In article <748ef51d-4d9e-4b67-84c3-1bdeab191
...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
robcap
...@netscape.com says...
>Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the chase and
>ask Ben some simple questions first.
I doubt if you will *EVER* answer "the long post" point by point... you've shown
that you're a coward...
>1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of the
>Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
>months now?
Feel free to *QUOTE* any such "defense" of the WC. (I've asked this repeatedly,
and you STILL refuse to cite)
Simply correcting your errors about what Frazier actually testified to can
hardly be called a "defense" of the WC. You lied repeatedly about what Frazier
testified to - and I corrected you a number of times. But that can hardly be
labeled a defense of the WC.
I also told you that you cannot impugn the WCR based ONLY on the material
contained within the WCR... but again, that's merely a fact, and hardly a
"defense" of the WC.
So go ahead and QUOTE IT! Let everyone see my "defense" of the WC.
>2) What is more important to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or his
>ego?
The truth. As I commented, I agree with Prager, who asserts that clarity is
more important than agreement. I agree.
You've been caught in a number of lies about the facts as we know them. Shall I
quote a few of them in my next post?
>3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are
>used? (see below)
Sadly, *YOU* have demonstrated that you don't understand the concept. I've
asked you to look up the word in the dictionary - as you've tried to assert that
I believe a pencil and a bullet are the same thing...
>4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
>conclusion?
Simple... when a "scientific" test cannot test what you believe it can test for.
Citations already supplied... did you bother to read them?
>5) Why was there NO damage to the seats or the carpet when the two
>fragments damaged the windshield and the chrome according to the WC?
Perhaps because no bullets struck the seats or carpet?
Perhaps because the search wasn't performed adequately?
Perhaps because the search was not intended to do anything more than support the
lone assassin?
This is a topic that hasn't been discussed...
>6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of the
>head shot?
Untrue. An inability to gather enough DNA, not degraded, is not proof that the
DNA was not of a particular individual.
> 7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the
>middle section? (see below)
Nope... The Earth *IS* round... we *DID* land on the moon... take your silly
questions and ask someone who believes that someone can fire only the nose or
tail of a bullet out of a rifle...
>It is time for school little Bennie,
Ah, Samantha! I wondered how long it would take before you started misusing my
name again.
>sit down as the bell has rung. I
>will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how analogies
>are meant to be used.
>You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof the two
>fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet.
In order to prove that two fragments ORIGINALLY BELONGING ONLY TO A SINGLE
PENCIL - but with no proof of this - showing that your logic that they must
therefore be part of *TWO* pencils... can't work at all if you don't *START*
with a single pencil.
You continue to get confused about what is being demonstrated... but stupidity
*can* be cured... so I keep repeating the same explanation in as many different
ways as I can think of, in the hopes that you'll someday realize just how stupid
you've been looking...
>IOW, your example
>breaks a complete pencil into three parts =96 nose/point, base, and
>middle section =96 but this was NOT proven to be true in our case as
>they could NOT match the two fragments.
Yep... they could not.
So now I give you two pencil fragments... both ends of a pencil - AND REFUSE TO
TELL YOU WHETHER THEY ARE FROM ONE PENCIL, OR TWO PENCILS.
Since you cannot determine by any physical means whether they originally were a
part of one or two pencils, you must, therefore, claim that they are from two
pencils.
And you'd be stupid to do so.
>Therefore, the nose could
>have come from one bullet, the base could have come from another
>bullet, and finally the middle section could have been part of either
>previous bullet, or part of another (if there was one at all as it
>could have been a complete bullet that disintegrated completely).
>This is why Bennie=92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming something not
>in evidence or proven.
How many pencils do I have? You have the two fragments...
>Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
>circumstances,
I've given you two fragments... how many original pencils were there?
Remember - IT'S PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THEM TO ONE SINGLE PENCIL.
You could easily exclude them from being from the same pencil, say, for example
if the 'lead' composition were different.
>but his does not follow this pattern. A great analogy
>would be this (and I=92m not wishing anything bad on you Ben):
>Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=92s office, and
>they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
>negative. This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but the
>doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could still
>have cancer. IOW, they can=92t say he does have cancer, but they can=92t
>say he doesn=92t have cancer. Would you accept this Ben?
Of course. It's what my original analogy would have led you to believe. IT'S
NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE WHETHER THE 'FRAGMENTS' CAME FROM ONE PENCIL OR TWO.
Yet you still can't simply admit so...
>Would you
>ever go to this doctor again?
Depends on the doctor... I might get a second opinion, or I might have used this
same doctor for many years... and trust his opinion.
>This is what the WC wants us to accept
>with the two fragments. They were covering all there bases but in
>medicine and science things don=92t work this way.
Only in your ignorant world...
>They CAN'T be both
>NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet.
Yes they can. You see, no-one said that they could not be from the same bullet.
You lied previously on this same topic.
You can't quote ANY expert testimony to that effect.
I *HAVE* given citations that apply.
You continue to refuse to provide citations for these silly statements.
(I really like your confusion of ballistic testing with NAA testing...)
>Ben won=92t prove there was a middle section that connected the two
>fragments, he says this is silly.
Yep... it is. The Earth isn't flat, either...
>Why I ask when he keeps insisting
>the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet. It is
>a perfectly valid question to ask =96 where is the middle section? Prove
>it existed, as if no proof can be given; the two fragments most
>certainly are not of the same origin.
I keep telling you that a lack of proof that two fragments belong to a single
bullet IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT BULLETS.
Such sheer unadulterated stupidity lives on...
>In his analogy they are in my
>pocket, therefore, he ACCOUNTED for it, but in the real life example
>he runs from explaining where it is, why?
The "middle" section, whether from one bullet, or 50 bullets, are also
"accounted" for.
Tell us, Samantha, which bullet manufacturer sells bullet "noses", or bullet
"tails"... do they come by the box? What sizes are they available in? Can I
get a .45 Nose... or are they only available in 6.5mm?
>The big piece that proves they were NOT from the same bullet,
Proving no such thing. You can't prove something from an item you don't have,
other than the fact that you don't have it.
>besides
>the failed ballistic tests to prove they were,
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
A ballistics test can only prove
...
read more »
