illegal search!
By the same DPD, with a claim you cannot cite for.
Which law did the DPD violate?
>> Another excellent example - you pick and choose the evidence according
>> to your faith, and not according to logic and evidence.
>
>Nice try WC Shill, but I accept all the evidence the WC gave us
Untrue. You are repeatedly on record as stating that there is no evidence for
this or that, when there clearly is.
>and then I show how it is wrong or worthless. YOU seem to accept it and
>state it supports the assertion it is tied to in most cases. WC
>Shill, aren't you?
Moron, aren't you?
>> >That is the official
>> >evidence for the Walker shooting, NOT the junk the WC gave us. =A0The WC
>> >does NOT override the DPD in that case, so why is Ben lying and acting
>> >like they do?
>>
>> Moron, aren't you?
>
>So to say the DPD is the official evidence in a case that happened in
>April 1963 is equivalent to being a "moron" to Ben. What a liar this
>guy is, huh?
They told the truth in April, and lied in November.
In fact, they lied *ANYTIME* they said something you don't want to hear.
>> >> >Show us that the bullet the WC
>> >> >gave us is the real bullet fired at Walker! =3DA0I dare you!
>>
>> >> Rather stupid of the DPD to substitute a bullet that cannot be tied
>> >> to the MC, isn't it?
>>
>> >Why?
>>
>> Another illustration, if we needed it, that you're a moron.
>
>IF you wouLD stop EDITING you would see the rest below!
I *SAW* the rest below. I responded to the portion of the sentence where it
makes sense.
>See the
>dishonest things Ben has to do to make a claim?
Looking in a mirror?
>> >They knew they would have liars like you and Walt to say, it is
>> >copper jacketed and even though it couldn't be matched to the MC it
>> >could still have been fired by it! =A0"Indeed, the odds FAVOR it!"
>
>See? He SKIPS the rest of it.
It was too silly to respond to. Still is.
>> >Nice try WC shill, but we are on to you.
>>
>> >> >> You seem to have the same problem that LNT'ers do with evidence. =
>=3D3DA0=3D
>> >You s=3D3D
>> >> >imply
>> >> >> decide for yourself what the facts are.
>>
>> >> >As you said:
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93You seem confused... I accept their *EVIDENCE*, I can make my =
>own
>> >> >conclusions.
>> >> >That's why God gave me a brain, to use it.
>>
>> >> >I accept *ALL* DPD evidence
>>
>> >> Then you *KNOW FOR A FACT* that evidence exists... but just above, you=
> were
>> >> denying it.
>>
>> >I deny it is genuine, NOT THAT IT EXISTS!
>>
>> Then you shouldn't say that there is no evidence.
>
>That can withstand a cross-examination or even be allowed into a court
>of law.
Then you shouldn't say that there is no evidence.
>Ben has a problem with this area as he thinks things with NO
>chain of custody are evidence even though NO court would allow them to
>be admitted into the record. ALL LNers have a problem with this area,
>NOT just Ben, as they claim this would NOT bar their evidence, but
>they are liars. Ben, like ALL LNers, argues we are NOT in a court of
>law as if murder cases are tried on the internet!
A court of law is only important to you when it can be used to support your
argument... when I produce a court citation that doesn't support you, you deny
it, and run away.
>> >WHY must you lie
>> >constantly?
>>
>> Stay away from mirrors when you type such sentences...
>
>Liar, aren't you? WC Shill, aren't you?
Stay away from mirrors when you type such sentences...
>> >> Lied, didn't you?
>>
>> >LOL!!! NO you did.
>>
>> Lied, didn't you?
>>
>> >> >that isn't contradicted by other evidence,
>> >> >and that
>> >> >appears untainted by the frameup being conducted.
>>
>> >> >The **"steel jacket"** was found to be very inconvenient for people
>> >> >such as you, so
>> >> >you simply ignore it... don't you?=3D3D94 (Bendsie Holmes =3D3D96 1/2=
>7/06)
>>
>> >> >Funny Benita didn't have this understanding take on the issue when he
>> >> >attacked Todd Vaughn, huh? ONLY when Walt is involved do we get the
>> >> >nice Benita.
>>
>> >Dead silence.
>>
>> Green smelly monkeys playing with a giraffe.
>
>See you quote him and he runs and lies. What a dispicable man.
Where's the lie, moron? Green smelly monkeys were *indeed* playing with a
giraffe. Can you refute that?
>> >> >Ben knows the bullet found at the scene was steel-jacketed as he says
>> >> >so above, but NOW he and WALT ARE IGNORING IT! =3DA0But he claims I a=
>m
>> >> >ingoring it. =3DA0I smell another post in my "Provable Lies of Ben Ho=
>lmes"
>> >> >series!
>>
>> >> I've told you before, moron, the evidence is contradictory. But you ca=
>n't
>> >> simply deny it exists.
>>
>> >I'm NOT denying it,
>>
>> "There is NO evidence showing LHO fired at Walker."
>
>More EDITING!
I posted the demonstration that you lied DIRECTLY underneath your assertion that
you did not deny it.
That's not "editing", moron.
>THERE ISN'T
You see? Denying it again...
Yet you just asserted above that you were *NOT* denying it.
>AS THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU GOT (AS ALL WC
>SHILLS HAVE) IS LACKING IN A CHAIN OF CUSTODY, THUS IT IS WORTHLESS!
List the evidence in the JFK case that has a valid chain of evidence...
But you won't.
>> >YOU and Walt are! =A0I know the WC gave us a copper
>> >jacketed bullet, but I am saying it is NOT the bullet that was found
>> >at the scene. =A0Why must you lie constantly?
>>
>> >YOU know what this means in Ben's world? =A0Yep, the "Teabag Champ" has
>> >struck again. =A0He is really in "Gay Brazilian Grappling" (i.e. this
>> >means gay sex) as he writes about it. =A0It seems he likes small animals
>> >too. =A0Sshhh.
>>
>> Don't worry, Rob; I have no intention of releasing your emails publicly.
>
>OF course NOT as this is JUST ANOTHER LIE BY YOU! Ben can't stop
>lying.
Were I to release them now, it would demonstrate that the above statement was a
lie.
>> >> Lt. Day's testimony exists. That's simply a fact.
>>
>> >He testified, that is a fact, what he said is NOT a fact.
>>
>> You seem to have the idea that in order to be called "evidence", it
>> must "prove" your preconceived theory.
>
>Quote me saying that? Testimony is a claim, NOT a fact.
No-one has claimed that testimony is a fact, it's true, however, that testimony
is evidence.
>> Sadly for you, not true.
>
>Of course NOT, that is why I NEVER SAID IT LIAR!
Would you like to go on record right here as stating that you've *NEVER* said
that evidence "proves" something?
>What I have said is
>the strongest evidence DOES prove something and the WC seemed totally
>lacking in this kind of evidence in regards to the shootings in this
>case.
>
>
>> Perhaps this explains your abhorrence of citation.
>>
>> >> >> >> Yes, Robert lies occasionally, such as his recent lie about neve=
>r h=3D
>> >avi=3D3D
>> >> >ng
>> >> >> >> asserted that there were not three possible outcomes of a ballis=
>tic=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> >> test, but for the most part, it's just sheer stupidity.
>>
>> >> >> >Ben you have NOT shown me lying.
>>
>> >> >> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match." R=
>ob =3D
>> >Cap=3D3D
>> >> >rio -
>> >> >> Nov 2nd, 2008.
>>
>> >> >> "Your logic is all wrong, in ballistics, as in all sciences, a non-=
>mat=3D
>> >ch =3D3D
>> >> >is an
>> >> >> EXCLUSION!!! That is why there are ONLY two outcomes - a positive a=
>nd =3D
>> >a
>> >> >> negative." Rob Caprio - Oct 1st, 2008
>>
>> >> >> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."=
> Ro=3D
>> >b C=3D3D
>> >> >aprio -
>> >> >> Nov 30th, 2007
>>
>> >> >> You can keep running from your lies, Robert - I'll just keep right =
>on =3D
>> >quo=3D3D
>> >> >ting
>> >> >> them.
>>
>> >> >Who is running?
>>
>> >> You. You provably keep snipping and running away.
>>
>> >LOL!! I don't run from liars like you. =A0Prove me wrong, I dare YOU! =
>=A0I
>> >said there are two outcomes that have proof on their side, and one
>> >that doesn't.
>>
>> Actually, no you didn't. You never *have* been able to quote yourself saying
>> any such thing, prior to your assertion that you'd never denied it.
>
>Liar, aren't you? That has ALWAYS been my assertion.
And yet, you never have been able to quote yourself saying any such thing, prior
to your assertion that you'd never denied it.
Why is that, liar?
>> >Good luck with disproving that one.
>>
>> Don't need "luck"... just your own words:
>
>Go ahead, but let's show everyone HOW YOU AGREED WITH ME FIRST, OKAY?
Not on this topic, never happened.
Indeed, for weeks you argued with me.
>=93Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no
>non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
>the test.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/23/09)
>
>See? Two firm outcomes and one inconclusive (neutral) outcome.
Didn't say that, moron.
>Ben of
>course is adding the word "proof" to the inconclusive when it is
>apparent to everyon it just reflects NO match or a non-match was NOT
>reached.
My statement was carefully crafted, and is accurate.
>> Are there *TWO* possible outcomes of a ballistics test, or *Three*? Which
>> number does Robert Caprio favor?
>>
>> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>>
>> Okay... three.
>>
>> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>>
>> Oops... just two.
>>
>> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>>
>> Yep... again, only two.
>>
>> Can Robert Caprio explain why he can't figure out the correct number? And=
> will
>> he dare to answer this post, rather than running away as he has been doin=
>g?
Still running...
>> >> >I have made my point very clear and you HAVE AGREED
>> >> >WITH ME!
>>
>> >> No moron, simply untrue.
>>
>> >YOU agreed with me liar.
>>
>> No moron, simply untrue.
>
>=93Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor is no
>non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
>the test.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/23/09)
*That* is what I said... you've disagreed with it. (Even in *THIS* post)
>> >> >So once again, IF I'm lying you are lying because you said
>> >> >this?
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Untrue. An "inconclusive" is proof that there is no match, nor=
> is n=3D
>> >o
>> >> >non-match, within the capabilities of the ballistics technician doing
>> >> >the test.=3D3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D3D96 7/23/09)
>>
>> >> >That has been my point from the beginning, if you want PROOF you get
>> >> >two results, IF you want everything you get three.
>>
>> >> How many "possible outcomes" are there, moron?
>>
>> >See above liar.
>>
>> "I NEVER said there weren't three possible outcomes Ben,"
>>
>> "I said there were two possible outcomes, a match and non-match."
>>
>> "There are two possible outcomes - they match or they don't match."
>>
>> >> >> >YOU OTOH claim a neutral result, an
>> >> >> >inconclusive, FAVORS a side (a match). =3D3DA0NOW that is a lie.
>>
>> >> >> Indeed, your STATEMENT is a lie.
>>
>> >> >YOU are the liar, and you even lie about YOUR OWN WORDS!
>>
>> >> Animals will not be any better than small children, molester.
>>
>> >Ben is speaking from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE! Lurkers, see how DESPERATE
>> >BEN IS?
>>
>> Molesting again, aren't you? Society doesn't recognize sex with animals *OR*
>> small children as desirable conduct.
>
>Ben WOULD KNOW ABOUT WHAT SOCIETY ACCEPTS IN THESE AREAS SINCE HIS
>SICKNESS DATES TO WHEN HE WAS A KID!
'Dating kids'? Sick...
>> >> >> You assert that I've claimed something that I've never claimed.
>>
>> >> >Liar, aren't you?
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93Because IMO this answer (inconclusive) ALLOWS the shills to cl=
>aim
>> >> >both limo fragments CAME FROM ONE BULLET=3D3D85 (Robert, edited by Be=
>n)
>>
>> >> >=3D3D93It's possible that they did. =3DA0**Indeed, the odds favor it.=
>**=3D3D94=3D
>> > (Ben
>> >> >Holmes =3D3D96 7/14/09)
>>
>> >> >Is this denial routine the best you can do?
>>
>> >> I do appreciate that you quote my words - that way, lurkers can see
>> >> that I did *NOT* say what you keep asserting.
>>
>> >YOU asserted the "odds favored" the two fragments coming from one
>> >bullet,
>>
>> Yes... the odds do indeed "favor" the two fragments as coming from one
>> bullet.
>
>ONLY based on a false premise that was NEVER even attempted to be
>proven. Ben likes the lies of the WC and then he claims they are
>FACT, thus he is a liar too!
Yes... the odds do indeed "favor" the two fragments as coming from one bullet.
>> >but that is a lie because they only got an inconclusive (a
>> >neutral) conclusion, thus they CANNOT favor either side.
>>
>> Then you're labeling *YOURSELF* a liar when you kept trying to assert
>> that these two fragments came from two bullets...
>
>Prove it. I gave an opinion at most, I never said the "odds favor it"
>based on the inconclusive. The liar is up to more tricks.
Never said that... did I?
>> Rather stupid of you, isn't it?
>
>Never did it, so no it isn't.
Rather stupid of you, isn't it?
>> >YOU are a
>> >liar and a WC shill!
>>
>> >> It's apparent that you're simply too stupid to figure it out...
>>
>> >NO, you are too stupid to think anyone is going to fall for your
>> >lies. =A0We all know what you said and what you meant Ben. =A0YOU will n=
>ot
>> >change that with sick comments, you ONLY further show what a nutjob
>> >you are.
>>
>> >Ben says a neutral conclusion FAVORS a side,
>>
>> Did you really like sheep better than the horse?
>
>Ben likes RHETORICAL questions to himself. I would guess would like a
>sheep better because he is soooooo short!
You like short sheep?
Robert
Can't Wally ever stay on topic? I know they did this and yet YOU ARE
THE ONE claiming there was a clip INSIDE THE MC WHEN IT WAS FOUND!
Who has their head up their butt now?
Robert
Finally we get the TRUTH from Walt!
NOW, how is he going to prove the clip was INSIDE THE MC WHEN FOUND AS
HE HAS CLAIMED FOR YEARS?
> And IF IF IF that rifle had been fired from the so called
> "Sniper's Nest" there SHOULD have been a clip lying on the
> floor....THAT is a FACT!!
Well, unless the shooter "policed" his area, but we know they wouldn't
have probably since they were allegedly dumb enough to leave their
shells behind.
I'm NOT disagreeing with you Walt, in fact we seem to agree on most of
the points BUT YOU STILL WIND UP WITH A CLIP IN THE RIFLE WHEN FOUND
LIKE THE WC, and I don't.
> There was a clip in the rifle that they
> overlooked, simply because the cops didn't know anything about a
> Mannlicher Carcano.
LOL!! Do you have verification for this claim of yours? Are any of
the cops on record saying this? How about when it was supposedly
disassembled? Why was the clip NOT added to the inventory list then?
> There WAS a clip in the rifle that the person who
> hid the rifle put there BEFORE the shooting, and BEFORE he hid it
> INSIDE a cavern of boxes.
More speculation by Walt. The ONLY other option is WALT WAS THE
SHOOTER! Walt, will you admit you were the shooter on 11/22/63?
> We can see with our own eyes that there was
> a clip in the rifle when Lt Day left the TSBD with the rifle, because
> it it sticking out of the port on the bottom of the rifle.
This does NOT mean one was in the rifle when FOUND, now does it? OF
course not, and only a man who is being dishonest would act like they
are connected.
> It is
> hanging precariously out of the rifle and about to fall completely
> out...but Lt. Day is blissfully unaware that the clip is about to drop
> out.
This proves NOTHING about the state of the rifle in situ.
> At that point in time he probably wouldn't have known the
> importance of that clip. ie; The Mannlicher Carcano is useless as a
> firearm if there is no clip with the rifle. It cannot be used as a
> single shot rifle. The clip is an integral part of the loading
> mechanism and if there is no clip the gun is useless as a firearm. I
> doubt that Day knew the clip was hanging there and about to drop out
> and become lost.
That is why the WC lied, and you are lying, about a clip being in the
rifle when found!
Robert
> In article <cd23654f-9055-42ef-9651-1ea2298f4...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Notice Ben has NO time for Walt's lies in this thread?? He is lying
about the clip being in the rifle when found and he is NOT saying a
word to him. Ben has said this about the clip issue:
“This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
the clip.” (Ben Holmes)
Yet, we see him leaving Walt alone yet again! SO Ben lied when he
said this I guess:
“When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point
it out.” (Ben Holmes – 7/9/09)
Walt
If you weren't so damned stupid you'd realize that this is what I've
been saying all along.....
>
> NOW, how is he going to prove the clip was INSIDE THE MC WHEN FOUND AS
> HE HAS CLAIMED FOR YEARS?
The proof is in the photos of the rifle being examined by Day and
Fritz, and the photo of Day leaving the TSBD with the rifle. If you
knew anything about the Mannlicher Carcano you'd know that the photos
show that the bolt is jammed in the position where the bolt jams when
someone tries to load a cartridge into the chamber without a clip.
This indicates that somebody tried to load a live round onto the
chamber without a clip, and jammed the bolt. The photo of Day
leaving the TSBD with the Mannlicher Carcano SHOWS the clip hanging
out of the rifle and Day doesn't even know it's there. (because he
didn't know anything about Mannlicher Carcanos.)
Are you too damned dumb to understand that ALL of this information
points to the rifle being "prepared" and hidden BEFORE the shooting??
Here it is step by step
1) There should have been a clip lying on the floor of the so called
"Sniper's Nest" if the shots had been fired from that location....THIS
IS A FACT!!
2) Since the rifle was found COMPLETELY COVERED in a cavern of boxes
it had to have been hidden there BEFORE the shooting < because the
Warren Commission acknowledged that Oswald would NOT have had enough
time to bury the rifle in the cave as it was found. This is a
FACT!!... Therefore the rifle was put there BEFORE the shooting.
3) The bolt on the rifle was jammed in the jammed position when it was
found,which indicates somebody had tried to load the live cartridge
into the firing chamber without using a clip.
Then when Fritz pulled back the bolt the live round merely dropped out
onto the floor. It was not flung as it would have been if the
cartridge had been properly seated in the bolt.
4) Whoever hid the rifle in that cave of boxes inserted the clip in
the bottom port and jammed it there. Nobody knew anything about thr
rifle so they didn't know that the clip was jammed in the magazine. It
remained in the rifle and unseen as attested to by the photo of Day
leaving the TSBD. Day's blissfully unaware that the clip is hanging
precariously from the rifle.
>
> > And IF IF IF that rifle had been fired from the so called
> > "Sniper's Nest" there SHOULD have been a clip lying on the
> > floor....THAT is a FACT!!
>
> Well, unless the shooter "policed" his area, but we know they wouldn't
> have probably since they were allegedly dumb enough to leave their
> shells behind.
The shells were planted there.... there were NO shots fired from that
window during the shooting.
>
> I'm NOT disagreeing with you Walt, in fact we seem to agree on most of
> the points BUT YOU STILL WIND UP WITH A CLIP IN THE RIFLE WHEN FOUND
> LIKE THE WC, and I don't.
>
> > There was a clip in the rifle that they
> > overlooked, simply because the cops didn't know anything about a
> > Mannlicher Carcano.
>
> LOL!! Do you have verification for this claim of yours? Are any of
> the cops on record saying this?
DUH!!... Do you recall that Lt. John Day asked of anybody ... "Does
anybody know what kind of rifle this is?"
How about when it was supposedly
> disassembled? Why was the clip NOT added to the inventory list then?
It's entirely possible that the clip that is seen about to drop out of
the rifle in the photo actually did drop out and was lost. Therefore
it never was inventoried. Later when the cops discovered that the
rifle was useless unless there was a clip for it..... they knew they
had to show that they had a clip for the rifle, if they were going to
pin the assassination on Oswald...so they got one.
>
> > There WAS a clip in the rifle that the person who
> > hid the rifle put there BEFORE the shooting, and BEFORE he hid it
> > INSIDE a cavern of boxes.
>
> More speculation by Walt. The ONLY other option is WALT WAS THE
> SHOOTER! Walt, will you admit you were the shooter on 11/22/63?
>
> > We can see with our own eyes that there was
> > a clip in the rifle when Lt Day left the TSBD with the rifle, because
> > it it sticking out of the port on the bottom of the rifle.
>
> This does NOT mean one was in the rifle when FOUND, now does it? OF
> course not, and only a man who is being dishonest would act like they
> are connected.
>
> > It is
> > hanging precariously out of the rifle and about to fall completely
> > out...but Lt. Day is blissfully unaware that the clip is about to drop
> > out.
>
> This proves NOTHING about the state of the rifle in situ.
>
> > At that point in time he probably wouldn't have known the
> > importance of that clip. ie; The Mannlicher Carcano is useless as a
> > firearm if there is no clip with the rifle. It cannot be used as a
> > single shot rifle. The clip is an integral part of the loading
> > mechanism and if there is no clip the gun is useless as a firearm. I
> > doubt that Day knew the clip was hanging there and about to drop out
> > and become lost.
>
> That is why the WC lied, and you are lying, about a clip being in the
> rifle when found!- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 27, 4:15=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <cd23654f-9055-42ef-9651-1ea2298f4...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Robert says...
>>
>> >On Jul 26, 12:56=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <6eb0df7f-dcda-4674-91cc-b6f8cadb1...@b15g2000yqd.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> Robert says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >They did SAY THIS via Frazier.
>>
> th=3D
>> >e W=3D3D
>> >> >alker
>> >> >> >> bullet nor the two larger limo fragments... Frazier did *NOT* st=
>ate=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >at
>> >> >> >> there was no match.
>>
>> >> >> >First of all, I will not even discuss the Walker bullet
>>
>> >> >> Then why are you willing to lie, then run away when I defy you to
>> >> >> produce a citation supporting what you said?
>>
> using =3D
>> >a
>> >> >sick distraction (child molestation) beyond you?
>>
>> >> Then why are you willing to lie, then run away when I defy you to
>> >> produce a citation supporting what you said?
>>
>> >NOTICE HOW Ben EDITED this point.
>>
>> No editing performed.
>>
>> >There is NO chain of custody for
>> >the WC's alleged bullet (CE573) in the Walker case yet he seperated
>> >this from the point above as this is why it is a waste of time to
>> >discuss this bullet.
>>
> a
>> citation supporting what you said?
>>
>> >> >> >because we
>> >> >> >know there is NO chain of custody for it and it does NOT match the
>hus
>> >> >> >the bullet presented by the WC is NOT the bullet fired at Walker.
>>
>C.
>>
>> >> >Why?
>>
>> >> I'm quite sure that that one simply went right over your head. Why don=
>'t
>> >> you pretend to be the DPD, trying to frame Oswald, and tell *US* what
>> >> you would do?
>>
>> >How does Ben know it was the DPD who framed LHO?
>>
>> I really didn't think you'd have the intelligence to do so...
>>
>> I was right...
>>
>> >> Maybe then, you'll figure it out.
>>
>> >I know what you are saying, why put a bullet into play that could NOT
>m
>> >not going there. =A0The point is someone did do that as CE573 is NOT the
>> >bullet that was found at Walker's house on 4/10/63. =A0Why don't you
>> >share your evidence for us that shows it was the DPD who did this?
>>
>ns seem
>> beyond you...
>>
>> >> >The Walker shooting happened in April of 1963, they had NO way of
>> >> >knowing the MC would be the alleged assassination rifle in late
>>
>> >> This is sheer nonsense, stupid.
>>
>> >ONLY to a WC shill.
>>
>> And yet, you can't defend it.
>>
>> >> You're implying that bullets were swapped, BUT SWAPPED BACK IN APRIL
>> >> OF 1963??? How stupid is that?
>>
>> >Who has the reading problem now? I am NOT implying that at all.
>>
>> Then why did 'they' have to know anything at all back in April, moron?
>>
>> >What I am saying is the bullet recovered at the scene was mentioned as a
>> >it as being of a 30.06 caliber as well. =A0Thus, how did we wind up with
>> >a copper jacketed 6.5mm version for the WC's exhibits?
>>
>> >YOU know the penalty for putting words into my mouth so I warn you to
>> >stop.
>>
>> All you have to do, moron, is quote me.
>>
>> >> If bullets were swapped, they were SWAPPED AT THE TIME WHEN THEY KNEW
>> >> WHAT WEAPON IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN FIRED OUT OF!
>>
>> >I am NOT mentioning swapped, YOU are.
>>
>> Then tell us why anyone had to know *anything* back in April.
>>
>> But you won't.
>>
>> Moron...
>>
>> >I am asking you to explain how
>> >the WC presented a bullet TOTALLY different from the one found at the
>> >scene. I'll let others decide how this happened for themselves.
>>
>> Of course you will, you cannot provide any logical explanation.
>>
>> >> Even a moron can figure this out...
>>
>> >have evidence for this?
>>
>> I said *WHAT*... quote me, moron.
>>
>.
>>
>> >> >> That's even more stupidity than I would attribute to you.
>>
>> >See, he SKIPS this part.
>>
>> Those were, in fact, my words.
>>
>> Moron, aren't you?
>>
>would
>> >> >know the MC would be the alleged murder weapon used by LHO in late
>>
>> >> Sorry stupid, I don't play games with strawmen. I'm not, unfortunately
>> >> for you, a moron - so I don't have to pretend that any bullet swapping
>> >> must have been done before the DPD knew which rifle was involved.
>>
>> >That was NOT my point!
>>
>> What did anyone have to "know" in April, moron?
>>
>> >My point was they reported honestly in 4/63 as
>> >to what type of bullet was fired at Walker because they had NO idea
>> >they would need to link a copper jacketed bullet to LHO in 11/63!
>> >ONLY Walt is insisted LHO fired at Walker with his Carcano, but Ben
>> >has NO problem with that part, how come?
>>
>> Because the evidence is contradictory, stupid.
>>
>ked
>> >> >> >spectographic credentials in the first place.
>>
>> >> >> Do you even understand what you're saying?
>>
>s
>> >> >expertise as you need a chemistry background. Frazier was a firearms
>T
>> >> >bullet fragments to each other.
>>
>> >> Yep... I didn't think you understood it. *STILL* can't find that other
>> >> pencil.
>>
>> >Don't need to as Gallagher said they did NOT match and he had the
>> >EXPERTISE to know.
>>
>> I defy you to produce such testimony.
>>
>>
>> >> "bullet comparison coming from one bullet" is done just the same as
>> >> comparing one bullet with another 'test' bullet. You examine lands
>> >> & grooves with a comparison microscope... or you match up areas that
>> >> were next to each other.
>>
>> Dead silence...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >John F. Gallagher was
>> >> >> >the man with the background for this type of testing, but the WC
>r
>> >> >> >with him.
>>
>> >> >> >Mr. REDLICH. Very briefly, what has been the nature of your
>> >> >> >affiliation with the FBI?
>>
>ned
>> >> >> >to the FBI Laboratory, and in particular to the Physics and Chemis=
>try
>> >> >> >Section. I work in the spectrographic unit of the FBI Laboratory.
>>
>> >> >> >Gallagher did the actual tests on the two fragments to see if they
>y
>> >> >> >the WC. =3D3DA0Here is what Frazier testified to on this matter re=
>gardi=3D
>> >ng
>> >> >> >the two fragments.
>>
>> >> >> > Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 5=
>67;
>> >> >> >and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
>>
>> >> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>>
>> >> >> >Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>>
>> >> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - **There is not enough of the two fragments in
>> >> >> >unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments
>> >> >> >actually fit together.**
>suc=3D
>> >h
>> >> >> >as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base secti=
>on
>> >> >> >of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
>> >> >> >course, they could be parts of separate bullets.
>>
>> >> >> >This is called tap-dancing. It could be, but then it could be not.
>>
>> >> >> Doesn't matter *what* you call it, you clearly don't understand it.
>>
>> >> >Right, it is a a neutral conclusion, thus it CANNOT FAVOR an outcome
>> >> >as you claim.
>>
>ver
>> >> *DID* find that second pencil, did you?
>>
>> >It is a neutral conclusion, it does NOT favor a match or a non-match!
>>
>> Yep... that's true.
>>
>> >ONLY liars like you and the WC claim it favors a MATCH side to keep
>> >the bullets fired to three so you can still blame LHO.
>>
>> And yet, you can't quote me making any such assertion.
>>
>> >> And because you never did, you never demonstrated that you understood
>> >> what the topic was that Frazier is discussing.
>>
>> >NO way of claiming ONLY three shots were fired.
>>
>ullet
>> was removed while Frazier was watching.
>>
>>
>>
>hav=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rif=
>le,
>> >> >> >and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
>>
>cke=3D
>> >t
>> >> >> >fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bulle=
>t,
>> >> >> >then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bul=
>let
>> >> >> >in two parts.
>>
>> >> >> >Mr. McCLOY - And you cannot tell whether these two particles came =
>fro=3D
>> >m
>> >> >> >one bullet or two separate ones?
>>
>> >> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
>>
> at
>> >> >> >the minimum?
>>
>> >> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - I meant at least two bullets.
>>
>> >> >> >Mr. McCLOY - There were at least two different bullets?
>>
>> >> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - At least two, yes.
>>
>> >> >> >This really sounds unsure to me, but Ben thinks it FAVORS THE WC'S
>> >> >> >CLAIM OF ONE BULLET!
>>
> sh=3D
>> >eep.
>>
>> >> >Sorry, Ben, see below. YOU said it and now you are trying to distract
>> >> >from the issue by using sick stuff. YOU are a liar and a sicko.
>>
>> >> No molester, I *NEVER* said it. I'm beginning to think you enjoy
>> >> asserting your molesting activities.
>>
>> >Ben, you are nutjob and a disgrace to every man and women
>>
>> ...
>
Walt can't save you from your lies, moron...
Only the truth can do that.
>He is lying
>about the clip being in the rifle when found and he is NOT saying a
>word to him. Ben has said this about the clip issue:
>
>=93This is actually quite old news to me. I don't disagree at all that
>there's very little evidence that a clip was present from the
>beginning. I strongly agree that there was a definite *problem* with
>the clip.=94 (Ben Holmes)
>
>Yet, we see him leaving Walt alone yet again! SO Ben lied when he
>said this I guess:
>
> =93When people refuse to support their own assertions, I merely point
>it out.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 7/9/09)
How can it be a lie, moron? You're one of the prime examples currently...
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:0adaaf15-c3a4-4f9d...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> Do "have" to add Another "Speculation" for this WC SHILL????
Do you really think anybody pays an attention to your silly list??
Do you think I'm embarrassed by the list.... Actually I wish lurkers
would select items from that list and research the subject. Every item
on that list is a rational logical conclusion----Unlike the stupid and
totally irrational 7.65 Mauser story that you believe.
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Walt wrote:...."We can see with our own eyes ( see photo page 550 Pic
of Pain) that there was a clip in the rifle when Lt Day left the TSBD
with the rifle, because it it sticking out of the port on the bottom
of the rifle.
Rob argued:...." This does NOT mean one was in the rifle when FOUND,
now does it? OF course not, and only a man who is being dishonest
would act like they are connected."
What Rob fails to understand is the fact that the clip can be seen
hanging precariously from the rifle. Rob, perhaps you don't fully
understand that ther is NOTHING holding that clip in the rifle in the
photo of Day leaving the TSBD with the rifle. ( If he were to tip
that rifle so the clip pointed toward the ground gravitational force
would cause it to fall out of the rifle.)
Apparently you believe that Lt.Day was very familiar with the
Mannlicher Carcano and knew that it required a clip if it were to be
used as a gun, and so he sprung that clip apart and slipped it into
the port halfway so that it would be visible to reporters who would
photograph it sticking out of the rifle. ( If you pay attention to the
facts, you'll know that Day was totally ignorant about the MC)
We know that the Mannlicher Carcano was alien to Lt Day. He knew next
to nothing about the Mannlicher Carcano. ( He asked other cops in the
area if anybody knew what kind of rifle it was)
I'm sure he would have looked into the magazine with the bolt pulled
back to see if there were anymore cartridges in the rifle after the
one live round FELL out. But the clip is built in a manner that would
have allowed Day to look right through the ammo clip in the magazine
and never realize it was there. And that's exactly what happened...
He never realized that a clip was necessary to fire the rifle, nor did
he realize that the clip was stuck in the magazine.
The clip had to have been jammed in the magazine from the bottom of
the rifle before it was hidden in the cave of boxes before the
shooting and remained there unnoticed by Day. It apparently had
become unstuck during Day's examination and handling of the rifle and
had started to drop free of the rifle when the photo on page 550 of
POP was snapped.
This seems to be the only rational and logical explanation for the
clip going unreported on the day of the assassination....
It wasn't until someone told Day that the rifle required a clip or it
is useless as a gun, that he started looking for that clip. He may
have found it on the floor of the police car or he may never have
found that particuler clip that was there when he left the TSBD....
But he knew that they needed to report a clip in the evidence
inventory or they would have no case against Oswald. He could easily
have obtained a clip and claimed that it was the one in the rifle when
he left the TSBD. Whatever is the truth about the
details...commonsense and logic dictate that it was in the rifle when
the rifle was found COMPLETELY BURIED in a cave of boxes....... AND
it had to have been inserted into the bottom port before the rifle was
hiden...Because if it had been in the rifle when the last round was
stripped from it during firing of the rifle the clip would have fallen
free of the rifle and been on the floor of the so called "Sniper's
Nest"
>
tomnln
> Do "have" to add Another "Speculation" for this WC SHILL????
Do you really think anybody pays an attention to your silly list??
Do you think I'm embarrassed by the list.... Actually I wish lurkers
would select items from that list and research the subject. Every item
on that list is a rational logical conclusion----Unlike the stupid and
totally irrational 7.65 Mauser story that you believe.
Walt never
proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never
proved that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker
called Germany.
Walt never proved
Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's
car
(allegedly LHO's).
Walt never proved Michael Paine had
same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40").
Walt never proved
General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
Walt never proved that
Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
in 4/63.
Walt
never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that
the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
ordered by
LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in
4/63.
Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano
rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in
CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a
"sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue
LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it
was
found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle
that was easily traceable so he
could shoot at Gen. Walker with
it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved that Truly held a "roll call" and LHO was the
ONLY
one missing.
Walt never proved the casings found at the
TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from a
Marine Corps order for the
CIA.
Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40"
Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein's.
Walt never proved that
the bullet recovered from Walker shooting
was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt
BY photo) came from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never
proved LHO went to Mexico
City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
Walt never proved his
claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt
never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used
allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take
CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never
proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report
ELEVEN
minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on
the "Bill of lading" was TARE
weight.
Walt never proved the
weight of the 40" Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad
the WC used says
7.0LBS.
Walt never proved a "signed affadavit with a notary seal"
signed by
the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the
pilot fly
him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved the
rifle found on the roof was a DPD shotgun and
NOT a Mauser as the
Mentesana film shows.
Walt said Mausers are NOT stamped on the
barrel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ø
Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded" photo of
Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe???
Walt said Oswald was LBJ’s Puppet. (No Citation here either)
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in messagenews:73444fa5-cbb5-42c8...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jul 27, 8:00 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> Do "have" to add Another "Speculation" for this WC SHILL????
>
> Wally World wrote;
>
> Do you really think anybody pays an attention to your silly list??
>
> Do you think I'm embarrassed by the list.... Actually I wish lurkers
> would select items from that list and research the subject. Every item
> on that list is a rational logical conclusion----Unlike the stupid and
> totally irrational 7.65 Mauser story that you believe.
>
> That List shows you to be the Stupid Lying Bastard that yolu ARE.
> ALL to the benefit os the WCR Lies.
That List shows you to be the Stupid Lying Bastard that yolu ARE. ALL
to the benefit os the WCR Lies.
Of course any rational person who reads the list will know that your a
moron and too damned dumb to understand anything hat requires more
brains than the best way to solicit other queers for pervert sex.
Robert
Huh, the clip BEING INSIDE THE RIFLE would mean it was AT THE SCENCE
Walt!! SO you have NOT been saying this for years since you claim IT
WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE at discovery just like the WC!
> > NOW, how is he going to prove the clip was INSIDE THE MC WHEN FOUND AS
> > HE HAS CLAIMED FOR YEARS?
>
> The proof is in the photos of the rifle being examined by Day and
> Fritz, and the photo of Day leaving the TSBD with the rifle.
The clip is NOT visible in those photos of Day and Fritz, and as I
said before, the photo of Day leaving the TSBD does NOT prove or mean
the clip was inside the rifle at discovery. There is a conflict as
they argued (and Walt argues) that the clip was "jammed" and stuck due
to a dent or crimp, yet the clip the WC put into evidence is in MINT
CONDITION!
Please explain this for us Walt.
> If you
> knew anything about the Mannlicher Carcano you'd know that the photos
> show that the bolt is jammed in the position where the bolt jams when
> someone tries to load a cartridge into the chamber without a clip.
I don't need to know anything beyond the FACT the clip leaves the
rifle once the last round is chambered, and that is how the rifle was
found. I don't need to know anything beyond the FACT that the police
officers on the scene did NOT mention a clip, did NOT say they saw a
clip (even when disassembled) and did NOT inventory a clip. I don't
need to know anything beyond the FACT the WC gave us a clip in MINT
CONDITION when it was said the clip "jammed" in the rifle due to a
dent or a crimp.
> This indicates that somebody tried to load a live round onto the
> chamber without a clip, and jammed the bolt.
I don't think there ever was a clip and they loaded the live round to
simulate the rifle with NO clip as this would be how and why it had NO
clip, but the guys who wanted to frame LHO thought the MC worked like
the M-1 and they put a clip into the rifle later (a M-1 does NOT lose
its clip until AFTER THE LAST ROUND IS FIRED) on since it had a round
to fire.
> The photo of Day
> leaving the TSBD with the Mannlicher Carcano SHOWS the clip hanging
> out of the rifle and Day doesn't even know it's there. (because he
> didn't know anything about Mannlicher Carcanos.)
I guess he is blind too! Good old Wally can see it in a photo but the
man carrying the rifle has NO idea it is there!
> Are you too damned dumb to understand that ALL of this information
> points to the rifle being "prepared" and hidden BEFORE the shooting??
That is MY point and the clip being PUT INTO THE RIFLE LATER ON WAS
PART OF THE PREPARATION! YOU are the one claiming it was already in
the rifle when it was found, NOT me.
> Here it is step by step
>
> 1) There should have been a clip lying on the floor of the so called
> "Sniper's Nest" if the shots had been fired from that location....THIS
> IS A FACT!!
The FACT is there should have been a clip there IF that rifle was used
to fire the bullets, NOT if the shots were fired from there. But to
even get to this point we would have to say LHO did NOT use a full
clip (IF he was the man who used the rifle as claimed by the WC) as
this means he loaded ONLY four rounds and the clip holds 6 rounds.
Many studies have been done and it has been concluded that the rifle
is more unsteady and reliable without a full clip, so add this to the
issues LHO would have had IF he was the shooter.
> 2) Since the rifle was found COMPLETELY COVERED in a cavern of boxes
> it had to have been hidden there BEFORE the shooting < because the
> Warren Commission acknowledged that Oswald would NOT have had enough
> time to bury the rifle in the cave as it was found. This is a
> FACT!!... Therefore the rifle was put there BEFORE the shooting.
Agreed, thus it was NOT used for the shooting.
> 3) The bolt on the rifle was jammed in the jammed position when it was
> found,which indicates somebody had tried to load the live cartridge
> into the firing chamber without using a clip.
Wrong, they did this with NO clip to make it look like the clip would
have been let loose as they (whoever was framing LHO with this weapon)
knew the clip left the weapon WHEN THE LAST ROUND WAS CHAMBERED NOT
FIRED!
> Then when Fritz pulled back the bolt the live round merely dropped out
> onto the floor. It was not flung as it would have been if the
> cartridge had been properly seated in the bolt.
It was done in a hurry I'm sure.
> 4) Whoever hid the rifle in that cave of boxes inserted the clip in
> the bottom port and jammed it there.
The reports and inventory log do NOT bare this out. When the rifle
was found and for quite some time there was NO clip in the rifle.
> Nobody knew anything about thr
> rifle so they didn't know that the clip was jammed in the magazine. It
> remained in the rifle and unseen as attested to by the photo of Day
> leaving the TSBD. Day's blissfully unaware that the clip is hanging
> precariously from the rifle.
Do you have any evidence for this claim beyond YOUR word?
> > > And IF IF IF that rifle had been fired from the so called
> > > "Sniper's Nest" there SHOULD have been a clip lying on the
> > > floor....THAT is a FACT!!
>
> > Well, unless the shooter "policed" his area, but we know they wouldn't
> > have probably since they were allegedly dumb enough to leave their
> > shells behind.
>
> The shells were planted there.... there were NO shots fired from that
> window during the shooting.
NOR from the rifle in question.
> > I'm NOT disagreeing with you Walt, in fact we seem to agree on most of
> > the points BUT YOU STILL WIND UP WITH A CLIP IN THE RIFLE WHEN FOUND
> > LIKE THE WC, and I don't.
>
> > > There was a clip in the rifle that they
> > > overlooked, simply because the cops didn't know anything about a
> > > Mannlicher Carcano.
>
> > LOL!! Do you have verification for this claim of yours? Are any of
> > the cops on record saying this?
>
> DUH!!... Do you recall that Lt. John Day asked of anybody ... "Does
> anybody know what kind of rifle this is?"
YOU have speculation, and one that FAVORS the claim of the WC, why? IF
this is the truth, and it is NOT IMO, why did the WC, and you, have so
much trouble showing us this is what happened?
> How about when it was supposedly
>
> > disassembled? Why was the clip NOT added to the inventory list then?
>
> It's entirely possible that the clip that is seen about to drop out of
> the rifle in the photo actually did drop out and was lost.
Anything is possible, we are supposed to be whittling down the
possibilites by using the evidence at hand and showing what it tells
us. It is even more possible there was NO clip in the rifle when found
and for quite some time UNTIL one was found/or purchased for it.
> Therefore
> it never was inventoried.
Walt, your contention was the clip was JAMMED into the rifle, now you
are saying it "fell out" so it was NOT inventoried? Can you please
pick one option or the other?
> Later when the cops discovered that the
> rifle was useless unless there was a clip for it..... they knew they
> had to show that they had a clip for the rifle, if they were going to
> pin the assassination on Oswald...so they got one.
Yes, and they did THIS BEFORE they left the scene and that is why you
see one hanging out in that photo, but since they knew they "tampered"
with the evidence they did NOT list it on any inventory. I can't
prove this either, but it makes sense since you have a claim of a
dented clip and then you have a clip IN MINT CONDITION in evidence.
Perhaps the clip they got was NOT even the right one that is why it is
hanging out in the photo.
The point is there is NO mention of a clip by any cop, there is NO
photo of the clip being inside the rifle in situ, and there is NO
clip inventoried at all.
tomnln
On Jul 28, 10:19 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in
> messagenews:73444fa5-cbb5-42c8...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jul 27, 8:00 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> Do "have" to add
> Another "Speculation" for this WC SHILL????
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�-----------------------------------------------
> Wally World wrote;
>
> Do you really think anybody pays an attention to your silly list??
>
> Do you think I'm embarrassed by the list.... Actually I wish lurkers
> would select items from that list and research the subject. Every item
> on that list is a rational logical conclusion----Unlike the stupid and
> totally irrational 7.65 Mauser story that you believe.
>
> That List shows you to be the Stupid Lying Bastard that yolu ARE.
> ALL to the benefit os the WCR Lies.
WC SHILL wrote;
Of course any rational person who reads the list will know that your a
moron and too damned dumb to understand anything hat requires more
brains than the best way to solicit other queers for pervert sex.
I write;
That list "EXPOSES" you as a Speculating FOOL without Proof.
( ALL to the benefit of the WCR)
> � Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded" photo
Walt
Walt wrote;.... "Yes, you're absolutely correct....There was NO clip
found at the scene. "
The Stupid Bastard replied: "Finally we get the TRUTH from Walt!"
Walt retorted:... " If you weren't so damned stupid you'd realize that
this is what I've been saying all along....."
Then the Stupid Bastard said:.... "Huh, the clip BEING INSIDE THE
RIFLE would mean it was AT THE SCENCE Walt!! SO you have NOT been
saying this for years since you claim IT
WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE at discovery just like the WC!"
Let me help you pull your head out of your ass..... I said ....There
was no clip... FOUND...FOUND...at the scene. (It was in the rifle's
magazine but Day didn't discover it)
Ya see the difference Stupid Bastard??.... This is where you get
yourself in deep stuff..... you can't understand words.....and words
have meaning. You think you know what someone has written and start
braying like an ignorant jackass.....Then when you ignorance is
pointed out to you , you aren't man enough to admit that you made a
mistake. Instead of admitting your mistake you say something
like ....Quote..."SO you have NOT been saying this for years since you
claim IT WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE at discovery just like the
WC!"...unquote
> The FACT is there should have been a ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Don't put words in my mouth you worthless piece of shit..... I said
the clip had been jammed in the magazine by the person who hid it
INSIDE the cave of boxes, I said NOTHING NOTHING about the clip being
dented or crimped.... LEARN to read and learn to tell the truth.
And if you weren't so damned stupid you'd know that I've said that the
clip in evidence MAY NOT be the same clip that was about ready to drop
out of the rifle as Day left the TSBD with the rifle. THAT clip ( the
one in the photo) may have dropped out of the rifle unobserved and
been lost.
> The FACT is there should have been a ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Dear Stupid Bastard.... How many times have you had someone secretly
stick a sign on your back saying...."Kick me...I'm Stupid"?? Did you
know it was there??
Day wouldn't have known an Italian Mannlicher Carcano clip from a
cigarette case. He'd never seen the rifle before and knew nothing
about it, at the time of discovery,and yet you think he was an expert
on the Mannlicher Carcano???? He was totally unaware that the clip
was about to fall out of the rifle when he left the TSBD.
>
> > Are you too damned dumb to understand that ALL of this information
> > points to the rifle being "prepared" and hidden BEFORE the shooting??
>
> That is MY point and the clip being PUT INTO THE RIFLE LATER ON WAS
> PART OF THE PREPARATION! YOU are the one claiming it was already in
> the rifle when it was found, NOT me.
>
> > Here it is step by step
>
> > 1) There should have been a clip lying on the floor of the so called
> > "Sniper's Nest" if the shots had been fired from that location....THIS
> > IS A FACT!!
>
> The FACT is there should have been a ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
LMAO!
Rob really isn't very bright is he -- evidently he doesn't know,
eventually morons like him go to the reTARD pit of oblivion and are
ignored forever more.....
> read more »
Walt
Not only isn't he very bright.... He's a liar with an enormous
ego..... and actually I believe it's his ego that gets him over his
head time after time. His ego is his biggest problem. He's not a
bonafide idiot, but he's too damned dumb to THINK about what a poster
is telling him. His ego blinds him to any counterpoint to his
position on an aspect of the case. If he'd just shut up and listen
and THINK about the counterpoint and then be HONEST in debating the
point, he could become a real asset to the CT contingent....but alas I
believe that is akin to skunk changing into a house cat.
Walt
Rob wrote:
quote...."I don't need to know anything beyond the FACT the clip
leaves the rifle once the last round is chambered, and that is how the
rifle was found. I don't need to know anything beyond the FACT that
the police officers on the scene did NOT mention a clip, did NOT say
they saw a clip (even when disassembled) and did NOT inventory a
clip. I don't need to know anything beyond the FACT the WC gave us a
clip in MINT CONDITION when it was said the clip "jammed" in the rifle
due to a dent or a crimp.
I don't think there ever was a clip, and they loaded the live round
to simulate the rifle with NO clip as this would be how and why it had
NO clip, but the guys who wanted to frame LHO thought the MC worked
like the M-1, and they put a clip into the rifle later (a M-1 does NOT
lose its clip until AFTER THE LAST ROUND IS FIRED) on since it had a
round to fire."...unquote
"I don't think there ever was a clip"...
Then how do you explain the one that is clearly visible sticking out
of the bottom of the rifle that Day is carrying as he leaves the
TSBD????
"and they loaded the live round to simulate the rifle with NO clip as
this would be how and why it had NO clip,".....
WHEN....WHEN... Did they do this.... The evidence is clear that a live
round FELL ( Not flung with force) out of the rifle when Fritz opened
the bolt just seconds after Lt Day lifted it from the cave of boxes
where it had been hidden by COMPLETELY COVERING IT WITH BOXES OF
BOOKS. Are you proposing that Day and Fritz loaded the live round
into the rifle and then let it drop out onto the floor????
"the guys who wanted to frame LHO thought the MC worked like the
M-1,and they put a clip into the rifle later (a M-1 does NOT lose its
clip until AFTER THE LAST ROUND IS FIRED) on since it had a round to
fire."
FYI.... The M-1 Garand FLINGS the empty clip out of the rifle top of
the action and the bolt automatically locks open and is ready for a
fresh clip of cartridges. The M-1 isn't even comparable to a bolt
action Mannlicher Carcano.
"they put a clip into the rifle later"
LATER.... WHEN did they put the clip in the rifle??? There was no
clip reported at the scene, but there was one sticking out of the
rifle when Day left the TSBD. Do you think that Lt day was an expert
on Mannlicher Carcanos and knew that the rifle was useless as a
firearm if there was no clip?? If that's what you believe then
please explain why he didn't produce a clip for Tom Alyea to see and
then record it AT THE SCENE as having been in the rifle. The FACT is
Lt.Day knew NOTHING about the Mannlicher Carcano and it's distinctive
operating mechanism.
>
> > The photo of Day
> > leaving the TSBD with the Mannlicher Carcano SHOWS the clip hanging
> > out of the rifle and Day doesn't even know it's there. (because he
> > didn't know anything about Mannlicher Carcanos.)
>
> I guess he is blind too! Good old Wally can see it in a photo but the
> man carrying the rifle has NO idea it is there!
>
> > Are you too damned dumb to understand that ALL of this information
> > points to the rifle being "prepared" and hidden BEFORE the shooting??
>
> That is MY point and the clip being PUT INTO THE RIFLE LATER ON WAS
> PART OF THE PREPARATION! YOU are the one claiming it was already in
> the rifle when it was found, NOT me.
>
> > Here it is step by step
>
> > 1) There should have been a clip lying on the floor of the so called
> > "Sniper's Nest" if the shots had been fired from that location....THIS
> > IS A FACT!!
>
> The FACT is there should have been a ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Neil Coburn
trying to tell you. He is not nearly as dumb as you think.
.N.C.
Walt
Thank You, Neil for the left handed compliment (I think?).....Your
reply and advice encourages me, and indicates that at least someone
understands what I'm trying to say. ( Sometimes I feel like I'm
writing in Swahili or Incabodian, and nobody can understand a word I'm
writing) I hope they will listen to you.
If anybody has a valid an REASONABLE argument against my scenario I'd
love to hear their counter point. So far only Rob has tried to refute
the scenario, and his rebuttal is totally unreasonable, and
irratational.
Robert
NO it isn't because the clip BEING INSIDE the rifle would mean it was
still FOUND at the scene! YOU are lying yet again.
> Then the Stupid Bastard said:.... "Huh, the clip BEING INSIDE THE
> RIFLE would mean it was AT THE SCENCE Walt!! SO you have NOT been
> saying this for years since you claim IT
> WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE at discovery just like the WC!"
>
> Let me help you pull your head out of your ass..... I said ....There
> was no clip... FOUND...FOUND...at the scene. (It was in the rifle's
> magazine but Day didn't discover it)
Then we have NO evidence or proof to support your claim, do we? So
your claim is worthless as there was NO clip mentiond, photographed in
situ, inventoried or seen by any one at the scene. Thus there is NO
chain of custody for the clip the WC produced, thus your OPINION is
worthless as much as their claim!
> Ya see the difference Stupid Bastard??.... This is where you get
> yourself in deep stuff..... you can't understand words.....and words
> have meaning.
They sure do, and YOUR WORDS are your opinion, conjecture, and
speculation BUT NEVER evidence or proof. YOU lie for the benefit of
the WC, because NO matter how you slice it you WIND UP IN THE SAME
PLACE AS THEY DO EVERYTIME!
> You think you know what someone has written and start
> braying like an ignorant jackass.....Then when you ignorance is
> pointed out to you , you aren't man enough to admit that you made a
> mistake.
IF bragging=pointing out WALT'S lies then I'm bragging, but I don't
think so. This card is so overplayed. YOU are the one with the HUGE
EGO, NOT me.
YOU lied again, because IF I make a mistake I will admit it, but I
have not here, I have simply pointed out your lies.
> Instead of admitting your mistake you say something
> like ....Quote..."SO you have NOT been saying this for years since you
> claim IT WAS INSIDE THE RIFLE at discovery just like the
> WC!"...unquote
INSIDE the rifle PUTS IT AT THE SCENE Walt!
> > > > NOW, how is he going to prove the clip was INSIDE THE MC WHEN FOUND AS
> > > > HE HAS CLAIMED FOR YEARS?
>
> > > The proof is in the photos of the rifle being examined by Day and
> > > Fritz, and the photo of Day leaving the TSBD with the rifle.
>
> > The clip is NOT visible in those photos of Day and Fritz, and as I
> > said before, the photo of Day leaving the TSBD does NOT prove or mean
> > the clip was inside the rifle at discovery. There is a conflict as
> > they argued (and Walt argues) that the clip was "jammed" and stuck due
> > to a dent or crimp, yet the clip the WC put into evidence is in MINT
> > CONDITION!
>
> > Please explain this for us Walt.
>
> > > If you
> > > knew anything about the Mannlicher Carcano you'd know that the photos
> > > show that the bolt is jammed in the position where the bolt jams when
> > > someone tries to load a cartridge into the chamber without a clip.
>
> > I don't need to know anything beyond the FACT the clip leaves the
> > rifle once the last round is chambered, and that is how the rifle was
> > found. I don't need to know anything beyond the FACT that the police
> > officers on the scene did NOT mention a clip, did NOT say they saw a
> > clip (even when disassembled)
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Robert
The WC claimed it was dented and crimped and you have said it was
damaged thus it could fall out. Here are YOUR words:
“I'm 99% certain that the person who BURIED that Mannlicher Carcano
benesth heavy boxes of books simply stuck that empty clip in the
opening in the bottom of the magazine where it became lodged.” (Walt)
How does a magazine get "lodged" IF it is in perfect condition?
Walt can't prove anyone did this before hiding it either. The fact
they had a round in the chamber would indicate they did NOT do this as
that is WHEN a clip falls out in a M-C (when the last round is
chambered) so why would they put one in to draw attention to this
point?
> And if you weren't so damned stupid you'd know that I've said that the
> clip in evidence MAY NOT be the same clip that was about ready to drop
> out of the rifle as Day left the TSBD with the rifle. THAT clip ( the
> one in the photo) may have dropped out of the rifle unobserved and
> been lost.
Maybe, perhaps, could be, that is all you can do and say. The point
is NO clip was mentioned, photographed in situ, inventoried or seen by
any of the officers on the scene. The clip in evidence is bogus as
well so why would they put this in IF a clip was found IN the rifle as
you claim?
> > Please explain this for us Walt.
>
> > > If you
> > > knew anything about the Mannlicher Carcano you'd know that the photos
> > > show that the bolt is jammed in the position where the bolt jams when
> > > someone tries to load a cartridge into the chamber without a clip.
>
> > I don't need to know anything beyond the FACT the clip leaves the
> > rifle once the last round is chambered, and that is how the rifle was
> > found. I don't need to know anything beyond the FACT that the police
> > officers on the scene did NOT mention a clip, did NOT say they saw a
> > clip (even when disassembled) and did NOT inventory a clip. I don't
> > need to know anything beyond the FACT the WC gave us a clip in MINT
> > CONDITION when it was said the clip "jammed" in the rifle due to a
> > dent or a crimp.
>
> > > This indicates that somebody tried to load a live round onto the
> > > chamber without a clip, and jammed the bolt.
>
> > I don't think there ever was a clip and they loaded the live round to
> > simulate the rifle with NO clip as this would be how and why it had NO
> > clip, but the guys who wanted to frame LHO thought the MC worked like
> > the M-1 and they put a clip into the rifle later (a M-1 does NOT lose
> > its clip until AFTER THE LAST ROUND IS FIRED) on since
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Robert
Walt is the moron who believes all these lies that BENEFIT the WC!
Walt never proved his claim that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling
Mounts".
Walt never proved his claim that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved his claim that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved his claim that Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the
CE-133A photo on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that the wallet was found "INSIDE" the
owner's car (allegedly LHO’s).
Walt never proved his claim that Michael Paine had the same model
rifle as LHO (Carcano 40”).
Walt never proved his claim that General Walker believed LHO shot at
him in 4/63.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker on
4/10/63.
Walt never proved his claim that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT
General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO RECEIVED a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that the bill of lading proved a 40"
Carcano was ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO ORDERED a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the weapon found on the roof was a
DPD shotgun.
Walt never proved his claim that Lt. Day performed a “lift” off of the
Carcano on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a “smudged print” on the
wooden foregrip of CE139 when found.
Walt never proved his claim that there was a clip inside the Carcano
when it was found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved his claim that Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved his claim that Truly held a “roll call” and LHO was
the ONLY one missing.
Walt never proved his claim that DeMohrenschildt actually owned the
40” Carcano allegedly ordered from Klein’s.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct.
1963.
Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved his claim that the weight listed on the “Bill of
lading” was TARE weight.
Walt never proved his claim that the weight of the 40” Carcano is
7.5LBS when the ad the WC used says 7.0LBS.
Walt never proved his claim that the bullet recovered from Walker
shooting was copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO ordered a rifle that was easily
traceable so he could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved his claim that the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm
ammo) came from a Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved his claim that BY photo 133A (deMohrenschildt BY
photo) came from the SAME negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the
money order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved his claim Fritz was just sloppy when timing the
arrest report ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved his claim of a “signed affadavit with a notary seal”
signed by the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the
pilot fly him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO was part of a plot to kill Castro
(probably claims he was going to be the “trigger man” too).
Walt never proved his claim that a reporter lied because he was “bent
on hyperbole”, and said the bullet found at Walker’s was a .30.06
caliber instead of a 6.5mm bullet as Walt and the WC claim.
Walt never proved his claim that CE573 was the bullet actually fired
at Gen. Walker on 4/10/63.
Robert
Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
"moron" and "stupid bas---d" all the time, NOT me. I have listened to
him and what he claims does NOT jive with the known evidence and
facts.
Feel free to believe him if you want.
Walt
> On Jul 30, 11:18 am, daytonac...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:
>
> > OK guys.Get a cold beer and a cigarette and read carefully what Walt is
> > trying to tell you. He is not nearly as dumb as you think.
> > .N.C.
>
> Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
> "moron" and "stupid bas---d"
Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
"moron" and "stupid bas---d"
If you actlike a stupid bastard, then you can expect to be called a
stupid bastard..... And you definitely don't have the ability to
think rationally.
Walt
Whoa!! Hold on thar just a minute ya dumb jackass..... WHAT know
"evidence and facts" atre you talkin about. Aren't you the guy that
continually berates me for using information supplied by the Warren
Commission??
tomnln
Walt never
proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never
proved that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker
called Germany.
Walt never proved
Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's
car
(allegedly LHO's).
Walt never proved Michael Paine had
same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40").
Walt never proved
General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
Walt never proved that
Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
in 4/63.
Walt
never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that
the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
ordered by
LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in
4/63.
Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano
rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in
CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a
"sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue
LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it
was
found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle
that was easily traceable so he
could shoot at Gen. Walker with
it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for
RFK.
Walt never proved that Truly held a "roll call" and LHO was the
ONLY
one missing.
Walt never proved the casings found at the
TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from a
Marine Corps order for the
CIA.
Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40" Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein's.
Walt never proved that
the bullet recovered from Walker shooting
was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt
BY photo) came from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never
proved LHO went to Mexico
City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
Walt never proved his
claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used
allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take
CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report
ELEVEN
minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on
the "Bill of lading" was TARE
weight.
Walt never proved the
weight of the 40" Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad
the WC used says
7.0LBS.
Walt never proved a "signed affadavit with a notary seal" signed by
the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the
pilot fly
him to Cuba EVER existed.
Walt never proved the
rifle found on the roof was a DPD shotgun and
NOT a Mauser as the
Mentesana film shows.
Walt said Mausers are NOT stamped on the
barrel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ø Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded" photo of Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe???
tomnln
Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt
I'm pleased that you post the list of my ideas everyday..... However
since I never requested that you do that don't expect me to pay you
for it.
If an honest lurker sees an item on that list that they would like
illuminated and clarified, I'd be happy clarify it for them.
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in messagenews:fffc84b1-c623-4a3b...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Robert
>
> > On Jul 30, 11:18 am, daytonac...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:
>
> > > OK guys.Get a cold beer and a cigarette and read carefully what Walt is
> > > trying to tell you. He is not nearly as dumb as you think.
> > > .N.C.
>
> > Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
> > "moron" and "stupid bas---d"
>
> Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
> "moron" and "stupid bas---d"
>
> If you actlike a stupid bastard, then you can expect to be called a
> stupid bastard..... And you definitely don't have the ability to
> think rationally.
Wrong! That is like saying if you HAVE ABSOLUTE POWER you should use
ABSOLUTE POWER all the time! The truly powerful are thos with power
who decide NOT to use it the vast majority of time as they seek other
methods to achieve their goals. ANY one can use power when they have
it -- that is the easy part, learning how to achieve things in a more
difficult and humane way is the way of the Lord.
Even if I was dumb, and I'm NOT, how would calling me dumb all the
time help me or you? When you attack people they will NEVER listen to
you! This is a small thing I think Walt has NEVER learned in his
whole life. I wonder how many fights this Neanderthal has gotten into
in his life?
He is a like a frustrated Tarzan who can't get his point across so he
attacks you instead.
Robert
The ONES you skip and lie about!
Walt
> On Jul 30, 7:46 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 2:49 pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 30, 11:18 am, daytonac...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:
>
> > > > OK guys.Get a cold beer and a cigarette and read carefully what Walt is
> > > > trying to tell you. He is not nearly as dumb as you think.
> > > > .N.C.
>
> > > Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
> > > "moron" and "stupid bas---d"
>
> > Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
> > "moron" and "stupid bas---d"
>
> > If you actlike a stupid bastard, then you can expect to be called a
> > stupid bastard..... And you definitely don't have the ability to
> > think rationally.
>
> Wrong! That is like saying if you HAVE ABSOLUTE POWER you should use
> ABSOLUTE POWER all the time! The truly powerful are thos with power
> who decide NOT to use it the vast majority of time as they seek other
> methods to achieve their goals. ANY one can use power when they have
> it -- that is the easy part, learning how to achieve things in a more
> difficult and humane way is the way of the Lord.
>
Even if I was dumb, and I'm NOT, how would calling me dumb all the
time help me or you? When you attack people they will NEVER listen
to
you!
Perhaps you're right.....But you've EARNED my scorn,..... The very
first time we crossed swords I tried to tell you in a nice way that
you were wrong in believing stuff from "The Gun That Didn't Smoke"
because The Mannlicher Carcano and the M-1 Garand are not comparable.
You insisted that the clip was flung from the MC just like the M-1
Garand because that's what the author of the article said. You called
me a liar and said I wasn't in any position to refute that idea
because I wasn't a recognized author. Ben, Barb and myself tried to
tell you to do a little research and learn how the clip simply FALLS
out of the MC when the last round is stripped from the clip by the
forward stroke of the bolt. Instead of heeding good advice you
escalated the argument and stubbornly refused to admit that you were
wrong.
Only a stupid bastard, and a coward, would refuse to admit his error
and then make matters worse by calling others who had tried to educate
him with FACTS.... liars.
You're a stupid bastard, a liar, and a coward..... Perhaps you aren't
totally responsible for being stupid... But you ARE totally
responsible for being a liar and a coward.
This is a small thing I think Walt has NEVER learned in his
> whole life. I wonder how many fights this Neanderthal has gotten into
> in his life?
>
> He is a like a frustrated Tarzan who can't get his point across so he
> attacks you instead.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Walt yelled:...."Whoa!! Hold on thar just a minute ya dumb
jackass..... WHAT known "evidence and facts" atre you talkin about.
Aren't you the guy that continually berates me for using information
supplied by the Warren Commission??
Rob whimpered:...."The ONES you skip and lie about!"
Let's lay this out step by step.... You say that my claims don't jive
with the "known evidence'... WHAT "known evidence" are you referring
to??
If you're referring to the story as told by the Warren
Commission...then you must be a SHILL for the Warren Commission.....
Robert
Walt, I don't think the authors of that article were ever making that
claim -- their point was the people framing LHO did NOT know this and
assumed the Carcano and the M-1 were comparable, thus they goofed.
> You insisted that the clip was flung from the MC just like the M-1
> Garand because that's what the author of the article said.
I simply said it was ejected, and when you said it wasn't, I said
okay, but you harped on this point INSTEAD of the main point for a
long time. Later on you admited you had NO proof for your claim tht
the clip was inside the rifle when found, and then it became clear why
you harped on the meaningless point of how the clip leaves the rifle
to me then.
>You called
> me a liar and said I wasn't in any position to refute that idea
> because I wasn't a recognized author.
Walt, you either have a faulty memory, or you are lying again. I
NEVER made an issue of how the clip left the Carcano, I was MORE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CLAIM OF THE CLIP BEING INSIDE THE RIFLE WHEN
FOUND. The WC claimed this and YOU claimed this all the while NOT
proving it.
> Ben, Barb and myself tried to
> tell you to do a little research and learn how the clip simply FALLS
> out of the MC when the last round is stripped from the clip by the
> forward stroke of the bolt.
I did say it was fine to say it fell out, I NEVER made this the point,
you did! Barb J. said more than this as she called this issue a "dead
horse" and that is a lie as this claim was NEVER proven by the WC or
anyone who supports it.
> Instead of heeding good advice you
> escalated the argument and stubbornly refused to admit that you were
> wrong.
YOU are back to lying Walt, ONLY YOU and Ben made an issue of how the
clip left the rifle, NOT me! I had more important things to discuss
but YOU were avoiding them like the plague because YOU CAN'T SUPPORT
YOUR CLAIMS!
> Only a stupid bastard, and a coward, would refuse to admit his error
> and then make matters worse by calling others who had tried to educate
> him with FACTS.... liars.
ONLY a liar would continue to say someone has NOT admitted something
when they have. I said early on you can say it fell out, but you keep
on insisting I never agreed to this. YOU are a liar and a true COWARD
Walt as you have to lie about something so trivial for so long.
> You're a stupid bastard, a liar, and a coward..... Perhaps you aren't
> totally responsible for being stupid... But you ARE totally
> responsible for being a liar and a coward.
Walt, YOU are the ONL liar and coward in this post. YOU have made an
issue of something that is NOT even important ALL IN AN EFFOR TO HIDE
THE FACT YOU CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR LYING CLAIMS THAT MATCH THE SAME LYING
CLAIMS THE WC MADE!
> This is a small thing I think Walt has NEVER learned in his
>
>
>
> > whole life. I wonder how many fights this Neanderthal has gotten into
> > in his life?
>
> > He is a like a frustrated Tarzan who can't get his point across so he
> > attacks you instead.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Robert
> On Jul 31, 10:15 am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 9:09 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 30, 2:49 pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 30, 11:18 am, daytonac...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:
>
> > > > > OK guys.Get a cold beer and a cigarette and read carefully what Walt is
> > > > > trying to tell you. He is not nearly as dumb as you think.
> > > > > .N.C.
>
> > > > Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
> > > > "moron" and "stupid bas---d" all the time, NOT me. I have listened to
> > > > him and what he claims does NOT jive with the known evidence and
> > > > facts.
>
> > > I have listened to him and what he claims does NOT jive with the
> > > known evidence and facts.
>
> > > Whoa!! Hold on thar just a minute ya dumb jackass..... WHAT know
> > > "evidence and facts" atre you talkin about. Aren't you the guy that
> > > continually berates me for using information supplied by the Warren
> > > Commission??
>
> > The ONES you skip and lie about!
>
> Walt yelled:...."Whoa!! Hold on thar just a minute ya dumb
> jackass..... WHAT known "evidence and facts" atre you talkin about.
> Aren't you the guy that continually berates me for using information
> supplied by the Warren Commission??
>
> Rob whimpered:...."The ONES you skip and lie about!"
NOTICE HOW WALT LIKES TO EDIT TOO! HE feels the need to add
comentary, and it always of the disparaging kind too!
I don't whimper liar, I am just showing your lies for the all the
world to see.
> Let's lay this out step by step.... You say that my claims don't jive
> with the "known evidence'... WHAT "known evidence" are you referring
> to??
Been there, done that. YOU can't support your lie that the clip was
INSIDE the rifle when it was found anymore than the WC could. YOU are
a WC shill.
> If you're referring to the story as told by the Warren
> Commission...then you must be a SHILL for the Warren Commission.....
Don't have, you are the one that claimed their evidence is valid and
the 'OFFICIAL RECORD" so you are sunk because their official evidence
CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR OR THEM. YOU are a WC shill who can't lie any
better than they did.
Walt
I said the PHOTOS show.....that the bolt was jammed when it was
discovered. I used the testimony of all of the cops who were there
and saw the live round FALL FALL out of the rifle.
WHAT evidence are you using??
so you are sunk because their official evidence
> CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR OR THEM. YOU are a WC shill who can't lie any
> better than they did.- Hide quoted text -
Robert
NONE of this proves a clip was INSIDE the rifle though! Where is the
clip in the offiical photo Curry published in his book?
> WHAT evidence are you using??
Been there, done that. The WC gave us NONE and you have added NOTHING
but your opinion which seems to be the SAME opinion the WC had!
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 30, 7:46=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 30, 2:49=A0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 30, 11:18=A0am, daytonac...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:
>>
>> > > OK =A0guys.Get a cold beer and a cigarette and read carefully what Wa=
>lt is
>> > > trying to tell you. =A0He is not nearly as dumb as you think.
>> > > .N.C.
>>
>> > Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
>> > "moron" and "stupid bas---d"
>>
>> Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
>> "moron" and "stupid bas---d"
>>
>> If you actlike a stupid bastard, then you can expect to be called a
>> think rationally.
>
>Wrong! That is like saying if you HAVE ABSOLUTE POWER you should use
>ABSOLUTE POWER all the time! The truly powerful are thos with power
>who decide NOT to use it the vast majority of time as they seek other
>methods to achieve their goals. ANY one can use power when they have
>it -- that is the easy part, learning how to achieve things in a more
>difficult and humane way is the way of the Lord.
>
>Even if I was dumb, and I'm NOT,
Opinions vary.
>how would calling me dumb all the
>time help me or you?
It doesn't. It alerts lurkers to be aware that they might be dealing with a
moron.
>When you attack people they will NEVER listen to
>you! This is a small thing I think Walt has NEVER learned in his
>whole life. I wonder how many fights this Neanderthal has gotten into
>in his life?
>
>He is a like a frustrated Tarzan who can't get his point across so he
>attacks you instead.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Ben Holmes
Robert says...
>
>On Jul 31, 1:24=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 12:13=A0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 31, 11:43=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 31, 10:15=A0am, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jul 30, 9:09=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Jul 30, 2:49=A0pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jul 30, 11:18=A0am, daytonac...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > > > > > > OK =A0guys.Get a cold beer and a cigarette and read carefully=
> what Walt is
>> > > > > > > trying to tell you. =A0He is not nearly as dumb as you think.
>> > > > > > > .N.C.
>>
>> > > > > > Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others
>stened to
>> > > > > > him and what he claims does NOT jive with the known evidence an=
>d
>> > > > > > facts.
>>
>> > > > > =A0I have listened to him and what he claims does NOT jive with t=
>he
>> > > > > known evidence and facts.
>>
>> > > > > Whoa!! Hold on thar just a minute ya dumb jackass..... WHAT know
>y that
>> > > > > continually berates me for using information supplied by the Warr=
>en
>> > > > > Commission??
>>
>> > > > The ONES you skip and lie about!
>>
>> > > Walt yelled:...."Whoa!! Hold on thar just a minute ya dumb
>.
>> > > Aren't you the guy that =A0continually berates me for using informati=
>on
>> > > supplied by the Warren =A0Commission??
>>
>> > > Rob whimpered:...."The ONES you skip and lie about!"
>>
>> > comentary, and it always of the disparaging kind too!
>>
>> > I don't whimper liar, I am just showing your lies for the all the
>> > world to see.
>>
>> > > Let's lay this out step by step.... You say that my claims don't jive
>ng
>> > > to??
>>
>> > Been there, done that. =A0YOU can't support your lie that the clip was
>> > INSIDE the rifle when it was found anymore than the WC could. =A0YOU ar=
>e
>> > a WC shill.
>>
>> > > If you're referring to the story as told by the Warren
>> > > Commission...then you must be a SHILL for the Warren Commission.....
>>
>> > Don't have, you are the one that claimed their evidence is valid and
>> > the 'OFFICIAL RECORD"
>>
>> I said the PHOTOS show.....that the bolt was jammed when it was
>> and saw the live round FALL =A0 FALL out of the rifle.
>
>NONE of this proves a clip was INSIDE the rifle though! Where is the
>clip in the offiical photo Curry published in his book?
>
>
>> WHAT evidence are you using??
>
>Been there, done that. The WC gave us NONE
This, of course, is an outright lie.
Of course, Robsie *STILL* can't cite for the meaning of the term. Must be
afraid of dictionaries... (probably got whacked upside the head with a heavy
dictionary when he was a kid... this caused a lifelong fear of dictionaries, and
brain damage at the same time)
>and you have added NOTHING
>but your opinion which seems to be the SAME opinion the WC had!
Walt
The Stupid Bastard whined:......"NONE of this proves a clip was INSIDE
the rifle though! Where is the
clip in the offiical photo Curry published in his book?"
Oh I'm so glad you asked Stupid Bastard.....Because the photo is on
page 54 of Jesse Curry's "JFK Assassination File". Pull your head out
of your ass and LOOK at the photo on the lower right of page 54. Once
you've got yer head out you should be able to see the clip sticking
out of the magazine that Day is carrying by the leather sling.
That clip was in the rifle when it was discovered COMPLETELY BURIED in
a cave of boxes. Day knew NOTHING about Mannlicher Carcanos so he
didn't realize that the clip was in the rifle. Anybody who knows
anything about the MC would realize that the clip is very close to
dropping out of the rifle as Day is carrying it. The clip apparently
slowly worked it's way out of the magazine as Day examined it for
prints on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Day was totally unaware that
he was in danger of losing a vital piece of evidence if that clip fell
from the rifle and went unnoticed.
This DOES NOT mean that the clip was in the rifle when the live round
was inserted into the chamber. The live round was JAMMED in the
chamber which in turn JAMMED the bolt...then the clip was jammed in
the magazine.
The clip COULD NOT have been in the rifle if the rifle had been fired
from the so called "Sniper's Nest" becauise it would have dropped out
on the floor right there in the so called "Sniper's Nest".
here's why that is a FACT:... The Warren Commission GUESSED that three
shots were fired from the rifle. If that was true there had to have
been FOUR live rounds in the rifle clip at the start of the shooting.
Firing three shots would have left the live round in the clip. when
the third shot was fired the bolt was opened to extract the spent
shell from shot number three. then when the bolt was pushed forward
after the spent shell was ejected and the fourth round was chambered
there would have been nothing to hold the clip from dropping out of
the rifle. Therefore IF the rifle had been fired from the fake Sniper
Nest that clip should have been on the floor with the spent shells.
The jarring and vibrations caused by operating the rifle's bolt would
have caused the clip to drop out of the rifle. We can know that this
is true because the clip worked it's way out of the rifle as Day
examined it, and was photographed as it was about to fall out of the
rifle as Day carried it from the TSBD.
What all of this means is the rifle was "prepared" by sticking a live
round in the chamber and the empty clip in the magazine BEFORE the
shooting and BEFORE it was COMPLETELY BURIED in the cave of
boxes.
>
> > WHAT evidence are you using??
>
> Been there, done that. The WC gave us NONE and you have added NOTHING
> but your opinion which seems to be the SAME opinion the WC had!- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On Jul 30, 9:37 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
I'm pleased that you post the list of my ideas everyday..... However
since I never requested that you do that don't expect me to pay you
for it.
If an honest lurker sees an item on that list that they would like
illuminated and clarified, I'd be happy clarify it for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're a Lying WCR SHILL !
I asked you for a citation that CE-133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts"
ALL of your Lying Speculations benefis the WCR or make CT's look BAD !
---------------------------------------------------------------------------���--------------------------------- � Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded" photoof Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe??? Walt said Oswald was LBJ's Puppet. (No Citation here either)> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote inmessagenews:fffc84b1-c623-4a3b...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...>> On Jul 30, 2:49 pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:>> > On Jul 30, 11:18 am, daytonac...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:>> > > OK guys.Get a cold beer and a cigarette and read carefully what Waltis> > > trying to tell you. He is not nearly as dumb as you think.> > > .N.C.>> > Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others> > "moron" and "stupid bas---d">> Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others> "moron" and "stupid bas---d">> If you actlike a stupid bastard, then you can expect to be called a> stupid bastard..... And you definitely don't have the ability to> think rationally.>> all the time, NOT me. I have listened to>> > him and what he claims does NOT jive with the known evidence and> > facts.>> > Feel free to believe him if you want.>> Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".> Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.> Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.> Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo> on 11/22/63.> Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car> (allegedly LHO's).> Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano> 40").> Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.> Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker> in 4/63.> Walt never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.> Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was> ordered by LHO.> Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.> Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano rifle.> Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.> Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".> Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."> Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it was> found at the TSBD.> Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle that was easily traceable so he> could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.> Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for RFK.> Walt never proved that Truly held a "roll call" and LHO was the ONLY> one missing.> Walt never proved the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from a> Marine Corps order for the CIA.> Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40" Carcano> allegedly ordered from Klein's.> Walt never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was> copper-jacketed.> Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt BY photo) came from the SAME> negative as CE-133A.> Walt never proved LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.> Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on> 11/22/63.> Walt never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money> order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.> Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),> and it is AUTHENTIC.> Walt never proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report> ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.> Walt never proved the weight listed on the "Bill of lading" was TARE> weight.> Walt never proved the weight of the 40" Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad> the WC used says 7.0LBS.> Walt never proved a "signed affadavit with a notary seal" signed by> the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the pilot fly> him to Cuba EVER existed.> Walt never proved the rifle found on the roof was a DPD shotgun and> NOT a Mauser as the Mentesana film shows.> Walt said Mausers are NOT stamped on the barrel.> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------���--------------------------------->> � Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded" photoof Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe???>> Walt said Oswald was LBJ's Puppet. (No Citation here either)
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b3b3b868-0d0a-41dd...@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 9:37 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I'm pleased that you post the list of my ideas everyday..... However
> since I never requested that you do that don't expect me to pay you
> for it.
>
> If an honest lurker sees an item on that list that they would like
> illuminated and clarified, I'd be happy clarify it for them.
> You're a Lying WCR SHILL !
>
> I asked you for a citation that CE-133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts"
And I told you..... The Mannlicher Carcano model 91/39 that Oswald is
holding in the ONE and ONLY photo (CE 133A) that Marina took has dual
sling swivels because the bottom one of the dual swivels can be seen
hanging beneath the rifle. At the time I was unaware that there were
a few Mannlicher Carcanos made with bottom sling swivels only. ( these
are very rare rifles.) Since I could see the bottom sling swivel
beneath the front foregrip I assumed that it was the dual sling
version of the rifle. It matters little because there is no way
anybody can know if it was a dual sling swivel rofle or a single
bottom sling swivel rifle......either way it is NOT a single side
swivel version like the rifle found in the TSBD.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ø Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded" photoof Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe??? Walt said Oswald was LBJ's Puppet. (No Citation here either)> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote inmessagenews:fffc84b1-c623-4a3b...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...>> On Jul 30, 2:49 pm, Robert <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote:>> > On Jul 30, 11:18 am, daytonac...@webtv.net (Neil Coburn) wrote:>> > > OK guys.Get a cold beer and a cigarette and read carefully what Waltis> > > trying to tell you. He is not nearly as dumb as you think.> > > .N.C.>> > Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others> > "moron" and "stupid bas---d">> Who said he was dumb Neil?? He is the one calling me and others> "moron" and "stupid bas---d">> If you actlike a stupid bastard, then you can expect to be called a> stupid bastard..... And you definitely don't have the ability to> think rationally.>> all the time, NOT me. I have listened to>> > him and what he claims does NOT jive with the known evidence and> > facts.>> > Feel free to believe him if you want.>> Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".> Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.> Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.> Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo> on 11/22/63.> Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car> (allegedly LHO's).> Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano> 40").> Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.> Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker> in 4/63.> Walt never proved LHO received a 40" Carcano rifle.> Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was> ordered by LHO.> Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.> Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40" Carcano rifle.> Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.> Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".> Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."> Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it was> found at the TSBD.> Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle that was easily traceable so he> could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.> Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for RFK.> Walt never proved that Truly held a "roll call" and LHO was the ONLY> one missing.> Walt never proved the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from a> Marine Corps order for the CIA.> Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40" Carcano> allegedly ordered from Klein's.> Walt never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was> copper-jacketed.> Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt BY photo) came from the SAME> negative as CE-133A.> Walt never proved LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.> Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on> 11/22/63.> Walt never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money> order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.> Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),> and it is AUTHENTIC.> Walt never proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report> ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.> Walt never proved the weight listed on the "Bill of lading" was TARE> weight.> Walt never proved the weight of the 40" Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad> the WC used says 7.0LBS.> Walt never proved a "signed affadavit with a notary seal" signed by> the LHO saying he was going to hijack a plane and make the pilot fly> him to Cuba EVER existed.> Walt never proved the rifle found on the roof was a DPD shotgun and> NOT a Mauser as the Mentesana film shows.> Walt said Mausers are NOT stamped on the barrel.> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>> Ø Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded" photoof Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe???>> Walt said Oswald was LBJ's Puppet. (No Citation here either)
tomnln
On Aug 2, 3:03 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b3b3b868-0d0a-41dd...@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 9:37 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I'm pleased that you post the list of my ideas everyday..... However
> since I never requested that you do that don't expect me to pay you
> for it.
>
> If an honest lurker sees an item on that list that they would like
> illuminated and clarified, I'd be happy clarify it for them.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�------------------------------------
> You're a Lying WCR SHILL !
>
> I asked you for a citation that CE-133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts"
And I told you..... The Mannlicher Carcano model 91/39 that Oswald is
holding in the ONE and ONLY photo (CE 133A) that Marina took has dual
sling swivels because the bottom one of the dual swivels can be seen
hanging beneath the rifle. At the time I was unaware that there were
a few Mannlicher Carcanos made with bottom sling swivels only. ( these
are very rare rifles.) Since I could see the bottom sling swivel
beneath the front foregrip I assumed that it was the dual sling
version of the rifle. It matters little because there is no way
anybody can know if it was a dual sling swivel rofle or a single
bottom sling swivel rifle......either way it is NOT a single side
swivel version like the rifle found in the TSBD.
You NEVER offered that Stupid Lying explanation before right now.
You get caught in LIE AFTER LIE.
SEE BELOW !
> � Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded"
> � Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded"
Walt
I most certainly did....Ya senile old bastard. I'm sure it matters
not at all to anyone but to you and I,...But you've earned yourself a
reputation for being nearly as stupid as Rob, so most folks will know
that you're a liar even if they don't bother to check my posts on the
subject. You problem is you can't understand what you read and you
get all confused. At the time that you went into orbit about my
statement that the rifle in CE 133A has the sling swivel on the bottom
you didn't even know which photo was CE 133A.
I haven't seen your "debate" with .John....But I know without seeing
it that you made a big laughing stock out of yourself..... Ya stupid
old pervert.
> > Ø Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded"
> > Ø Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded"
> > photoof Walker's back Yard hidden in her Shoe???>> Walt said Oswald was
> > LBJ's Puppet. (No Citation here either)- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
http://jack.zunino.net/knowjack.htm
I'm the guy who supplied Wally with evidence/testimony for 9 years.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:0247042d-0e6a-4ecd...@r38g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > � Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded"
> > � Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded"
tomnln
"LHO worked for RFK".
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:zimdm.38424$0z7....@newsfe07.iad...
Walt
> Walt is related to Jack Schitt>>> SEE>>>http://jack.zunino.net/knowjack.htm
>
> I'm the guy who supplied Wally with evidence/testimony for 9 years.
Anybody who has read your posts knows that you're a liar..... Now go
find yer buddy Rob..... sucker.
> > > Ø Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded"
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Robert
> On Aug 2, 10:19 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Walt is related to Jack Schitt>>> SEE>>>http://jack.zunino.net/knowjack.htm
>
> > I'm the guy who supplied Wally with evidence/testimony for 9 years.
>
> Anybody who has read your posts knows that you're a liar..... Now go
> find yer buddy Rob..... sucker.
Liars like Walt ALWAYS RUN from their OWN WORDS when given the chance
to defend them. But hey, Ben has said Walt is NOT one of the
"brightest bulbs" on the tree!
“So by intelligent you mean Walt and Healy, huh? LOL!!” (Robert)
“Once again, you draw conclusions, **and they aren't the right
ones**...” (Ended this way by Ben Holmes – 8/1/09)
Sorry Walt, but I didn't say it!
tomnln
I'm the guy who supplied Wally with evidence/testimony for 9 years.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:0f2000df-621c-4769...@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> > > � Saaaaaaaaaaaaay, Aren't you the guy who said Marina had a "folded"
ShutterBun
thread entirely, but has anyone pointed out that YES, the Carcano CAN
be used as a single-shot rifle? (In other words, have a single round
pushed directly into the receiver, and chambered)
I'm not suggesting this was the case when Oswald did hit shooting,
certainly. Just demonstrating that Frazier was not lying or mistaken
when he said it could be used as a single shot rifle.
I'm sure this video clip will ellicit plenty of groans, but the simple
fact is that it shows a single round being fed directly into the gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4
Not to mention several Carcano enthusiast sites which confirm same.
OK, back to your bickering.
Walt
> I haven't been able to sift through all the name-calling on this
> thread entirely, but has anyone pointed out that YES, the Carcano CAN
> be used as a single-shot rifle? (In other words, have a single round
> pushed directly into the receiver, and chambered)
>
> I'm not suggesting this was the case when Oswald did hit shooting,
> certainly. Just demonstrating that Frazier was not lying or mistaken
> when he said it could be used as a single shot rifle.
>
> I'm sure this video clip will ellicit plenty of groans, but the simple
> fact is that it shows a single round being fed directly into the gun.
Perhaps you'd better look at the video again....... The man loads a
FULL clip of SIX CARTRIDGES into the rifle and closes the bolt.
That's the ONLY way a live round can be loaded into rthe firing
chamber. The clip doesn't have to contain six cartridges but it has
to have at least two cartridges in it. The more cartridges there are
the easier it is to load the clip into the magazine. If only two
cartriges are in the clip it is a little difficult to load the clip
into the rifle. The Mannlicher Carcano CANNOT be used as a single
shot rifle by simply dropping a live round into the chamber. I KNOW
this from EXPERIENCE..... but anybody who wants to check out my
veracity can go to any good library and study the spent cartridge
extrtacor mechanism and they will learn that the extractor will
prevent the bolt from being closed on a cartridge in the
chamber.....and here's why. The extractor takes up about 1/3 of the
circumference of the face of the bolt, anothe 1/3 is solid bolt lip,
and 1/3 of the bolt face is open. when the bolt os open and the
operating handle is up the open portion of the bolt is down. (at the
bottom quadrant of the bolt ) Since the cartriges in the clip are
being fed up out of the clip by spring pressure and the open portion
of the bolt is down, the top cartridge in the clip is pushed up into
the face of the bolt, where it is seated behind the bolt lip and the
extractor lip.The bolt can then be closed, and latched, and the rifle
fired. If a cartridge is dropped into the chamber the bolt will hot
close to the latched ready to fire position because lip on the
extractor and the lip on the face of the bolt hit the rim of the
cartridge and the bolt becomes jammed. The cartride MUST be served
up into the open portion of the bolt face by the action of the spring
pushing the cartridges up into the face of the bolt.
THE MANNLICHER CARCANO CANNOT BE USED AS A SINGLE SHOT RIFLE!!!
Ben Holmes
ShutterBun says...
>
>I haven't been able to sift through all the name-calling on this
>thread entirely, but has anyone pointed out that YES, the Carcano CAN
>be used as a single-shot rifle? (In other words, have a single round
>pushed directly into the receiver, and chambered)
>
>I'm not suggesting this was the case when Oswald did hit shooting,
>certainly. Just demonstrating that Frazier was not lying or mistaken
>when he said it could be used as a single shot rifle.
Was Frazier telling the truth when he labeled CE139 as a "low velocity" rifle?
>I'm sure this video clip will ellicit plenty of groans, but the simple
>fact is that it shows a single round being fed directly into the gun.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4
>
>Not to mention several Carcano enthusiast sites which confirm same.
>
>OK, back to your bickering.
Walt
> In article <0cef477f-1552-4229-8c64-e5ed2ee6e...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> ShutterBun says...
>
>
>
> >I haven't been able to sift through all the name-calling on this
> >thread entirely, but has anyone pointed out that YES, the Carcano CAN
> >be used as a single-shot rifle? (In other words, have a single round
> >pushed directly into the receiver, and chambered)
>
> >I'm not suggesting this was the case when Oswald did hit shooting,
> >certainly. Just demonstrating that Frazier was not lying or mistaken
> >when he said it could be used as a single shot rifle.
>
> Was Frazier telling the truth when he labeled CE139 as a "low velocity" rifle?
Ben asked:..... "Was Frazier telling the truth when he labeled CE139
as a "low velocity" rifle?"
Frazier was one of Hoover's goons..... He did what Hoover wanted him
to do.......including lying while under oath.
Having said that....I don't think he was lying when he refered to the
Carcano as a low powered rifle.....He was just not the "expert" he was
presented to be. Hoover told the WC that Frazier was his expert and
the WC did not question his credentials. He was either lying, or
talking nonsense, when he claimed the Carcano could be used as a
single shot rifle..... because the Mannlicher Carcano CANNOT be used
as a single shot rifle. Unless there is Ammo clip with the rifle the
Carcano is worthless as a firearm.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Aug 4, 7:52=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <0cef477f-1552-4229-8c64-e5ed2ee6e...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> ShutterBun says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >I haven't been able to sift through all the name-calling on this
>> >thread entirely, but has anyone pointed out that YES, the Carcano CAN
>> >pushed directly into the receiver, and chambered)
>>
>> >I'm not suggesting this was the case when Oswald did hit shooting,
>> >when he said it could be used as a single shot rifle.
>>
>> Was Frazier telling the truth when he labeled CE139 as a "low velocity"
>> rifle?
>
>
>Ben asked:..... "Was Frazier telling the truth when he labeled CE139
>as a "low velocity" rifle?"
>
>Frazier was one of Hoover's goons..... He did what Hoover wanted him
>to do.......including lying while under oath.
Yep... the evidence so indicates.
>Having said that....I don't think he was lying when he refered to the
>Carcano as a low powered rifle.....
NO NO NO NO NO!!!
The topic is "low VELOCITY rifle", you're pulling the same gag that Robsie tried
doing.
Velocity is certainly a component of power, BUT THE TWO TERMS ARE *NOT*
IDENTICAL, OR EVEN SIMILAR.
Velocity refers *only* to the speed of the bullet leaving the muzzle, and
"power" is a totally different benchmark.
When you can provide a definition for a "high powered rifle", then we can
compare that with the known characteristics of the MC. But we *DO* have a
standard recognized norm for "high velocity", and that is 2,000+ FPS.
Was Frazier telling the truth when he labeled CE139 as a "low velocity" rifle?
I don't think "Shutterbun" is willing to answer.
>He was just not the "expert" he was
>presented to be. Hoover told the WC that Frazier was his expert and
>the WC did not question his credentials. He was either lying, or
>talking nonsense, when he claimed the Carcano could be used as a
>single shot rifle..... because the Mannlicher Carcano CANNOT be used
>as a single shot rifle. Unless there is Ammo clip with the rifle the
>Carcano is worthless as a firearm.
>
>
>>
>> >I'm sure this video clip will ellicit plenty of groans, but the simple
>> >fact is that it shows a single round being fed directly into the gun.
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D62gvoKyODu4
Walt
> In article <a1c8a013-2074-434f-ad3e-200cfa0af...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 4, 7:52=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <0cef477f-1552-4229-8c64-e5ed2ee6e...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> ShutterBun says...
>
> >> >I haven't been able to sift through all the name-calling on this
> >> >thread entirely, but has anyone pointed out that YES, the Carcano CAN
> >> >be used as a single-shot rifle? =A0(In other words, have a single round
> >> >pushed directly into the receiver, and chambered)
>
> >> >I'm not suggesting this was the case when Oswald did hit shooting,
> >> >certainly. =A0Just demonstrating that Frazier was not lying or mistaken
> >> >when he said it could be used as a single shot rifle.
>
> >> Was Frazier telling the truth when he labeled CE139 as a "low velocity"
> >> rifle?
>
> >Ben asked:..... "Was Frazier telling the truth when he labeled CE139
> >as a "low velocity" rifle?"
>
> >Frazier was one of Hoover's goons..... He did what Hoover wanted him
> >to do.......including lying while under oath.
>
> Yep... the evidence so indicates.
>
> >Having said that....I don't think he was lying when he refered to the
> >Carcano as a low powered rifle.....
>
> NO NO NO NO NO!!!
Ben screamed....."NO NO NO NO NO!!!"
The topic is "low VELOCITY rifle", you're pulling the same gag that
Robsie tried
doing.
Velocity is certainly a component of power, BUT THE TWO TERMS ARE
*NOT*
IDENTICAL, OR EVEN SIMILAR.
Velocity refers *only* to the speed of the bullet leaving the muzzle,
and
"power" is a totally different benchmark.
When you can provide a definition for a "high powered rifle", then we
can
compare that with the known characteristics of the MC. But we *DO*
have a
standard recognized norm for "high velocity", and that is 2,000+ FPS.
Sorry Ben,... I was addressing Frazier's veracity.....not the
particulars about the rifle....
You're absolutely right ... Most knowledgable people label rifles
with a muzzle velocity of about 3000fps as "HIGH VELOCITY" rifles. A
rifle can be a very high velocity rifle without being a "HIGH POWERED
rifle. ( Many varmint rifles are "HIGH VELOCITY rifles but they aren't
necessarily "HIGH POWED"(energy) rifles.)
Generally speaking...A high POWERED rifle is any rifle that fires a
center fire cartridge. ( as opposed to a rimfire cartridge) An
example of a low VELOCITY but high POWERED rifle is 44 Remington
Magnum. The .44 Reminton fires a 265 grain bullet at about 1100fps.
This is a very low VELOCITY but the ENERGY packed by that 265 grain
"cannon ball" bullet is tremendous.
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Aug 9, 11:33=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <a1c8a013-2074-434f-ad3e-200cfa0af...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 4, 7:52=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <0cef477f-1552-4229-8c64-e5ed2ee6e...@o32g2000yqm.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> ShutterBun says...
>>
>> >> >I haven't been able to sift through all the name-calling on this
>> >> >thread entirely, but has anyone pointed out that YES, the Carcano CAN
>ound
>> >> >pushed directly into the receiver, and chambered)
>>
>> >> >I'm not suggesting this was the case when Oswald did hit shooting,
>aken
>> >> >when he said it could be used as a single shot rifle.
>>
>"
>> >> rifle?
>>
>> >Ben asked:..... "Was Frazier telling the truth when he labeled CE139
>> >as a "low velocity" rifle?"
>>
>> >Frazier was one of Hoover's goons..... He did what Hoover wanted him
>> >to do.......including lying while under oath.
>>
>> Yep... the evidence so indicates.
>>
>> >Having said that....I don't think he was lying when he refered to the
>> >Carcano as a low powered rifle.....
>>
>> NO NO NO NO NO!!!
>
>Ben screamed....."NO NO NO NO NO!!!"
>
>
>The topic is "low VELOCITY rifle", you're pulling the same gag that
>Robsie tried doing.
>
>
>Velocity is certainly a component of power, BUT THE TWO TERMS ARE
>*NOT* IDENTICAL, OR EVEN SIMILAR.
>
>
>Velocity refers *only* to the speed of the bullet leaving the muzzle,
>and "power" is a totally different benchmark.
>
>
>When you can provide a definition for a "high powered rifle", then we
>can compare that with the known characteristics of the MC. But we *DO*
>have a standard recognized norm for "high velocity", and that is 2,000+ FPS.
>
>
>Sorry Ben,... I was addressing Frazier's veracity.....not the
>particulars about the rifle....
>
>You're absolutely right ... Most knowledgable people label rifles
>with a muzzle velocity of about 3000fps as "HIGH VELOCITY" rifles.
I have three excellent references that label the line at 2,000 FPS. One of
which is the FBI themselves.
>A rifle can be a very high velocity rifle without being a "HIGH POWERED
>rifle. ( Many varmint rifles are "HIGH VELOCITY rifles but they aren't
>necessarily "HIGH POWED"(energy) rifles.)
>
>Generally speaking...A high POWERED rifle is any rifle that fires a
>center fire cartridge. ( as opposed to a rimfire cartridge) An
>example of a low VELOCITY but high POWERED rifle is 44 Remington
>Magnum. The .44 Reminton fires a 265 grain bullet at about 1100fps.
>This is a very low VELOCITY but the ENERGY packed by that 265 grain
>"cannon ball" bullet is tremendous.
I knew you'd understand why I refuse to mix up "high velocity" with "high
power", the two concepts are different, and indeed (as you rightfully point
out), you can have a "low velocity" weapon that is "high powered", or visa
versa.
You changed the reference unintentionally, Robsie did it because he finally went
and checked the Death Certificate, found out that it didn't say what he claimed
at all, and so changed what he was claiming.
In fact, although Robsie was *ORIGINALLY* speaking of the Death Certificate
written by Burkley - he did a turnaround when he discovered that he couldn't
even find "high powered" on that one, let alone "high velocity".
Robsie simply lied about what the Death Certificate said...
>> The topic is "low VELOCITY rifle", you're pulling the same gag that
>> Robsie tried doing.
>>
>> Velocity is certainly a component of power, BUT THE TWO TERMS ARE *NOT*
>> IDENTICAL, OR EVEN SIMILAR.
>>
>> Velocity refers *only* to the speed of the bullet leaving the muzzle, and
>> "power" is a totally different benchmark.
>
>> When you can provide a definition for a "high powered rifle", then we can
>> compare that with the known characteristics of the MC. But we *DO* have a
>> standard recognized norm for "high velocity", and that is 2,000+ FPS.
>>
>> Was Frazier telling the truth when he labeled CE139 as a "low velocity"
>> rifle?
>>
>> I don't think "Shutterbun" is willing to answer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >He was just not the "expert" he was
>> >presented to be. =A0Hoover told the WC that Frazier was his expert and
>> >the WC did not question his credentials. =A0 He was either lying, or
>> >talking nonsense, when he claimed the Carcano could be used as a
>> >single shot rifle..... because the Mannlicher Carcano CANNOT be used
>> >as a single shot rifle. =A0Unless there is Ammo clip with the rifle the
>> >Carcano is worthless as a firearm.
>>
>> >> >I'm sure this video clip will ellicit plenty of groans, but the simpl=
>e
>> >> >fact is that it shows a single round being fed directly into the gun.
>>
>> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3D62gvoKyODu4
>>
>> >> >Not to mention several Carcano enthusiast sites which confirm same.
>>
>> >> >OK, back to your bickering.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------=
Robert
Thank YOU Walt for being honest. Bendsie wants us to think a rifle
that produced a bullet that could ONLY maintain a speed of 1,800
f.p.s. after 210 feet is a HIGH VELOCITY RIFLE!
Good one Bendsie.
Why is Ben lying to BENEFIT the WC IF he is a CTer as he claims?
Notice Walt stated 3,000 f.p.s. as being the standard for high
velocity, and this is what I have read, NOT your claim of 2,000 f.p.s.
The point is the doctors go BY IMPACT speed anyway, NOT velocity
speed.
> Generally speaking...A high POWERED rifle is any rifle that fires a
> center fire cartridge. ( as opposed to a rimfire cartridge) An
> example of a low VELOCITY but high POWERED rifle is 44 Remington
> Magnum. The .44 Reminton fires a 265 grain bullet at about 1100fps.
> This is a very low VELOCITY but the ENERGY packed by that 265 grain
> "cannon ball" bullet is tremendous.
Yes, but we are dealing of claims with FMJ bullets, NOT cannonballs!
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quoted text -