What are the motives of the conspiracy community?
YoHarvey
"evidence" is non existent. They hold mundane, blue collar jobs and
many live in squalor. They typically are incoherent in their thinking
and writing. They relish the most tedious, absurd theories and
actually feel proud for presenting them. They worship only one
another and will even lie to one another continuously. So, what is
their objective? Comments welcome.
justm...@gmail.com
To prove their idiots?? Being a member on Lancer for quite some time,
its apparent why none of these misfits here post over there. On an
educated forum, absurd theories like the ones brought up here would
be laughed at. On Lancer CT's debate CT's when someone posts something
ridiculous. Here, the CT's will defend each other no matter how insane
the post is. If one of them posted that a pee shooter killed JFK the
rest would back it. That's how utterly stupid they are. They don't
want the truth...they want to be reconized and they want the
attention. They get that here from the other idiots of their ilk.
Let any of them try this crap on a "real" forum, they wouldn't last 5
minutes. Their all "Queens" wanting to be "Kings". If I desire a real
JFK debate I go elsewhere, you certainly can't get one here. This
newsgroup is for entertainment...it's always good for a laugh, or
exposing people like Healy and Gilda for the lies and paranoia they
live their lives in.
curtjester1
To keep saying, when has an LNT'er ever offered up "evidence" in
something more than a one-liner or something that lasts for more than
a paragraph?
Of course these folks are not only scholastically deprived, they make
up for it by just being immature punks.
CJ
YoHarvey
Jester? Go fuck Jesus. He lives for ponies like you.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:940a020a-5d15-451a...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Yo(Momma)Harvey wrote;
Jester? Go fuck Jesus. He lives for ponies like you.
I write;
We were hoping youl'd tell us about your wife's BOA Constrictor ! ! !
You sure in hell ain't gonna tell us about these official records>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
"When all the cops are criminals and all the sinners are
saints....please to meet you...I'm in need of some restraint" Go get
a hug from your 'father'.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
What a sense of humor!! This from a person who doesn't even know the
case/theory put forward by the WC which he/she/it supports!
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
You are over rating that board. Most of the time NO one responds to
anything you post. I can attest to the fact that all CTers do NOT
back each other up if they disagree with what was said as I have had
discussions with several CTers who did not agree with me, so even this
statement is a lie. Will Justme1952 ever tell the truth?
Walt
wrote:
Maybe..... When they're ice skating in hell.....
Walt
JUST IMMATURE PUNKS..... That succinctly sums it it...
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Crapper? You're beginning to sound more like Chico everyday...you're
alias is failing trying to convince others you're not him. You crapper
are an exception to the rule. Why? Because you post nothing but
garbage copied out of CT books that have been exposed as garbage years
ago.
The 3 stooges are who I was referring to, and Walt. Any of them can
say the stupidest things (Rossley, Healy, YOU/Chico) and they will all
back each other no matter how absurd their post is. The rest of the
CT's just ignore them...meaning either they don't agree with them but
won't admit it or their too chicken shit to tell them their full of
crap. Which one are you Crapper???
The only reason Holmes argued with you is because little Bennie can't
stand to be wrong. He doesn't give a rats ass which side your on, as
long as he can come out the winner. He's an egotistical moron and
thinks that everything he posts is gospel. Then he has his slave
lapdog doing the barking for him and detouring the threads that prove
the little "King of Liars" wrong. You're all a bunch of idiots. Why
don't you go try spewing your garbage on a real forum like Lancer and
see how long you last LOL.
You're counterpart Chico was laughed off there...as were the rest of
the misfits. That's why they all congregate here...so they can hold
each others hands and tell all their fantasys with none of their ilk
disagreeing with them. Wake up, little boy....we all are on to you.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...>> On May 11, 12:07=A0pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 11, 11:23=A0am, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > They're not the most educated people. =A0Their ability to understand
>> > > "evidence" is non existent. =A0They hold mundane, blue collar jobs and=
>
>> > > many live in squalor. =A0They typically are incoherent in their thinki=
>ng
>> > > and writing. =A0They relish the most tedious, absurd theories and
>> > > actually feel proud for presenting them. =A0They worship only one
>> > > another and will even lie to one another continuously. =A0So, what is
>> > > their objective? =A0Comments welcome.
>>
>> > To prove their idiots?? Being a member on Lancer for quite some time,
>> > its apparent why none of these misfits here post over there. On an
>> > educated forum, absurd theories like the ones brought up here would
>> > be laughed at. On Lancer CT's debate CT's when someone posts something
>> > ridiculous. Here, the CT's will defend each other no matter how insane
>> > the post is. If one of them posted that a pee shooter killed JFK the
>> > rest would back it. That's how utterly stupid they are.
When you have to lie to make a point, all you've proven is that you're a liar.
Ask Tony, Martin, Robocop, Walt, or recently, Herbert Blenner; if your
nonsensical and false statement makes sense to them.
I've disagreed publicly with all of those listed in the past.
A retraction would be in order - but trolls never offer them.
>> > They don't
>> > want the truth...they want to be reconized and they want the
>> > attention. They get that here from the other idiots of their ilk.
>> > Let any of them try this crap on a "real" forum, they wouldn't last 5
>> > minutes. Their all "Queens" wanting to be "Kings". If I desire a real
>> > JFK debate I go elsewhere, you certainly can't get one here.
There aren't any LNT'ers who last very long on this forum. And the reason is
simple - we know the evidence.
>> > This
>> > newsgroup is for entertainment...it's always good for a laugh, or
>> > exposing people like Healy and Gilda for the lies and paranoia they
>> > live their lives in.
>>
>> You are over rating that board. Most of the time NO one responds to
>> anything you post. I can attest to the fact that all CTers do NOT
>> back each other up if they disagree with what was said as I have had
>> discussions with several CTers who did not agree with me, so even this
>> statement is a lie. Will Justme1952 ever tell the truth?
>
>Will Justme1952 ever tell the truth?
>
>Maybe..... When they're ice skating in hell.....
Trolls aren't interested in the truth, ditto most LNT'ers... and even some
self-professed "CT'ers."
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <a781b924-9101-4436-90c2-026376704...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
A retraction? ROFLMAO this coming from the midget that has been proven
a liar about Yellow pants and will not discuss it any further??
Holmes you really are as stupid as you portray to be. You just proved
it with your ridiculous statement above.
Hey Walt? We'll have to wait our turn while you and Gilda do your
dance for the devil, with Healy and Rossley are licking at your feet.
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3616f3b0-1df5-40e2...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I see The CUNT referenced me AGAIN;
Giving me Abnother opportunity to point out that the CUNT never addresses
evidence/testimony.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e64499e0-b9be-41ea...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
**************************
Hey CUNT;
You're still Running from your own evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSwanberg
Obvious name-calling and such aside, you have a very interesting and
valid question.
I believe, as I'm sure you do, that a conspiratorial bent for the sake
of being conspiracy-minded is extremely dangerous. And there are tons
of people, particularly on the internet, that see demons and other
evil where, in fact, none exist. This is, as I say, dangerous
behavior, and should be taken to task, IMO.
However, I would like to put the question back to you. If the
assumption is that conspiracy-minded folk are incorrect due to some
motivation, then what is that motivation? I would surmise that CTers
would say they are of that mind because of what the evidence has shown
them, and how they interpret it. Simple logic. So now, as an LNer,
you should be the one putting forth theories. And please, let's
examine ACTUAL theories as to why you think CTers might have some
innate desire to see the boogeyman where none exist. Please refrain
from the simple "CTers are gay" or the like to explain why you feel
that CTers can be so deluded.
I would surmise that LNers would point to ideas such as "mass lunacy"
or the like to explain why CTers believe as they do. Or perhaps,
LNers may point to ideas such as mistaken witnesses or misinterpreted
evidence as reasons why CTers have been led astray.
Let me interject, at this point, that I am a CTer, and exhibit none of
your stereotypes of such. My job, though it may be mundane, is far
from blue-collar (I am a programmer for a regional bank and clear 6
figures). I drive a late-model Acura and a sports car (yes, two cars
for li'l ol' me) and live in an apartment 3 times larger than I myself
need (my computers take up most of the place)... hardly squalor. I am
incoherent neither in my thinking nor my writing (as I hope this
treatise exhibits).
As for tedious and absurd theories, well, let me say this. I DON'T
believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy. I also DON'T believe that our
government looks for every opportunity to screw John Q. Public.
But when I find that all of the Parkland witnesses reported the same
thing, I find it hard to believe that they are all mistaken in the
same way about the same things. I also find it hard to believe that
they are all conspiring to... um, I dunno... sell books? Gain
attention? Beverly Oliver: now, she's a piece of work and I think
she's full of crap. In fact, I doubt she was in Dealey that day. But
a large number of the witnesses in Dealey claim that they are certain
gunfire came from the right-front of the limousine. Surely they can't
ALL be mistaken, or involved in some mass conspiracy to gain attention
or notoriety.
To me, this all adds up, logically, to the idea that there were some
serious shenanigans going on that day, and it wasn't all due to LHO's
actions.
So, again, I'll ask. What do YOU feel are the reasons that CTers
believe as they do?
-Mike
aeffects
Yo-Havey is heading for the hills, Mike.... The guy is a coward....
ask him for his DD214....
robcap...@netscape.com
You can think anything you want, but I am NOT Gil, and your puesdo-
leader (DVP) has told you this many times.
"You crapper are an exception to the rule. Why? Because you post
nothing but garbage copied out of CT books that have been exposed as
garbage years ago."
Not anymore, I have taken a different approach as now I simply post
the WC's case, and it does even more damage to your cause than any CT
book could ever do. Of course you wouldn't recognize this as you don't
even know what the official theory is.
"The 3 stooges are who I was referring to, and Walt. Any of them can
say the stupidest things (Rossley, Healy, YOU/Chico) and they will all
back each other no matter how absurd their post is."
Not true, as Walt and Ben have disagreed with me quite a few times. I
don't mind the disagreement, but I have minded the rude language that
went with it. I also don't agree with everything they say, but they
are see things slightly different. The main point is I see NO LNers
disagreeing with each other at all, whereas, CTers have disagreed on
this board. You are fibbing again.
"The rest of the CT's just ignore them...meaning either they don't
agree with them but won't admit it or their too chicken shit to tell
them their full of crap. Which one are you Crapper???"
I think I have publicly disagreed with Ben and Walt, and got some
nasty language in return. I respect them, but it doesn't mean I will
always agree with them. I don't mind this either as long as child
abuse and calling me an anus is left out of it.
"The only reason Holmes argued with you is because little Bennie can't
stand to be wrong. He doesn't give a rats ass which side your on, as
long as he can come out the winner. He's an egotistical moron and
thinks that everything he posts is gospel. Then he has his slave
lapdog doing the barking for him and detouring the threads that prove
the little "King of Liars" wrong. You're all a bunch of idiots."
I don't agree with this at all, I think Ben thinks he is defending the
truth and you can't fault him for that. What I faulted Ben for was
calling me a child abuser which is drastic in any case, but I'll
survive. Walt, Gil and Ben have been here a long time and they know
where they stand on these issues for the most part, I'm new and they
didn't know if I was a shill or not, hopefully, they now realize I
want the truth to come out about a conspiracy as well. Again, I ask
when was the last time time the LNers disagreed on here?
"Why don't you go try spewing your garbage on a real forum like Lancer
and see how long you last LOL."
I have, I'm not afraid of anyone over there as I know the evidence
very well, much better than any LNer here.
"You're counterpart Chico was laughed off there...as were the rest of
the misfits. That's why they all congregate here...so they can hold
each others hands and tell all their fantasys with none of their ilk
disagreeing with them. Wake up, little boy....we all are on to you."
They would be here anyway since this is a CONSPIRACY board. Why don't
you LNers go elsewhwere?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 12, 8:43=A0am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On May 12, 8:29=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 11, 12:07=A0pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 11, 11:23=A0am, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > They're not the most educated people. =A0Their ability to understand=
>
>> > > > "evidence" is non existent. =A0They hold mundane, blue collar jobs a=
>nd
>> > > > many live in squalor. =A0They typically are incoherent in their thin=
>king
>> > > > and writing. =A0They relish the most tedious, absurd theories and
>> > > > actually feel proud for presenting them. =A0They worship only one
>> > > > another and will even lie to one another continuously. =A0So, what i=
>s
>> > > > their objective? =A0Comments welcome.
>>
>> > > To prove their idiots?? Being a member on Lancer for quite some time,
>> > > its apparent why none of these misfits here post over there. On an
>
>> > > be laughed at. On Lancer CT's debate CT's when someone posts something=
>
>> > > ridiculous. Here, the CT's will defend each other no matter how insane=
>
>> > > the post is. If one of them posted that a pee shooter killed JFK the
>> > > rest would back it. That's how utterly stupid they are. They don't
>> > > want the truth...they want to be reconized and they want the
>> > > attention. They get that here from the other idiots of their ilk.
>> > > Let any of them try this crap on a "real" forum, they wouldn't last 5
>al
>> > > JFK debate I go elsewhere, you certainly can't get one here. This
>> > > newsgroup is for entertainment...it's always good for a laugh, or
>> > > exposing people like Healy and Gilda for the lies and paranoia they
>> > > live their lives in.
>>
>> > anything you post. =A0I can attest to the fact that all CTers do NOT
>> > back each other up if they disagree with what was said as I have had
>> > discussions with several CTers who did not agree with me, so even this
Just for any interested lurkers - here it is:
***********************************************************************
>so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of
>the fragments.
You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 could have been
the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide the quote of ANYONE
AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to show everyone where Rob
claimed that he'd been convicted of child molestation.
For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they were never
said.
***********************************************************************
When people are willing to put words in *my* mouth - they shouldn't be surprised
if I return the favor.
I note for the record that not only could Rob *NOT* document his misquoting of
my words, this was the last time Rob *ever* tried to misquote me.
Sad that it takes this sort of tactic to force someone to use their 'quotes'
more carefully.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <fc194dba-a73d-4ccc-80f1-bca0010d1...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
I think we covered this one, as I never said anyone said they (the
fragments) came from CE 399, but rather their size precluded this from
being the case.
> ***********************************************************************
>
> When people are willing to put words in *my* mouth - they shouldn't be surprised
> if I return the favor.
>
> I note for the record that not only could Rob *NOT* document his misquoting of
> my words, this was the last time Rob *ever* tried to misquote me.
>
"Sad that it takes this sort of tactic to force someone to use their
'quotes' more carefully."
Lurkers, this is what Ben calles a tactic:
">The other two wind
>up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
>Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
>head!!
I forgot, Rob... was that little boys or little girls that you like to
molest?
For just like your assertion of your gender preference, at no time did
I ever
state that none of the bullet[s] that struck JFK's head remained in
his head."
> >Walt, Gil and Ben have been here a long time and they know
> >where they stand on these issues for the most part, I'm new and they
> >didn't know if I was a shill or not, hopefully, they now realize I
> >want the truth to come out about a conspiracy as well. Again, I ask
> >when was the last time time the LNers disagreed on here?
>
> >"Why don't you go try spewing your garbage on a real forum like Lancer
> >and see how long you last LOL."
>
> >I have, I'm not afraid of anyone over there as I know the evidence
> >very well, much better than any LNer here.
>
> >"You're counterpart Chico was laughed off there...as were the rest of
> >the misfits. That's why they all congregate here...so they can hold
> >each others hands and tell all their fantasys with none of their ilk
> >disagreeing with them. Wake up, little boy....we all are on to you."
>
> >They would be here anyway since this is a CONSPIRACY board. Why don't
> >you LNers go elsewhwere?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 12, 6:52=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <fc194dba-a73d-4ccc-80f1-bca0010d1...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 12, 8:43=3DA0am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On May 12, 8:29=3DA0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.co=
>m>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 11, 12:07=3DA0pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com=
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On May 11, 11:23=3DA0am, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > They're not the most educated people. =3DA0Their ability to under=
>stand=3D
>>
>> >> > > > "evidence" is non existent. =3DA0They hold mundane, blue collar j=
>obs a=3D
>> >nd
>> >> > > > many live in squalor. =3DA0They typically are incoherent in their=
> thin=3D
>> >king
>> >> > > > and writing. =3DA0They relish the most tedious, absurd theories a=
>nd
>> >> > > > actually feel proud for presenting them. =3DA0They worship only o=
>ne
>> >> > > > another and will even lie to one another continuously. =3DA0So, w=
>hat i=3D
>> >s
>> >> > > > their objective? =3DA0Comments welcome.
>>
>> >> > > To prove their idiots?? Being a member on Lancer for quite some tim=
>e,
>> >> > > its apparent why none of these misfits here post over there. On an
>would=3D
>>
>> >> > > be laughed at. On Lancer CT's debate CT's when someone posts someth=
>ing=3D
>>
>> >> > > ridiculous. Here, the CT's will defend each other no matter how ins=
>ane=3D
>>
>> >> > > the post is. If one of them posted that a pee shooter killed JFK th=
>e
>> >> > > rest would back it. That's how utterly stupid they are. They don't
>> >> > > want the truth...they want to be reconized and they want the
>> >> > > attention. They get that here from the other idiots of their ilk.
> 5
>> >> > > minutes. Their all "Queens" wanting to be "Kings". =3DA0If I desire=
> a re=3D
>> >al
>> >> > > JFK debate I go elsewhere, you certainly can't get one here. This
>> >> > > newsgroup is for entertainment...it's always good for a laugh, or
>
>> >> > > live their lives in.
>>
>> >> > You are over rating that board. =3DA0Most of the time NO one responds=
> to
>> >> > anything you post. =3DA0I can attest to the fact that all CTers do NO=
>T
>> >> > back each other up if they disagree with what was said as I have had
>s
>> >> > statement is a lie. =3DA0Will Justme1952 ever tell the truth?- Hide q=
>uoted=3D
>> > text -
>>
>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >"Crapper?" You're beginning to sound more like Chico everyday...you're
>> >alias is failing trying to convince others you're not him."
>>
>> >You can think anything you want, but I am NOT Gil, and your puesdo-
>> >leader (DVP) has told you this many times.
>>
>> >"You crapper are an exception to the rule. Why? Because you post
>> >nothing but garbage copied out of CT books that have been exposed as
>> >garbage years ago."
>>
>> >Not anymore, I have taken a different approach as now I simply post
>> >the WC's case, and it does even more damage to your cause than any CT
>> >book could ever do. Of course you wouldn't recognize this as you don't
>> >even know what the official theory is.
>>
>> >"The 3 stooges are who I was referring to, and Walt. Any of them can
>> >say the stupidest things (Rossley, Healy, YOU/Chico) and they will all
>> >back each other no matter how absurd their post is."
>>
>> >don't mind the disagreement, but I have minded the rude language that
>> >are see things slightly different. =A0The main point is I see NO LNers
>> >disagreeing with each other at all, whereas, CTers have disagreed on
>>
>> >"The rest of the CT's just ignore them...meaning either they don't
>> >agree with them but won't admit it or their too chicken shit to tell
>> >them their full of crap. Which one are you Crapper???"
>>
>> >I think I have publicly disagreed with Ben and Walt, and got some
>> >always agree with them. =A0I don't mind this either as long as child
>> >abuse and calling me an anus is left out of it.
>>
>> >"The only reason Holmes argued with you is because little Bennie can't
>> >stand to be wrong. He doesn't give a rats ass which side your on, as
>> >long as he can come out the winner. He's an egotistical moron and
>> >thinks that everything he posts is gospel. Then he has his slave
>> >lapdog doing the barking for him and detouring the threads that prove
>> >the little "King of Liars" wrong. You're all a bunch of idiots."
>>
>> >I don't agree with this at all, I think Ben thinks he is defending the
>> >calling me a child abuser which is drastic in any case, but I'll
>> >survive.
>>
>> Just for any interested lurkers - here it is:
>>
>> ***********************************************************************
>>
>> >so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of
>> >the fragments.
>>
>> You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
>>
>> When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 could
>> have been the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide
>> the quote of ANYONE AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to
>> show everyone where Rob claimed that he'd been convicted of child
>> molestation.
>>
>
>"For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they
>were never said."
>
>I think we covered this one, as I never said anyone said they (the
>fragments) came from CE 399,
Just what did you think "the magic bullet" was, exactly? If you believe that
it's not CE399, then you have even greater problems...
You *did* refer to "the magic bullet"... if you're trying to assert now that you
weren't talking about CE399 - then by all means, Rob - now is your chance.
You're just digging yourself in deeper...
>but rather their size precluded this from
>being the case.
No, Rob; let's be clear about this - YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I HAD NEVER
STATED. *NO-ONE* has EVER stated that the two larger fragments, CE567 and CE569
could have come from CE399.
*No-one*, Rob... not one single person in history.
>> ***********************************************************************
>>
>> When people are willing to put words in *my* mouth - they shouldn't be
>> surprised if I return the favor.
>>
>> I note for the record that not only could Rob *NOT* document his
>> misquoting of my words, this was the last time Rob *ever* tried to
>> misquote me.
>>
>
>"Sad that it takes this sort of tactic to force someone to use their
>'quotes' more carefully."
>
>Lurkers, this is what Ben calles a tactic:
Yep... put any word you want to it. If you try putting words in *MY* mouth,
simply expect the same. It's a Biblical principle that's been known for
thousands of years... that which ye sow...
>">The other two wind
>>up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
>>Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
>>head!!
>
>I forgot, Rob... was that little boys or little girls that you like to
>molest?
>For just like your assertion of your gender preference, at no time did
>I ever
>state that none of the bullet[s] that struck JFK's head remained in
>his head."
Good of you to quote another one of your lies, Rob. You *STILL* can't provide
the quote of me saying what you asserted. Indeed, people can locate posts where
I discuss the fragments found in JFK's head.
Anytime you're willing to lie, Rob - you'll know what to expect.
Real CT'ers don't need to lie... the evidence is all that's needed.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <9276e3f8-c14e-400b-ac16-ea251952d...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
I have no idea what you are talking about here. The presumption by
many associated with the WC was the fragments in the wrist of JBC were
tied to the magic bullet, NOT the fragments in the limo. I don't know
where you got this conclusion. However, these fragments again
outweighed the portion missing from the magic bullet so this
conclusion would be proven to be false at the Shaw trial.
"You *did* refer to "the magic bullet"... if you're trying to assert
now that you weren't talking about CE399 - then by all means, Rob -
now is your chance."
I don't remember this to be honest as it was many months ago and I
don't catalogue my conversations like you obviously do, however, the
only time I can recall mentioning the magic bullet was to say the limo
fragments were too large to have come from that so all we have left is
the head shot for them to be associated with.
"You're just digging yourself in deeper..."
Only you think this and your thoughts are not always clear.
>
> >but rather their size precluded this from
> >being the case.
>
"No, Rob; let's be clear about this - YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I
HAD NEVER STATED. *NO-ONE* has EVER stated that the two larger
fragments, CE567 and CE569 could have come from CE399.
*No-one*, Rob... not one single person in history."
I think you are confused about what I wrote, and this happened quite a
bit. I realize no one said this as they were refering to the
fragments in JBC's wrist, not the limo fragments. NO matter what you
think I said, there is NO excuse for resorting to child abuse
comments. You are not really worthy of talking with. You call
everyone a liar, but you have been caught in so many yourself and then
you run, see "Yellow Pants" threads.
Ben, it is put up or shut up time. You want to defend the WC's
assertion that the two limo fragments came from one bullet, fine.
Prove it then. You are assuming the role of prosecutor, therefore, the
burden of proof is on you, not me. I just have to show reasonable
doubt that there could have been more bullets involved. You didn't
get that last year, you kept demanding I prove it, but the assertion
came from your side.
"Anytime you're willing to lie, Rob - you'll know what to expect."
Good advice, you should remember it since you lie yourself. By the
way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
"Real CT'ers don't need to lie... the evidence is all that's needed."
Then you are obviously NOT a real CTer. Quit running from the LNers
as you make us all look bad.
>
>
>
> >> >Walt, Gil and Ben have been here a long time and they know
> >> >where they stand on these issues for the most part, I'm new and they
> >> >didn't know if I was a shill or not, hopefully, they now realize I
> >> >want the truth to come out about a conspiracy as well. Again, I ask
> >> >when was the last time time the LNers disagreed on here?
>
> >> >"Why don't you go try spewing your garbage on a real forum like Lancer
> >> >and see how long you last LOL."
>
> >> >I have, I'm not afraid of anyone over there as I know the evidence
> >> >very well, much better than any LNer here.
>
> >> >"You're counterpart Chico was laughed off there...as were the rest of
> >> >the misfits. That's why they all congregate here...so they can hold
> >> >each others hands and tell all their fantasys with none of their ilk
> >> >disagreeing with them. Wake up, little boy....we all are on to you."
>
> >> >They would be here anyway since this is a CONSPIRACY board. Why don't
> >> >you LNers go elsewhwere?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 12, 8:51=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <9276e3f8-c14e-400b-ac16-ea251952d...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>> >> >I don't agree with this at all, I think Ben thinks he is defending
>> >> >was calling me a child abuser which is drastic in any case, but I'll
>> >> >survive.
>>
>> >> Just for any interested lurkers - here it is:
>>
>
>>
>> >> >so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>> >> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of
>> >> >the fragments.
>>
>> >> You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
>>
>> >> When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 could
>> >> have been the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide
>> >> the quote of ANYONE AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to
>> >> show everyone where Rob claimed that he'd been convicted of child
>> >> molestation.
>>
>> >"For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they
>> >were never said."
>>
>> >I think we covered this one, as I never said anyone said they (the
>> >fragments) came from CE 399,
>>
>
>"Just what did you think "the magic bullet" was, exactly? If you
>believe that it's not CE399, then you have even greater problems..."
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Then you're an illiterate idiot. You were just quoted referring to "the magic
bullet", yet you're now claiming that you *NEVER* "said anyone said they (the
fragments) came from CE 399."
Let's review your statement again: "so let's play the game his way. He claims
this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the
fragments."
Now, you could *ONLY* be telling the truth right now if "the magic bullet" is
not the same as CE399.
So tell the truth, Rob... did you make the above statement?
And why are you willing to lie about it now? You did *INDEED* put those words
in my mouth - so you did indeed say that someone (me) said that the fragments
came from CE399 (aka the magic bullet)
>The presumption by
>many associated with the WC was the fragments in the wrist of JBC were
>tied to the magic bullet, NOT the fragments in the limo.
In order to avoid any confusion, I used the specific evidence numbers.
Don't try to weasel out now, Rob. CE567 & CE569 are under discussion. Always
have been. 44 grain and 21 grain, as I recall... any lurker can go back to
November 2007 and read the originals...
(interestingly, down below in this very same post you revert back to CE567 &
CE569)
>I don't know
>where you got this conclusion.
Not discussing JBC's wrist fragments, Rob. Changing the topic won't get you
anywhere.
You put words in my mouth that you can't quote. You lied. You have STILL not
retracted those statements.
>However, these fragments again
>outweighed the portion missing from the magic bullet so this
>conclusion would be proven to be false at the Shaw trial.
44 & 21 grains did indeed MASSIVELY outweigh the possible loss on CE399.
>"You *did* refer to "the magic bullet"... if you're trying to assert
>now that you weren't talking about CE399 - then by all means, Rob -
>now is your chance."
>
>I don't remember this to be honest as it was many months ago and I
>don't catalogue my conversations like you obviously do,
Anything you type is instantly searchable via Google Groups search. No need to
"catalogue" posts. This is horrible for those who lie, and refuse to retract -
as your lies are available for anyone to review for many years to come.
>however, the
>only time I can recall mentioning the magic bullet was to say the limo
>fragments were too large to have come from that so all we have left is
>the head shot for them to be associated with.
And yet, you were willing to pretend that *I* said it was possible: "so let's
play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as
the source for one or both of the fragments."
Lied, didn't you? You can't quote me *EVER* making such a stupid assertion.
There isn't any possibility WHATSOEVER that 44 & 21 grain fragments could have
come from CE399.
>"You're just digging yourself in deeper..."
>
>Only you think this and your thoughts are not always clear.
You quoted another lie on your part, and you don't believe that it's putting you
deeper in lies... but lurkers can see it.
>> >but rather their size precluded this from
>> >being the case.
>>
>
>"No, Rob; let's be clear about this - YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I
>HAD NEVER STATED. *NO-ONE* has EVER stated that the two larger
>fragments, CE567 and CE569 could have come from CE399.
>
>*No-one*, Rob... not one single person in history."
>
>I think you are confused about what I wrote,
Here it is again: "so let's play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic
bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the fragments."
>and this happened quite a
>bit.
Feel free to "explain" your comment... here it is again: "so let's play the game
his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for
one or both of the fragments."
>I realize no one said this as they were refering to the
>fragments in JBC's wrist, not the limo fragments.
So there's only two fragments from JBC's wrist? (Although this is what the WC
claimed, it's not quite accurate, is it?) And they weigh 44 and 21 grains? I
think you'd better check the testimony again...
You're a liar, Rob.
>NO matter what you
>think I said, there is NO excuse for resorting to child abuse
>comments.
Why do you believe it's okay for *YOU* to put offensive statements in my mouth,
and not okay for me to do the same to you?
That which ye sow, that shall ye also reap.
>You are not really worthy of talking with. You call
>everyone a liar, but you have been caught in so many yourself and then
>you run, see "Yellow Pants" threads.
You are known by those you associate with. I see that you're willing to be
associated with the trolls.
That speaks volumes...
>> >> ***********************************************************************=
Okay... first, let's note for the record that you've switched back to the
original theme - the two limo fragments. Suddenly the "JBC wrist fragments"
have disappeared from view.
That puts the lie to your assertion above that you were referring to JBC's wrist
fragments, doesn't it?
Are you willing to admit that you lied when you tried putting those words in my
mouth?
Are you willing to retract it?
>You are assuming the role of prosecutor, therefore, the
>burden of proof is on you, not me. I just have to show reasonable
>doubt that there could have been more bullets involved. You didn't
>get that last year, you kept demanding I prove it, but the assertion
>came from your side.
No Rob... the *original* assertion is that you can't indict the WCR using only
the WCR. You *MUST* use the 26 volumes.
>"Anytime you're willing to lie, Rob - you'll know what to expect."
>
>Good advice, you should remember it since you lie yourself.
Quote it, Rob... and provide the citation that makes it a lie.
You STILL haven't quoted me saying what you said I said, have you?
Go ahead, Rob... quote me: "so let's play the game his way. He claims this puts
the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the fragments."
>By the
>way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
>the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
>fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
What proof are you willing to accept?
If you are unwilling to accept expert testimony ... then you're asking the
impossible... and you can't fault someone for failing to accomplish the
impossible.
>"Real CT'ers don't need to lie... the evidence is all that's needed."
>
>Then you are obviously NOT a real CTer. Quit running from the LNers
>as you make us all look bad.
You've been quoted twice in this thread with lies you told. You STILL can't
quote me saying what you asserted.
Yet you aren't honest enough to retract such statements when I point it out.
I don't "run" from LNT'ers... I'm more than happy to answer them. Trolls I
don't have time for. You can play with the trolls if you want.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <29d357cd-f385-4372-a1a2-2a7bc1fbb...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
Does that include questions about your *Lady in Yellow Pants* theory,
Ben?
Where do you want to start?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <29d357cd-f385-4372-a1a2-2a7bc1fbb...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
Where does this:
>">The other two wind
>>up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
>>Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
>>head!!
mention anything about the CE399? You are losing me. What did the
magic bullet have to do with JFK's head?
"Let's review your statement again: "so let's play the game his way.
He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for
one or both of the fragments.""
You are quoting out of context Ben, you must have said something to
make me say this, I wouldn't have just made it up. I guess you were
making silly, unprovable assumptions about the head shot, like you
could prove they (both fragments) came from one bullet per Frazier.
You need to prove this if you are going to continue to support
Frazier's statment.
"Now, you could *ONLY* be telling the truth right now if "the magic
bullet" is not the same as CE399."
I have no idea what made me say that, but I'm not playing your silly
games. Of course I know the CE399 is the magic bullet and I know the
fragments in JBC's wrist is what was considered to have come from the
magic bullet. Don't change the topic, you said the fact the WC, via
Frazier, could NOT prove the two limo fragments came from the same
bullet did NOT mean they came from seperate bullets. It is put up or
shut up time Ben. Prove they came from the same bullet.
"So tell the truth, Rob... did you make the above statement?"
It is a partial statement and the context is not known by me at this
time. I know we were discussing which bullet the two limo fragments
could have come from and I know I said they could not come from the
magic bullet since they were too large. Now, you may have taken this
to mean I thought you thought this, but that was not my point.
"And why are you willing to lie about it now? You did *INDEED* put
those words in my mouth - so you did indeed say that someone (me) said
that the fragments came from CE399 (aka the magic bullet)"
I didn't put words in your mouth Ben, you interpreted it that way, I
was trying to show the size of the fragments eliminated the magic
bullet from play, and given the head shot bullet could not be
definitively proven to be the source (beyond all reasonable doubt)
they had a problem. You chose to suppor them and say by not showing
them to be from one bullet does NOT mean they came from two. I am now
saying PROVE it.
>
> >The presumption by
> >many associated with the WC was the fragments in the wrist of JBC were
> >tied to the magic bullet, NOT the fragments in the limo.
>
"In order to avoid any confusion, I used the specific evidence
numbers."
Yes, you did, but I did not say you said this.
"Don't try to weasel out now, Rob. CE567 & CE569 are under discussion.
Always have been. 44 grain and 21 grain, as I recall... any lurker
can go back to November 2007 and read the originals..."
Ben, they are now, but we discussed so much in November and you are
providing a partial quote, that is not really fair. I know you would
know they were too large, but you were sticking to your guns that not
being able to prove they came from one bullet did not mean they came
from two. I want you to prove to me this fact per the WC. Prove they
came from one bullet. The WC would have had to at trial.
>(interestingly, down below in this very same post you revert back to CE567 &
> CE569)
>
> >I don't know
> >where you got this conclusion.
>
"Not discussing JBC's wrist fragments, Rob. Changing the topic won't
get you anywhere."
More games Ben? You post a 6 month old patial quote and you are
stating with it that I claimed certain things which are not true. We
went back and forth for weeks and I can't remember everything that was
said. You obviously took it that I claimed you said that, but I know
I did not. You are not going to pin me to a "fact" that has not been
proven to be a fact in the first place.
"You put words in my mouth that you can't quote. You lied. You have
STILL not
retracted those statements."
Perhaps I can't quote them because I never put them in your mouth? I
know this is not what you want to consider because you live for
calling people liars, but this is the truth. I can't help how you
take things. One fragment was 44 grains and one was 21 grains, how
could I think you would say they came from the magic bullet (missing
2.0 to 2.4 grains in total). I do remember doing some math problem
with the weights and you went ballistic (pardon the pun) after this,
so perhaps you thought something in the problem portray something you
did not mean. Who knows. The point is the two are not equal. How
does that compare (what you think I said) to calling me a child
molester? Asking if I like young boys or girls? I notice how you keep
running from this. I would be embarrased too.
>
> >However, these fragments again
> >outweighed the portion missing from the magic bullet so this
> >conclusion would be proven to be false at the Shaw trial.
>
> 44 & 21 grains did indeed MASSIVELY outweigh the possible loss on CE399.
>
> >"You *did* refer to "the magic bullet"... if you're trying to assert
> >now that you weren't talking about CE399 - then by all means, Rob -
> >now is your chance."
>
> >I don't remember this to be honest as it was many months ago and I
> >don't catalogue my conversations like you obviously do,
>
"Anything you type is instantly searchable via Google Groups search.
No need to
> "catalogue" posts. This is horrible for those who lie, and refuse to retract - as your lies are available for anyone to review for many years to come."
You have to remember the context of the post to find it. We discussed
many things in those weeks. I'm sorry, I don't have hours to devote
to this. I know I did not say that and that is all that really
matters to me. Your lies are available for many as well. You think
you don't lie because no one spends hours to go back and find them,
but this does not exonerate you as you know yourself when you are
being dishonest.
> >however, the
> >only time I can recall mentioning the magic bullet was to say the limo
> >fragments were too large to have come from that so all we have left is
> >the head shot for them to be associated with.
>
"And yet, you were willing to pretend that *I* said it was possible:
"so let's play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet
back into play as the source for one or both of the fragments.""
Ben, only a dishonest person would post a partial quote. What else
did I say? There had to be something you said to make me say this
part. Why are you not putting that in here? I really don't remember
this in full. You can call me a liar all you want to but I have
enough posts here now to show I am not. Your opinion of me really
matters little.
"Lied, didn't you? You can't quote me *EVER* making such a stupid
assertion. There isn't any possibility WHATSOEVER that 44 & 21 grain
fragments could have
come from CE399."
Lied about what? Again, you are pasting a partial quote.
> >"You're just digging yourself in deeper..."
>
> >Only you think this and your thoughts are not always clear.
>
"You quoted another lie on your part, and you don't believe that it's
putting you deeper in lies... but lurkers can see it."
I don't see it that way as I know I have not lied. Your silly games
aren't going to make me fell like one either. I am a very honest
person, always have been. I see nothing to gain here by lying. I am
not pushing a ridiculous theory like the LNers.
> >> >but rather their size precluded this from
> >> >being the case.
>
> >"No, Rob; let's be clear about this - YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I
> >HAD NEVER STATED. *NO-ONE* has EVER stated that the two larger
> >fragments, CE567 and CE569 could have come from CE399.
>
> >*No-one*, Rob... not one single person in history."
>
> >I think you are confused about what I wrote,
>
"Here it is again: "so let's play the game his way. He claims this
puts the magic
bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the
fragments.""
But what made me say it puts them back into play? Why the partial
quote? I know it had something to do with the math problem
(161-44-21=96) but I can't remember it.
> >and this happened quite a
> >bit.
>
"Feel free to "explain" your comment... here it is again: "so let's
play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into
play as the source for one or both of the fragments.""
If I could remember I would, but I don't remember exactly what you
said that made me say that. All I can say was we were discussing the
context of the WC in 1964, it was not known to all the amount of
missing grains form CE399 at that time, therefore, the claim could
have been made by the WC that the fragments, or one of them, did come
from the magic bullet. You were playing devil's advocate and
defending them, so you could have taken it as me saying it was you,
not them. Beyond that I don't know as you are pasting a partial
quote.
> >I realize no one said this as they were refering to the
> >fragments in JBC's wrist, not the limo fragments.
>
"So there's only two fragments from JBC's wrist? (Although this is
what the WC claimed, it's not quite accurate, is it?) And they weigh
44 and 21 grains? I think you'd better check the testimony again..."
Where in the partial quote you pasted is 44 and 21 gains listed? I
missed that. Why are you hell bent on showing people to be liars?
"You're a liar, Rob."
In your opinion, which means nothing to me.
>
> >NO matter what you
> >think I said, there is NO excuse for resorting to child abuse
> >comments.
>
"Why do you believe it's okay for *YOU* to put offensive statements in
my mouth,
and not okay for me to do the same to you?"
This sums it up I guess. Ben equates these two to be the same. He
thinks I claimed he said one of the large limo fragments came from the
magic bullet, therefore, I have to love having sex with and abusing
kids. What a sick mind.
"That which ye sow, that shall ye also reap."
You will reap it good on judgement day for sure. I'll pray for your
soul anyway as this is what Jesus wants.
> >You are not really worthy of talking with. You call
> >everyone a liar, but you have been caught in so many yourself and then
> >you run, see "Yellow Pants" threads.
>
"You are known by those you associate with. I see that you're willing
to be associated with the trolls."
I at least know where they stand. You act like a CTer yet you
defended the WC so hard in those posts I thought you were a LNer. I
would never associate with someone of your quality.
"That speaks volumes..."
Sure does.
Because this was the tone of the two weeks of messages. You said I
was wrong for saying because they couldn't prove they came from one
bullet, they came from two or more. I mentioned the JBC wrist
fragments because I have no idea what you are talking about in the
partial quote you pasted.
"That puts the lie to your assertion above that you were referring to
JBC's wrist fragments, doesn't it?"
Again, you are all over the place. Instead of proving your assertion
you are stalling. I have no idea what the partial quote was about, I
do not remember saying you thought the large limo fragments came from
CE399, but obviously you said something that sparked that.
"Are you willing to admit that you lied when you tried putting those
words in my mouth?"
Why would I? You have NOT proven I did put them to your mouth in the
first place. NOR have you proven both limo fragments came from one
bullet. Why are you stalling?
"Are you willing to retract it?"
Are you willing to prove it? Where is the rest of the quote? IF I did
say that, yes I will retract it, I have been wrong before. You on the
other hand act like you are never wrong. Show me where I said in full
context you thought one or both of the limo fragments came from the
magic bullet (with all the leading stuff included) and I will
apologize if I'm wrong.
> >You are assuming the role of prosecutor, therefore, the
> >burden of proof is on you, not me. I just have to show reasonable
> >doubt that there could have been more bullets involved. You didn't
> >get that last year, you kept demanding I prove it, but the assertion
> >came from your side.
>
"No Rob... the *original* assertion is that you can't indict the WCR
using only the WCR. You *MUST* use the 26 volumes."
Again, NO I DON'T. Frazier is in the WCR saying they could NOT prove
both came from one bullet, that is all the doubt I need. Maybe you
need more, but not me. They could not prove this in court, and you
obviously cannot prove it either as you again have avoided proving it
as requested.
>
> >"Anytime you're willing to lie, Rob - you'll know what to expect."
>
> >Good advice, you should remember it since you lie yourself.
>
"Quote it, Rob... and provide the citation that makes it a lie."
Why are you running from the LNers if you did not lie about Yellow
Pants?
"You STILL haven't quoted me saying what you said I said, have you?"
What?
"Go ahead, Rob... quote me: "so let's play the game his way. He claims
this puts
> the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the fragments.""
Go ahead Ben, prove both fragments came from one bullet anytime. We
are waiting. Back up your big boast.
> >By the
> >way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
> >the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
> >fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
>
"What proof are you willing to accept?"
You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know the
exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
"If you are unwilling to accept expert testimony ... then you're
asking the impossible... and you can't fault someone for failing to
accomplish the impossible."
If the expert testimony is of the WC's making, yes forget it. This is
why I couldn't understand why you thought the WCR couldn't prove
itself there was a conspiracy. You do this all the time. Well, that
is why I thought it was unfair for you to grill me for weeks on my
point that NOT being able to match the fragments to one bullet did not
carry weight (or at least present a lot of doubt to the official
theory), especially when you or anyone can't prove they came from the
same bullet.
> >"Real CT'ers don't need to lie... the evidence is all that's needed."
>
> >Then you are obviously NOT a real CTer. Quit running from the LNers
> >as you make us all look bad.
>
"You've been quoted twice in this thread with lies you told. You
STILL can't quote me saying what you asserted."
You have pasted partial quotes that do not show any lies, but in your
mind they are.
"Yet you aren't honest enough to retract such statements when I point
it out."
Again, you think I'm dishonest. Post the proof and I'll retract it if
I'm wrong, but partial quotes don't cut it.
"I don't "run" from LNT'ers... I'm more than happy to answer them.
Trolls I don't have time for. You can play with the trolls if you
want."
This is an out and out lie right here. I have seen quite a few
threads asking you to defend your position and you ignore them, why?
You don't let others do this. NO, you create seperate posts with
insults in the title if they dare to choose not to talk with you. I
guess only Ben gets to decide when to end conversations.
>
>
>
> >> >> >Walt,
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Lurkers may wish to view the end of the post for Rob's most hilarious
statement... but to save you time, here it is:
Rob:
>> >By the
>> >way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
>> >the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
>> >fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
Ben:
>"What proof are you willing to accept?"
Rob:
>You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know the
>exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
>the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
>tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
Rob is referring to the 44 and 21 grain fragments, one of which was the head of
a bullet, and the other was the tail end. He's asking where's the proof that
the middle of this bullet ever existed... can you believe this???
In article <86b2d5ae-15cf-4f6a...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 13, 10:27=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <29d357cd-f385-4372-a1a2-2a7bc1fbb...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On May 12, 8:51=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <9276e3f8-c14e-400b-ac16-ea251952d...@i76g2000hsf.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>> >> >> >I don't agree with this at all, I think Ben thinks he is defending
>> >> >> >the truth and you can't fault him for that. What I faulted Ben for
>> >> >> >was calling me a child abuser which is drastic in any case, but I'l=
>l
>> >> >> >survive.
>>
>> >> >> Just for any interested lurkers - here it is:
>>
>> >> >> ********************************************************************
>>
It doesn't. Nor does this: "No Rob... the *original* assertion is that you
can't indict the WCR using only the WCR. You *MUST* use the 26 volumes."
Both statements are similar in that they occurred far down below, instead of
immediately above my response.
>You are losing me. What did the
>magic bullet have to do with JFK's head?
No Rob, I'm not losing you at all. You're simply thinking that people are too
stupid to catch what you just did. Trust me, they aren't.
Now, back to the issue... you stated: "I think we covered this one, as I never
said anyone said they (the fragments) came from CE 399,"
And yet, you ALSO stated: "He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play
as the source for one or both of the fragments."
Now, how can you state that I "claim" what you also say you never stated that
anyone had said?
YOU'RE A LIAR, ROB - AND YOU THINK PEOPLE WILL NOT NOTICE IT.
>"Let's review your statement again: "so let's play the game his way.
>He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for
>one or both of the fragments.""
>
>You are quoting out of context Ben,
Just what part of "He claims..." is out of context, Rob?
I DEFY YOU TO PRODUCE A CITATION OF ME ACTUALLY SAYING THAT!
Until you do, Rob - you're a proven liar. And none of your denials is going to
mean anything.
>you must have said something to
>make me say this,
The *ONLY* thing that I could have said that wouldn't prove *YOU* a liar is to
have actually said what you stated I "claimed."
Cite it.
>I wouldn't have just made it up.
And yet, you did. Since neither then, nor now, can you provide a quote of me
saying any such thing - YOU'RE PROVEN A LIAR, ROB!
>I guess you were
>making silly, unprovable assumptions about the head shot, like you
>could prove they (both fragments) came from one bullet per Frazier.
>You need to prove this if you are going to continue to support
>Frazier's statment.
No, Rob; I don't. I merely have to keep correcting *YOUR* false assertions.
>"Now, you could *ONLY* be telling the truth right now if "the magic
>bullet" is not the same as CE399."
>
>I have no idea what made me say that, but I'm not playing your silly
>games. Of course I know the CE399 is the magic bullet and I know the
>fragments in JBC's wrist is what was considered to have come from the
>magic bullet.
No Rob... the wrist fragments were *NOT* under discussion - the two fragments
found in the limo *were*.
I very carefully quoted the exhibit numbers to be 100% correct.
>Don't change the topic,
The "topic", Rob - is your mention of my assertion that you labeled yourself a
child molester... I merely provided the context for lurkers to read for
themselves.
You lied... and to this day, you've STILL not either cited where I made any such
comment, nor retracted your false allegation.
>you said the fact the WC, via
>Frazier, could NOT prove the two limo fragments came from the same
>bullet did NOT mean they came from seperate bullets. It is put up or
>shut up time Ben. Prove they came from the same bullet.
My statement is 100% correct. The counter-statement is provably false.
You lose.
>"So tell the truth, Rob... did you make the above statement?"
>
>It is a partial statement
The simple answer Rob - is *yes*, you made the statement. I'll quote the entire
post if it makes you feel better - but I QUOTED your lie.
>and the context is not known by me at this
>time.
Then go back and read it.
If you couldn't figure out how to quote any such statement of mine back then,
you can see if you can do so now.
>I know we were discussing which bullet the two limo fragments
>could have come from and I know I said they could not come from the
>magic bullet since they were too large.
And yet, just above, you tried to claim that we were discussing the JBC wrist
fragments.
Funny thing about lying... you never can remember just what you lied about, and
what you were telling the truth about.
I learned that lesson back when I was still a kid.
>Now, you may have taken this
>to mean I thought you thought this, but that was not my point.
>
>"And why are you willing to lie about it now? You did *INDEED* put
>those words in my mouth - so you did indeed say that someone (me) said
>that the fragments came from CE399 (aka the magic bullet)"
>
>I didn't put words in your mouth Ben, you interpreted it that way,
What part of "He claims..." did you misunderstand?
Here... let's play the semantic game... Rob thinks that the 44 & 21 grain
fragments found in the limo *must* be from separate bullets, since there is no
proof possible that they are from the same bullet. He claims that he's a child
molester, but refuses to provide his arrest record.
Did you catch that? Need I repeat it?
Now... I "didn't put words in your mouth", Rob... I used PRECISELY the same
sentence construction you did, to wit: "He claims..."
So you have nothing to complain about, right?
>I was trying to show the size of the fragments eliminated the magic
>bullet from play,
No-one... NO-ONE... has ever even spent a half of a millisecond thinking that
the 44 & 21 grain fragments came from CE399.
So why are you trying to "eliminate" the impossible?
And why did you assert that *I* claimed that these fragments came from CE399?
>and given the head shot bullet could not be
>definitively proven to be the source (beyond all reasonable doubt)
>they had a problem. You chose to suppor them and say by not showing
>them to be from one bullet does NOT mean they came from two. I am now
>saying PROVE it.
Already have. Did so with the same evidence that Albert Einstein often used.
Go back and re-read the original thread. (Hint: look up "pencil")
>> >The presumption by
>> >many associated with the WC was the fragments in the wrist of JBC were
>> >tied to the magic bullet, NOT the fragments in the limo.
>>
>
>"In order to avoid any confusion, I used the specific evidence
>numbers."
>
>Yes, you did, but I did not say you said this.
You can keep going around in circles, Rob - but until you provide a cite of me
saying what you asserted I "claimed", you're a proven liar.
>"Don't try to weasel out now, Rob. CE567 & CE569 are under discussion.
>Always have been. 44 grain and 21 grain, as I recall... any lurker
>can go back to November 2007 and read the originals..."
>
>Ben, they are now, but we discussed so much in November and you are
>providing a partial quote, that is not really fair.
The "partial quote" was EXACTLY what I wanted lurkers to read - to understand
the "child molester" remark in it's entirety.
You're free to quote *ANYTHING* I've ever posted.
>I know you would
>know they were too large,
I quoted *PRECISELY* what was needed for people to see the context. No other
context was needed.
Unless, of course, I actually *said* what you asserted I'd "claimed"... then
it's up to you to cite it.
>but you were sticking to your guns that not
>being able to prove they came from one bullet did not mean they came
>from two.
Of course I am. The truth hasn't changed.
>I want you to prove to me this fact per the WC. Prove they
>came from one bullet. The WC would have had to at trial.
My statement is still correct. (even if you misrepresent it) You ran from my
proof of it.
>>(interestingly, down below in this very same post you revert back to CE567 &
>> CE569)
>>
>> >I don't know
>> >where you got this conclusion.
>>
>
>"Not discussing JBC's wrist fragments, Rob. Changing the topic won't
>get you anywhere."
>
>More games Ben?
Anytime you want to cite for what you asserted I'd "claimed", you go right
ahead. In the meantime, if you bring up the "child molester" incident, I'll be
happy to quote it for everyone so that they can see what you're talking about.
>You post a 6 month old patial quote'
The quote was *complete* for what I was showing. Feel free to do your own
quoting.
>and you are
>stating with it that I claimed certain things which are not true.
I've never stated what you asserted I'd "claimed". Tis that simple.
Nothing has changed... you've STILL never been able to cite it.
>We went back and forth for weeks and I can't remember everything that was
>said.
Then by all means, go back and read it. It's all there. I can't read it for
you.
>You obviously took it that I claimed you said that,
What part of "He claims..." did you not understand? Or perhaps *my* usage of
"He claims that he's a child molester, but refuses to provide his arrest
record." didn't disturb you at all. If so, let me know, and I'll retract my
assertion that you lied. (Of course, I'll then reserve the right to use the "He
claims" sentence construction when debating you.)
>but I know
>I did not. You are not going to pin me to a "fact" that has not been
>proven to be a fact in the first place.
I quoted it. You can keep denying you said it if you want... who cares?
>"You put words in my mouth that you can't quote. You lied. You have
>STILL not retracted those statements."
>
>Perhaps I can't quote them because I never put them in your mouth?
"He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or
both of the fragments."
Your words, Rob. Or do you mind if I continue to say "He claims that he's a
child molester, but refuses to provide his arrest record," after all, I never
put the words in your mouth... I just said that "he claims"
Maybe you forgot personal pronouns in English class...
>I know this is not what you want to consider because you live for
>calling people liars, but this is the truth. I can't help how you
>take things. One fragment was 44 grains and one was 21 grains, how
>could I think you would say they came from the magic bullet (missing
>2.0 to 2.4 grains in total).
You *did* Rob... I really don't care why you would.
>I do remember doing some math problem
>with the weights and you went ballistic (pardon the pun) after this,
>so perhaps you thought something in the problem portray something you
>did not mean. Who knows. The point is the two are not equal. How
>does that compare (what you think I said) to calling me a child
>molester?
I didn't. I stated: "You claim that you're a convicted child molester..."
Just as *YOU* stated that I'd "claimed" something.
The two sentences *ARE* equal... they are both false.
>Asking if I like young boys or girls? I notice how you keep
>running from this. I would be embarrased too.
I haven't run from it at all. In fact, each time you bring it up, I'm happy to
point out that it's another example of where you'd lied about what I'd said. I
answered it below where you first brought it up... so you're lying when you
assert that I'm "running" from it, aren't you?
You see, each time you try to claim that *I* said something I never said - then
I'm going to do the same to you. And you don't get to pick the topic - just as
*I* have no option to chose the topic that you're going to claim I said.
>> >However, these fragments again
>> >outweighed the portion missing from the magic bullet so this
>> >conclusion would be proven to be false at the Shaw trial.
>>
>> 44 & 21 grains did indeed MASSIVELY outweigh the possible loss on CE399.
>>
>> >"You *did* refer to "the magic bullet"... if you're trying to assert
>> >now that you weren't talking about CE399 - then by all means, Rob -
>> >now is your chance."
>>
>> >I don't remember this to be honest as it was many months ago and I
>> >don't catalogue my conversations like you obviously do,
>>
>
>"Anything you type is instantly searchable via Google Groups search.
>No need to "catalogue" posts. This is horrible for those who lie, and
>refuse to retract - as your lies are available for anyone to review for
>many years to come."
>
>You have to remember the context of the post to find it.
No, Rob; you don't. Merely typing "child molester," and a few moments of search
will pull up the relevant thread. Searching by date order helps immensely.
But if you want lessons on how to use the Google Archives search, why not search
it out?
>We discussed
>many things in those weeks. I'm sorry, I don't have hours to devote
>to this. I know I did not say that and that is all that really
>matters to me.
And yet, I quoted YOUR EXACT WORDS. Cut & paste is quite useful for these sorts
of things.
You claim you didn't say it - yet you refuse to label me a liar for stating that
you did indeed say EXACTLY what I quoted you saying.
For surely, if you really didn't say: "so let's play the game his way. He claims
this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the
fragments." - then I've lied... haven't I? Why don't you accuse me of it?
Cat got your tongue? Or a smidgen of honesty....?
>Your lies are available for many as well. You think
>you don't lie because no one spends hours to go back and find them,
>but this does not exonerate you as you know yourself when you are
>being dishonest.
Oh, by all means, GO BACK AND FIND THEM!
Then QUOTE THEM RIGHT HERE!
Be sure to provide the citation that proves it to be a lie.
>> >however, the
>> >only time I can recall mentioning the magic bullet was to say the limo
>> >fragments were too large to have come from that so all we have left is
>> >the head shot for them to be associated with.
>>
>
>"And yet, you were willing to pretend that *I* said it was possible:
>"so let's play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet
>back into play as the source for one or both of the fragments.""
>
>Ben, only a dishonest person would post a partial quote.
I posted the ENTIRE quote of you claiming that I'd said something I hadn't. If
you want to repost the entire post, go right ahead and do so.
>What else did I say? There had to be something you said to make me say this
>part.
Sorry Rob... the *ONLY* thing that would excuse you would be if I'd actually
claimed what you lied about... but I didn't. Nor have you ever been able to
find it and cite it.
>Why are you not putting that in here?
Asking me to provide a quote of a statement I never said? How silly!!
>I really don't remember
>this in full.
Who cares whether you remember it or not?
You remembered enough to mention the "child molester" incident ... now you're
upset because I took the time to locate the actual quote, and repost it for
people who may not have been around the first time...
>You can call me a liar all you want to but I have
>enough posts here now to show I am not.
You can posts thousands of posts... it won't erase a lie.
Ask Tom Lowry...
>Your opinion of me really
>matters little.
Who cares?
I *do* care, however; for the words that *I* type. I refuse to allow someone
else to claim I'd said something I didn't without a response.
>"Lied, didn't you? You can't quote me *EVER* making such a stupid
>assertion. There isn't any possibility WHATSOEVER that 44 & 21 grain
>fragments could have come from CE399."
>
>Lied about what?
"so let's play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into
play as the source for one or both of the fragments."
You lied, Rob. Tis that simple. You can't quote me EVER stating what you just
said I'd "claimed"
>Again, you are pasting a partial quote.
No Rob... I posted your entire statement lying about what I'd said. Go back to
the post and read it for yourself.
>> >"You're just digging yourself in deeper..."
>>
>> >Only you think this and your thoughts are not always clear.
>>
>
>"You quoted another lie on your part, and you don't believe that it's
>putting you deeper in lies... but lurkers can see it."
>
>I don't see it that way as I know I have not lied.
And yet, you can't quote me saying what you asserted I'd said.
>Your silly games
>aren't going to make me fell like one either. I am a very honest
>person, always have been.
An *honest* person would have retracted such a statement. Or quoted me saying
what you asserted I did.
>I see nothing to gain here by lying. I am
>not pushing a ridiculous theory like the LNers.
Oh, I consider it ridiculous in the extreme to even *consider* that a 44 grain,
or 21 grain fragment could have come out of CE399.
You're a liar to suggest that I ever claimed such.
>> >> >but rather their size precluded this from
>> >> >being the case.
>>
>> >"No, Rob; let's be clear about this - YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I
>> >HAD NEVER STATED. *NO-ONE* has EVER stated that the two larger
>> >fragments, CE567 and CE569 could have come from CE399.
>>
>> >*No-one*, Rob... not one single person in history."
>>
>> >I think you are confused about what I wrote,
>>
>
>"Here it is again: "so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the
>fragments.""
>
>But what made me say it puts them back into play? Why the partial
>quote? I know it had something to do with the math problem
>(161-44-21=3D96) but I can't remember it.
Go read it yourself, Rob. You lied about what I'd "claimed"... it's just that
simple.
>> >and this happened quite a
>> >bit.
>>
>
>"Feel free to "explain" your comment... here it is again: "so let's
>play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into
>play as the source for one or both of the fragments.""
>
>If I could remember I would, but I don't remember exactly what you
>said that made me say that.
And yet, you remembered the "child molester" statement...
>All I can say was we were discussing the
>context of the WC in 1964, it was not known to all the amount of
>missing grains form CE399 at that time, therefore, the claim could
>have been made by the WC that the fragments, or one of them, did come
>from the magic bullet.
How silly!
At *NO TIME WHATSOEVER*, and by ANYONE AT ALL - was the idea EVER entertained,
even briefly, that CE399 could have been the source of a 44 grain or 21 grain
fragment.
>You were playing devil's advocate and
>defending them, so you could have taken it as me saying it was you,
>not them. Beyond that I don't know as you are pasting a partial
>quote.
You can continue to deny it all you want, Rob. I could quote the entire post,
and it wouldn't change the fact that you asserted that I'd "claimed" something I
had, in fact, never claimed.
>> >I realize no one said this as they were refering to the
>> >fragments in JBC's wrist, not the limo fragments.
>>
>
>"So there's only two fragments from JBC's wrist? (Although this is
>what the WC claimed, it's not quite accurate, is it?) And they weigh
>44 and 21 grains? I think you'd better check the testimony again..."
By the way, I checked back, CE842 consisted of *THREE* fragments... those are
what the WC claimed came from JBC's wrist. (You see, Rob - I don't have
problems correcting myself if I say something incorrect.
Now that we know that the JBC wrist fragments were alleged to have been THREE in
number, how do you defend this: "so let's play the game his way. He claims this
puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the
fragments."
Aren't you missing a fragment?
"one or both of the fragments" referred to the 44 & 21 grain fragments... but
you're trying to claim that "one or both of the fragments" was referring to
those found in JBC's wrist.
Silly on the face of it.
>Where in the partial quote you pasted is 44 and 21 gains listed?
It was, of course, what the discussion was about. Feel free to go back and
look.
>I missed that. Why are you hell bent on showing people to be liars?
Because you are.
You can't cite me *ever* "claiming" what you asserted.
Why are you so upset at someone claiming that you asserted that you were a child
molester?
Both statements have the same amount of truth to them. You seem confused that I
would object to your false statements attributed to me, yet you can't seem to
understand why anyone would make such false statements and attribute them to
you.
Hypocrisy seems a tad rampant, doesn't it?
>"You're a liar, Rob."
>
>In your opinion, which means nothing to me.
It's not even debatable - since you can't cite me saying what you asserted I'd
said.
>> >NO matter what you
>> >think I said, there is NO excuse for resorting to child abuse
>> >comments.
>>
>
>"Why do you believe it's okay for *YOU* to put offensive statements in
>my mouth, and not okay for me to do the same to you?"
>
>This sums it up I guess. Ben equates these two to be the same.
Yep... both of them were lies.
>He thinks I claimed he said one of the large limo fragments came from the
>magic bullet,
"One?" The actual number you asserted was "...one or both of the fragments..."
>therefore, I have to love having sex with and abusing
>kids. What a sick mind.
And yet, long after you can't remember half of the debate, you remember quite
well what happens to those who put words in my mouth.
I do the same thing to you.
You see... everyone can learn... and I'm quite interested in having others learn
that you can't misquote me without paying a price.
>"That which ye sow, that shall ye also reap."
>
>You will reap it good on judgement day for sure. I'll pray for your
>soul anyway as this is what Jesus wants.
>
>
>> >You are not really worthy of talking with. You call
>> >everyone a liar, but you have been caught in so many yourself and then
>> >you run, see "Yellow Pants" threads.
>>
>
>"You are known by those you associate with. I see that you're willing
>to be associated with the trolls."
>
>I at least know where they stand.
They stand for dishonesty, lies, and cowardice.
Seems that you prefer that to the clarity of truth. In fact, come to think of
it, Dennis Prager likes to say that he prefers clarity to agreement. A thought
well worth considering.
>You act like a CTer yet you
>defended the WC so hard in those posts I thought you were a LNer.
Oh? Can you quote any such "defense" of the WC?
>I would never associate with someone of your quality.
That speaks volumes...
>"That speaks volumes..."
>
>Sure does.
>
>
>> >> >> ********************************************************************=
>***=3D
>>
>> >> >> When people are willing to put words in *my* mouth - they shouldn't =
>be
>> >> >> surprised if I return the favor.
>>
>> >> >> I note for the record that not only could Rob *NOT* document his
>> >> >> misquoting of my words, this was the last time Rob *ever* tried to
>> >> >> misquote me.
>>
>> >> >"Sad that it takes this sort of tactic to force someone to use their
>> >> >'quotes' more carefully."
>>
>> >> >Lurkers, this is what Ben calles a tactic:
>>
>> >> Yep... put any word you want to it. If you try putting words in *MY*
>> >> mouth, simply expect the same. It's a Biblical principle that's been
>> >> known for thousands of years... that which ye sow...
>>
>> >> >">The other two wind
>> >> >>up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
>> >> >>Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
>> >> >>head!!
>>
>> >> >I forgot, Rob... was that little boys or little girls that you like to
>> >> >molest?
>> >> >For just like your assertion of your gender preference, at no time did
>> >> >I ever state that none of the bullet[s] that struck JFK's head remained
>> >> >in his head."
>>
>> >"Good of you to quote another one of your lies, Rob. You *STILL*
>> >can't provide the quote of me saying what you asserted. Indeed,
>> >people can locate posts where
>> >I discuss the fragments found in JFK's head."
Strangely, Rob tried to claim that I "ran" from this - yet there it is,
immediately above; my response.
I wonder why Rob feels the need to lie so frequently?
>> >Ben, it is put up or shut up time. You want to defend the WC's
>> >assertion that the two limo fragments came from one bullet, fine.
>> >Prove it then.
>>
>
>"Okay... first, let's note for the record that you've switched back to
>the original theme - the two limo fragments. Suddenly the "JBC wrist
>fragments" have disappeared from view."
>
>Because this was the tone of the two weeks of messages.
Thankyou for that admission.
Now, can you explain how the "tone of the two weeks of messages" suddenly, and
with no notice, suddenly shifts to the JBC wrist fragments? Is it perhaps
because in your moments of thoughtfulness, you realize just how idiotic it was
to accuse me of claiming that one or both of the limo fragments came from CE399?
>You said I
>was wrong for saying because they couldn't prove they came from one
>bullet, they came from two or more.
Yep... it's *STILL* wrong. As I proved.
>I mentioned the JBC wrist
>fragments because I have no idea what you are talking about in the
>partial quote you pasted.
Go back and read the thread, then.
>"That puts the lie to your assertion above that you were referring to
>JBC's wrist fragments, doesn't it?"
>
>Again, you are all over the place.
You admit that the thread was about the two limo fragments, yet you can't seem
to understand that this undercuts your sudden argument that you were really
talking about JBC's wrist fragments.
>Instead of proving your assertion
Already done. You ran...
>you are stalling. I have no idea what the partial quote was about,
And yet, you remember my response to it, don't you?
>I do not remember saying you thought the large limo fragments came from
>CE399, but obviously you said something that sparked that.
Feel free to cite where I said any such thing.
>"Are you willing to admit that you lied when you tried putting those
>words in my mouth?"
>
>Why would I?
Because you did. Because I QUOTED you doing so... and because you can't support
your claim with a citation.
You lied. You got caught.
>You have NOT proven I did put them to your mouth in the
>first place.
"He claims..."
Words have meanings.
>NOR have you proven both limo fragments came from one
>bullet. Why are you stalling?
I have no intention of proving that both limo fragments came from one bullet.
I've *ALREADY* proven what I *did* say. You ran.
>"Are you willing to retract it?"
>
>Are you willing to prove it?
The quote *IS* the proof. Coward, aren't you?
>Where is the rest of the quote?
I'll be happy to quote the ENTIRE POST... but you still won't offer a
retraction. Dishonest, aren't you?
>IF I did
>say that, yes I will retract it, I have been wrong before.
Look up your words yourself.
>You on the
>other hand act like you are never wrong.
I rarely am. But then, I usually stay away from topics I'm unfamiliar with, and
double-check my posts before I send 'em.
Then I'm also not afraid to immediately correct or retract incorrect statements.
You've been sitting on these lies since November... and I suspect that next year
you'll STILL be sitting on your false statements about what I "claim."
>Show me where I said in full
>context you thought one or both of the limo fragments came from the
>magic bullet (with all the leading stuff included) and I will
>apologize if I'm wrong.
Feel free to look it up yourself. I've *QUOTED* your statement. What you
apparently hope to find is *MY* claim... but you couldn't find it in November -
why would you hope to find it now?
>> >You are assuming the role of prosecutor, therefore, the
>> >burden of proof is on you, not me. =A0I just have to show reasonable
>> >doubt that there could have been more bullets involved. =A0You didn't
>> >get that last year, you kept demanding I prove it, but the assertion
>> >came from your side.
>>
>
>"No Rob... the *original* assertion is that you can't indict the WCR
>using only the WCR. You *MUST* use the 26 volumes."
>
>Again, NO I DON'T. Frazier is in the WCR saying they could NOT prove
>both came from one bullet, that is all the doubt I need. Maybe you
>need more, but not me. They could not prove this in court, and you
>obviously cannot prove it either as you again have avoided proving it
>as requested.
I have, however; proven beyond any doubt that a lack of proof that the two limo
fragments came from one bullet is *NOT* proof that they came from two.
You ran...
>> >"Anytime you're willing to lie, Rob - you'll know what to expect."
>>
>> >Good advice, you should remember it since you lie yourself.
>>
>"Quote it, Rob... and provide the citation that makes it a lie."
>
>Why are you running from the LNers if you did not lie about Yellow
>Pants?
Quote the lie, Rob... then quote the citation that makes it so.
>"You STILL haven't quoted me saying what you said I said, have you?"
>
>What?
Are you brain dead or just terminally stupid? Once again: "so let's play the
game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source
for one or both of the fragments."
Do you want to argue about the meaning of "He claims..." again?
>"Go ahead, Rob... quote me: "so let's play the game his way. He claims
>this puts
>> the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the fragm=
>ents.""
>
>Go ahead Ben, prove both fragments came from one bullet anytime. We
>are waiting. Back up your big boast.
Already did. You ran.
>> >By the
>> >way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
>> >the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
>> >fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
>>
>
>"What proof are you willing to accept?"
>
>You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know the
>exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
>the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
>tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
ROTFLMAO!!
(Never answered the question, I note...)
>"If you are unwilling to accept expert testimony ... then you're
>asking the impossible... and you can't fault someone for failing to
>accomplish the impossible."
>
>If the expert testimony is of the WC's making, yes forget it.
Then by all means, tell me what you *CAN* prove.
Can you prove that a Mannlicher Carcano was alleged to have been involved?
>This is
>why I couldn't understand why you thought the WCR couldn't prove
>itself there was a conspiracy. You do this all the time.
No, Rob; I *NEVER* have. I use the 26 volumes. The WCR by itself can't be used
to prove it false.
You *do* understand that "WCR" stands for the "Warren Commission Report", don't
you? I'm sure you have a copy... feel free to QUOTE the section in the WCR that
proves that there was a conspiracy... or that the rest of the WCR is wrong.
>Well, that
>is why I thought it was unfair for you to grill me for weeks on my
>point that NOT being able to match the fragments to one bullet did not
>carry weight (or at least present a lot of doubt to the official
>theory), especially when you or anyone can't prove they came from the
>same bullet.
I could care less about *that* point. The real point, and surely you remember
this, is that a lack of proof that the two fragments were originally one bullet
IS NOT PROOF THAT THE TWO FRAGMENTS MUST HAVE COME FROM TWO BULLETS.
I even gave a very simply analogy using a pencil that you ran from.
>> >"Real CT'ers don't need to lie... the evidence is all that's needed."
>>
>> >Then you are obviously NOT a real CTer. =A0Quit running from the LNers
>> >as you make us all look bad.
>>
>
>"You've been quoted twice in this thread with lies you told. You
>STILL can't quote me saying what you asserted."
>
>You have pasted partial quotes that do not show any lies, but in your
>mind they are.
Until you can QUOTE ME saying what you asserted I did - you lied. You got
CAUGHT lying.
>"Yet you aren't honest enough to retract such statements when I point
>it out."
>
>Again, you think I'm dishonest.
You are. You've been nailed accusing me of saying things that:
#1. I never said.
#2. You can't CITE me saying.
>Post the proof
The lie is your statement, the proof is the fact that you can't support it.
>and I'll retract it if
>I'm wrong, but partial quotes don't cut it.
Feel free to quote the entire post. Then complain that the thread hasn't been
posted... then post the entire thread again...
You've *STILL* been caught, and you're still dishonest.
>"I don't "run" from LNT'ers... I'm more than happy to answer them.
>Trolls I don't have time for. You can play with the trolls if you
>want."
>
>This is an out and out lie right here.
Feel free to argue such a silly point if you want.
>I have seen quite a few
>threads asking you to defend your position and you ignore them, why?
Probably because I never see the post. You *do* understand what a killfile is,
don't you?
You see, I really do have a life outside of this forum. For example, I just got
back from Judo practice, where I had a really fun time. This means, of course,
that I *don't* have time for liars and cowards. You, in fact, are on the edge
of being classified as a troll yourself.
>You don't let others do this.
Anyone can killfile me if they so desire.
>NO, you create seperate posts with
>insults in the title if they dare to choose not to talk with you.
Dare... dare...
>I guess only Ben gets to decide when to end conversations.
No, you decided to run back in November... and nothing stopped you. Nothing
stops you now. End it anytime you want.
But don't expect to make comments about the "child molester" incident without me
quoting the entire context so that lurkers can judge for themselves.
muc...@gmail.com
> Lurkers may wish to view the end of the post for Rob's most hilarious
> statement... but to save you time, here it is:
>
> Rob:
>
> >> >By the
> >> >way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
> >> >the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
> >> >fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
>
> Ben:
>
> >"What proof are you willing to accept?"
>
> Rob:
>
> >You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know the
> >exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
> >the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
> >tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
>
> Rob is referring to the 44 and 21 grain fragments, one of which was the head of
> a bullet, and the other was the tail end. He's asking where's the proof that
> the middle of this bullet ever existed... can you believe this???
>
Like your *Lady in Yellow Pants* blooper a couple of months ago?
No, wait a minute... you never corrected that one, did you?
All false statements are equal only in the sense that they're all
false, and it's rather one-dimensional of you to think otherwise, Ben.
> >He thinks I claimed he said one of the large limo fragments came from the
> >magic bullet,
>
> "One?" The actual number you asserted was "...one or both of the fragments..."
>
> >therefore, I have to love having sex with and abusing
> >kids. What a sick mind.
>
> And yet, long after you can't remember half of the debate, you remember quite
> well what happens to those who put words in my mouth.
>
> I do the same thing to you.
>
> You see... everyone can learn... and I'm quite interested in having others learn
> that you can't misquote me without paying a price.
>
> >"That which ye sow, that shall ye also reap."
>
> >You will reap it good on judgement day for sure. I'll pray for your
> >soul anyway as this is what Jesus wants.
>
> >> >You are not really worthy of talking with. You call
> >> >everyone a liar, but you have been caught in so many yourself and then
> >> >you run, see "Yellow Pants" threads.
>
> >"You are known by those you associate with. I see that you're willing
> >to be associated with the trolls."
>
> >I at least know where they stand.
>
> They stand for dishonesty, lies, and cowardice.
The honest truth is that *your* behaviour in those *Yellow Pants*
threads has been rather cowardly, isn't it?
Thread : Z-369 and Proof that Zapruder & Nix Have Been Altered.
Post# : 1
Author : Ben Holmes
Date : 5 Mar 2008
Quote : "This is only half the problem, of course... because there are
a further *two* people to the right of this 'group of four' seen
standing in the grass in the extant Z-film... yet Nix shows *THREE*
people. (Looks like a woman wearing yellow pants, dark coat, tan purse
on left side... my opinion, of course)"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b900b35211f89d8
The idea that *Yellow Pants* is proof of Nix/Zapruder mismatch/
alteration is most simply refuted by looking at the lamp posts along
Main Street. This argument was first brought up in this (9 Mar 2008)
post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/01d0789db4df797e
...and subsequently refined by Tim Brennan, most recently in this
brilliant (12 May 2008) post in the Benny "looking the fool" thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b30d560ec98ea06a
So many excuses... Wouldn't it be simpler to admit your mistake, Ben?
Perhaps you could also squeeze in an apology to Robert Harris for
calling him a liar.
-Mark
robcap...@netscape.com
> Lurkers may wish to view the end of the post for Rob's most hilarious
> statement... but to save you time, here it is:
>
> Rob:
>
> >> >By the
> >> >way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
> >> >the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
> >> >fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
>
> Ben:
>
> >"What proof are you willing to accept?"
>
> Rob:
>
> >You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know the
> >exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
> >the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
> >tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
>
"Rob is referring to the 44 and 21 grain fragments, one of which was
the head of a bullet, and the other was the tail end. He's asking
where's the proof that the middle of this bullet ever existed... can
you believe this???"
Ben is a coward. He is saying in this long-winded post that I claimed
I was a child molester when we all know he said it. Ben is a liar and
here is some proof:
"It's a lie, Rob; to suggest that *ANYONE* ever considered that the 44
or 21
grain fragment came from CE399. Cite for this assertion, or retract
this lie."
Notice the wording here - "considered" is the key one - how can he say
NO ONE ever considered this? Has he talked with everyone tied to the
quasi-investigation? How about the WC? How about all the independent
researchers over the years? He asserts something he can't possibly
know, yet everyone else is the liar.
He has said repeatedly that not proving the two fragments did not come
from the same bullet does not mean they came from two separate ones,
yet he has admitted he can't prove they came from one. Here it is:
“>Prove what you say, that
>they came from one bullet.
No Rob, I said that it cannot be proven.”
Here it admits it, but if I say they are from two bullets I am a
LIAR! Go figure.
Later in this post he will act like he has proven it, but we know the
truth. The first problem with the analogy (of using a pencil) is you
don’t know where the middle part went, so how can you assume there was
one in the first place (to form a whole single bullet)? The second
problem is the base and nose COULD NOT BE positively matched as having
come from the same bullet. You have nothing. You are a liar.
Ben thinks because in his experiment he knows there is a middle part
of a pencil, therefore, there should be one for the two limo
fragments, but he totally disregards they may have come from entirely
different bullets, thus his pencil analogy is incorrect. We don't
know for sure there was a middle part for them (base, and nose) since
we don't know where the middle part is. No problem for Ben though:
"No Rob, it *doesn't* have to be provable. Just like you can't prove
where that
second pencil came from.
Not everything is capable of being proven - for example, before DNA
testing, it
was *NOT POSSIBLE* to exclude suspects in a rape case. Yet by your
logic, DNA testing MUST ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY FEASIBLE AND
ABLE TO BE PERFORMED.
Because without DNA testing, it was *IMPOSSIBLE* to preclude an
innocent suspect based on non-existent DNA testing.
There are examples of unprovable things all around you. I've given
you several
examples, and you've ducked and run from the pencil example, and will
undoubtably duck and run from the sandblasting example. "
Like ballistic and NAA testing is conducted like these things are. He
also is implying that there was NO ballistic testing in 1964 by using
DNA testing for comparison. These things were provable in 1964, the
WC was just unable to do so, therefore, Ben is lying yet again.
This is a waste of time because I did not say anything to discredit
the CT cause, just something Ben thinks makes him look bad. His ego
is hurt.
I do plan on ending this as I don't plan to waste weeks again.
> In article <86b2d5ae-15cf-4f6a-b62d-fdf9b793d...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
> Unless, of course, I actually ...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 14, 1:11=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> Lurkers may wish to view the end of the post for Rob's most hilarious
>> statement... but to save you time, here it is:
>>
>> Rob:
>>
>> >> >By the
>> >> >way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
>> >> >the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
>> >> >fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
>>
>> Ben:
>>
>> >"What proof are you willing to accept?"
(A question, I might note, that has *STILL* not been answered...)
>> Rob:
>>
>> >You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know the
>> >exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
>> >the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
>> >tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
>>
>
>
>"Rob is referring to the 44 and 21 grain fragments, one of which was
>the head of a bullet, and the other was the tail end. He's asking
>where's the proof that the middle of this bullet ever existed... can
>you believe this???"
>
>Ben is a coward.
And yet, it's *YOU* that has ducked answering the rest of this post... indeed,
you snipped most of it. Don't worry... I've put it back in so that people can
see what you ducked and ran from.
>He is saying in this long-winded post that I claimed
>I was a child molester when we all know he said it.
I stated that in the very first post. Are you illiterate?
>Ben is a liar and here is some proof:
>
>"It's a lie, Rob; to suggest that *ANYONE* ever considered that the 44
>or 21 grain fragment came from CE399. Cite for this assertion, or retract
>this lie."
>
>Notice the wording here - "considered" is the key one - how can he say
>NO ONE ever considered this? Has he talked with everyone tied to the
>quasi-investigation? How about the WC? How about all the independent
>researchers over the years? He asserts something he can't possibly
>know, yet everyone else is the liar.
I've often challenged people to QUOTE my "lie", and the citation that makes it
so... unfortunately yet again - your illiteracy is peeking out. YOU FORGOT THE
CITATION.
You see, you made an assertion that I'd "claimed" this - and yet, you can't
provide any source where I said it.
Nor can you provide a citation where ANYONE AT ALL has ever asserted this. So
my statement has the support, and yours is noticeably lacking.
>He has said repeatedly that not proving the two fragments did not come
>from the same bullet does not mean they came from two separate ones,
Yep... still as true today as the day I first said it. I've even proven it with
my pencil analogy.
>yet he has admitted he can't prove they came from one. Here it is:
How does "admitting" that I cannot prove the 44 grain, and 21 grain limo
fragments came from a single bullet prove that they came from two?
You *still* look stupid, Rob.
>>Prove what you say, that
>>they came from one bullet.
>
>No Rob, I said that it cannot be proven.
>
>Here it admits it, but if I say they are from two bullets I am a
>LIAR! Go figure.
You *ARE* a liar, Rob. Or simply vastly more stupid than the average person.
I've proven my statement, and you ran from the proof.
>Later in this post he will act like he has proven it,
I did that back in November... you ran away.
>but we know the
>truth. The first problem with the analogy (of using a pencil) is you
>don't know where the middle part went, so how can you assume there was
>one in the first place (to form a whole single bullet)? The second
>problem is the base and nose COULD NOT BE positively matched as having
>come from the same bullet. You have nothing. You are a liar.
I'll present the pencil analogy again for the lurkers - as you've certainly not
stated it accurately.
Given: I have a complete, normal pencil.
Given: I cut it into three equal pieces - and place the middle of the three
pieces in my pocket.
Given: I hand the two ends of the pencil to Rob.
He will now claim that the fact that the two ends cannot be "matched" to each
other (just as the 44 grain and 21 grain pieces have no 'matching' areas - the
entire middle is missing) proves that there were TWO pencils.
Question: Where's the other pencil?
Rob, were he smart enough to understand this simple analogy, would understand
that proving that two ends of an object cannot be matched to each other IS NOT
PROOF THAT THERE WERE ORIGINALLY TWO OBJECTS.
Tis as simple as that...
>Ben thinks because in his experiment he knows there is a middle part
>of a pencil,
Rob - it was a given. Do try to keep up...
>therefore, there should be one for the two limo
>fragments,
Nope... never said that, and you can't quote me saying any such thing. You're a
liar, Rob...
>but he totally disregards they may have come from entirely
>different bullets, thus his pencil analogy is incorrect.
My pencil analogy is *DIRECTLY* applicable to this theory of Rob's.
>We don't
>know for sure there was a middle part for them (base, and nose)
Yes Rob, we *DO* know that there was a middle piece. You see, you can't fire
just the tip of the bullet... or just the base of a bullet. You fire a bullet.
There could have been 15 bullets... and the only remains are one nose, and one
tail... a 44 grain, and a 21 grain. But it's sheer stupidity to believe that
because you can't find the 14 1/3 bullets, that at least 1/3rd doesn't exist.
>since
>we don't know where the middle part is. No problem for Ben though:
>
>"No Rob, it *doesn't* have to be provable. Just like you can't prove
>where that second pencil came from.
>
>Not everything is capable of being proven
Of course not. Nor did I make any such statement. Strawmen are fun, aren't
they?
>- for example, before DNA
>testing, it
>was *NOT POSSIBLE* to exclude suspects in a rape case. Yet by your
>logic,
By Rob's logic, we have a missing pencil. Where's the pencil, Rob?
>DNA testing MUST ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY FEASIBLE AND
>ABLE TO BE PERFORMED.
>
>Because without DNA testing, it was *IMPOSSIBLE* to preclude an
>innocent suspect based on non-existent DNA testing.
And without the flux capacitor, time travel is not possible.
>There are examples of unprovable things all around you. I've given
>you several
>examples, and you've ducked and run from the pencil example,
Why lie, Rob? I've never "ducked and ran" from the pencil example - IT WAS MY
EXAMPLE TO BEGIN WITH!
>and will
>undoubtably duck and run from the sandblasting example. "
Sandblast away, Rob.
>Like ballistic and NAA testing is conducted like these things are. He
>also is implying that there was NO ballistic testing in 1964 by using
>DNA testing for comparison.
A meaningless statement that I never "implied," nor will you be able to quote me
"implying" it.
You're a liar, Rob.
>These things were provable in 1964, the
>WC was just unable to do so, therefore, Ben is lying yet again.
And yet, you seem incapable of quoting me, and providing the cite that makes it
a lie ... as I've done repeatedly with you.
Why is that, Rob?
>This is a waste of time because I did not say anything to discredit
>the CT cause, just something Ben thinks makes him look bad. His ego
>is hurt.
Ouch....
>I do plan on ending this as I don't plan to waste weeks again.
Of course you do. You've been caught in a lie, and now you're going to do as
you did before - you're going to run away.
But you *DID* lie about what I've stated... I'm sure you've had plenty of time
to go back and verify that you did indeed state what I quoted... so your
dishonesty in refusing to retract your lie will stay on the record.
Lurkers - read below to see how Rob is now demonstrating his cowardice by
refusing to support:
In article <86b2d5ae-15cf-4f6a...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
Cite it.
You lose.
Unless, of course, I actually *said* what you asserted I'd "claimed"... then
"He claims that he's a child molester, but refuses to provide his arrest
record." didn't disturb you at all. If so, let me know, and I'll retract my
assertion that you lied. (Of course, I'll then reserve the right to use the "He
claims" sentence construction when debating you.)
>but I know
>I did not. You are not going to pin me to a "fact" that has not been
>proven to be a fact in the first place.
I quoted it. You can keep denying you said it if you want... who cares?
>"You put words in my mouth that you can't quote. You lied. You have
>STILL not retracted those statements."
>
>Perhaps I can't quote them because I never put them in your mouth?
"He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or
both of the fragments."
Your words, Rob. Or do you mind if I continue to say "He claims that he's a
For surely, if you really didn't say: "so let's play the game his way. He claims
this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the
fragments." - then I've lied... haven't I? Why don't you accuse me of it?
Cat got your tongue? Or a smidgen of honesty....?
>Your lies are available for many as well. You think
>you don't lie because no one spends hours to go back and find them,
>but this does not exonerate you as you know yourself when you are
>being dishonest.
Oh, by all means, GO BACK AND FIND THEM!
Then QUOTE THEM RIGHT HERE!
Be sure to provide the citation that proves it to be a lie.
>> >however, the
>> >only time I can recall mentioning the magic bullet was to say the limo
>> >fragments were too large to have come from that so all we have left is
>> >the head shot for them to be associated with.
>>
>
>"And yet, you were willing to pretend that *I* said it was possible:
>"so let's play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet
>back into play as the source for one or both of the fragments.""
>
Ask Tom Lowry...
Who cares?
"so let's play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into
play as the source for one or both of the fragments."
You lied, Rob. Tis that simple. You can't quote me EVER stating what you just
said I'd "claimed"
>"Here it is again: "so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the
>fragments.""
>
>But what made me say it puts them back into play? Why the partial
>quote? I know it had something to do with the math problem
>(161-44-21=3D96) but I can't remember it.
Go read it yourself, Rob. You lied about what I'd "claimed"... it's just that
simple.
>> >and this happened quite a
>> >bit.
>>
>
>"Feel free to "explain" your comment... here it is again: "so let's
>play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into
>play as the source for one or both of the fragments.""
>
>If I could remember I would, but I don't remember exactly what you
>said that made me say that.
And yet, you remembered the "child molester" statement...
>All I can say was we were discussing the
>context of the WC in 1964, it was not known to all the amount of
>missing grains form CE399 at that time, therefore, the claim could
>have been made by the WC that the fragments, or one of them, did come
>from the magic bullet.
How silly!
At *NO TIME WHATSOEVER*, and by ANYONE AT ALL - was the idea EVER entertained,
even briefly, that CE399 could have been the source of a 44 grain or 21 grain
fragment.
>You were playing devil's advocate and
>defending them, so you could have taken it as me saying it was you,
>not them. Beyond that I don't know as you are pasting a partial
>quote.
You can continue to deny it all you want, Rob. I could quote the entire post,
and it wouldn't change the fact that you asserted that I'd "claimed" something I
had, in fact, never claimed.
>> >I realize no one said this as they were refering to the
>> >fragments in JBC's wrist, not the limo fragments.
>>
>
>"So there's only two fragments from JBC's wrist? (Although this is
>what the WC claimed, it's not quite accurate, is it?) And they weigh
>44 and 21 grains? I think you'd better check the testimony again..."
By the way, I checked back, CE842 consisted of *THREE* fragments... those are
what the WC claimed came from JBC's wrist. (You see, Rob - I don't have
problems correcting myself if I say something incorrect.
Now that we know that the JBC wrist fragments were alleged to have been THREE in
number, how do you defend this: "so let's play the game his way. He claims this
puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the
fragments."
Aren't you missing a fragment?
Because you are.
>He thinks I claimed he said one of the large limo fragments came from the
>magic bullet,
"One?" The actual number you asserted was "...one or both of the fragments..."
>therefore, I have to love having sex with and abusing
>kids. What a sick mind.
And yet, long after you can't remember half of the debate, you remember quite
well what happens to those who put words in my mouth.
I do the same thing to you.
You see... everyone can learn... and I'm quite interested in having others learn
that you can't misquote me without paying a price.
>"That which ye sow, that shall ye also reap."
>
>You will reap it good on judgement day for sure. I'll pray for your
>soul anyway as this is what Jesus wants.
>
>
>> >You are not really worthy of talking with. You call
>> >everyone a liar, but you have been caught in so many yourself and then
>> >you run, see "Yellow Pants" threads.
>>
>
>"You are known by those you associate with. I see that you're willing
>to be associated with the trolls."
>
>I at least know where they stand.
They stand for dishonesty, lies, and cowardice.
Seems that you prefer that to the clarity of truth. In fact, come to think of
it, Dennis Prager likes to say that he prefers clarity to agreement. A thought
well worth considering.
>You act like a CTer yet you
>defended the WC so hard in those posts I thought you were a LNer.
Oh? Can you quote any such "defense" of the WC?
>I would never associate with someone of your quality.
That speaks volumes...
>"That speaks volumes..."
>
>Sure does.
>
>
>> >> >> ********************************************************************=
>***=3D
>>
>> >> >> When people are willing to put words in *my* mouth - they shouldn't =
>be
>> >> >> surprised if I return the favor.
>>
>> >> >> I note for the record that not only could Rob *NOT* document his
>> >> >> misquoting of my words, this was the last time Rob *ever* tried to
>> >> >> misquote me.
>>
>> >> >"Sad that it takes this sort of tactic to force someone to use their
>> >> >'quotes' more carefully."
>>
>> >> >Lurkers, this is what Ben calles a tactic:
>>
>> >> Yep... put any word you want to it. If you try putting words in *MY*
>> >> mouth, simply expect the same. It's a Biblical principle that's been
>> >> known for thousands of years... that which ye sow...
>>
>> >> >">The other two wind
>> >> >>up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
>> >> >>Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
>> >> >>head!!
>>
Thankyou for that admission.
Already done. You ran...
"He claims..."
Words have meanings.
>"No Rob... the *original* assertion is that you can't indict the WCR
>using only the WCR. You *MUST* use the 26 volumes."
>
>Again, NO I DON'T. Frazier is in the WCR saying they could NOT prove
>both came from one bullet, that is all the doubt I need. Maybe you
>need more, but not me. They could not prove this in court, and you
>obviously cannot prove it either as you again have avoided proving it
>as requested.
I have, however; proven beyond any doubt that a lack of proof that the two limo
fragments came from one bullet is *NOT* proof that they came from two.
You ran...
>> >"Anytime you're willing to lie, Rob - you'll know what to expect."
>>
>> >Good advice, you should remember it since you lie yourself.
>>
>"Quote it, Rob... and provide the citation that makes it a lie."
>
>Why are you running from the LNers if you did not lie about Yellow
>Pants?
Quote the lie, Rob... then quote the citation that makes it so.
>"You STILL haven't quoted me saying what you said I said, have you?"
>
>What?
Are you brain dead or just terminally stupid? Once again: "so let's play the
game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source
for one or both of the fragments."
Do you want to argue about the meaning of "He claims..." again?
>"Go ahead, Rob... quote me: "so let's play the game his way. He claims
>this puts
>> the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the fragm=
>ents.""
>
>Go ahead Ben, prove both fragments came from one bullet anytime. We
>are waiting. Back up your big boast.
Already did. You ran.
>> >By the
>> >way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
>> >the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
>> >fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
>>
>
>"What proof are you willing to accept?"
>
>You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know the
>exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
>the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
>tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
ROTFLMAO!!
>Post the proof
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <1afd983f-faf4-43f9-a4e9-2eed02b68...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On May 14, 1:11=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >> Lurkers may wish to view the end of the post for Rob's most hilarious
> >> statement... but to save you time, here it is:
>
> >> Rob:
>
> >> >> >By the
> >> >> >way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
> >> >> >the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
> >> >> >fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
>
> >> Ben:
>
> >> >"What proof are you willing to accept?"
>
"(A question, I might note, that has *STILL* not been answered...)"
Right out of the gate - he lies!!! I guess he hoped no one saw this
from the other day:
""What proof are you willing to accept?"
You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know
the
exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
"If you are unwilling to accept expert testimony ... then you're
asking the impossible... and you can't fault someone for failing to
accomplish the impossible."
If the expert testimony is of the WC's making, yes forget it. This
is
why I couldn't understand why you thought the WCR couldn't prove
itself there was a conspiracy. You do this all the time. Well, that
is why I thought it was unfair for you to grill me for weeks on my
point that NOT being able to match the fragments to one bullet did
not
carry weight (or at least present a lot of doubt to the official
theory), especially when you or anyone can't prove they came from the
same bullet."
The man lies more than a rug!
>
> >> Rob:
>
> >> >You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know the
> >> >exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
> >> >the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
> >> >tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
>
> >"Rob is referring to the 44 and 21 grain fragments, one of which was
> >the head of a bullet, and the other was the tail end. He's asking
> >where's the proof that the middle of this bullet ever existed... can
> >you believe this???"
>
> >Ben is a coward.
>
"And yet, it's *YOU* that has ducked answering the rest of this
post... indeed, you snipped most of it. Don't worry... I've put it
back in so that people can see what you ducked and ran from."
I haven't ducked anything, you have FAILED to PROVE there was a middle
part. You have to do this first before any other claims are put into
place. Since you said it was impossible to prove they came (two
fragments) from one bullet, how do you plan on proving there was a
middle part?
> >He is saying in this long-winded post that I claimed
> >I was a child molester when we all know he said it.
>
"I stated that in the very first post. Are you illiterate?"
Another lie. I NEVER claimed I was a child molester. Since Ben
thinks of this right away to accuse others of I would remove my child
from his judo class if I were their parents.
> >Ben is a liar and here is some proof:
>
> >"It's a lie, Rob; to suggest that *ANYONE* ever considered that the 44
> >or 21 grain fragment came from CE399. Cite for this assertion, or retract
> >this lie."
>
> >Notice the wording here - "considered" is the key one - how can he say
> >NO ONE ever considered this? Has he talked with everyone tied to the
> >quasi-investigation? How about the WC? How about all the independent
> >researchers over the years? He asserts something he can't possibly
> >know, yet everyone else is the liar.
>
"I've often challenged people to QUOTE my "lie", and the citation that
makes it so... unfortunately yet again - your illiteracy is peeking
out. YOU FORGOT THE CITATION."
This IS the citation, how can you prove you know everything considered
by everyone in this case? You can't!!! I'm not talking about what was
finally reported, but "considered" as you said, there is NO way for
you to support this ridiculous statement. YOU are a liar.
"You see, you made an assertion that I'd "claimed" this - and yet, you
can't provide any source where I said it."
The claim itself is the LIE, since you can't possibly know EVERYTHING
considered in 1963/64, no one can.
"Nor can you provide a citation where ANYONE AT ALL has ever asserted
this. So my statement has the support, and yours is noticeably
lacking."
You used the word "considered", not publised or wrote. You are a
liar.
> >He has said repeatedly that not proving the two fragments did not come
> >from the same bullet does not mean they came from two separate ones,
>
"Yep... still as true today as the day I first said it. I've even
proven it with my pencil analogy."
Your pencil analogy is faulty as it ASSUMES both fragments came from
one source, something that COULD NOT be proven. You are using a
faulty analogy to prove your case. You are a liar and a fraud.
> >yet he has admitted he can't prove they came from one. Here it is:
>
"How does "admitting" that I cannot prove the 44 grain, and 21 grain
limo fragments came from a single bullet prove that they came from
two?"
It doesn't, but in a court of law you would have to PROVE they came
from one to show the 3 shot, two hit scenario to be correct, and as we
have covered, and you admitted, this is IMPOSSIBLE to prove. It also
makes your stupid pencil analogy moot since that started with a faulty
premise (they all came from one source).
"You *still* look stupid, Rob."
The only person who looks stupid is the one who uses faulty premises
as proof, and calls people liars for things he/she CANNOT prove.
Mirror, meet Ben.
> >>Prove what you say, that
> >>they came from one bullet.
>
> >No Rob, I said that it cannot be proven.
>
> >Here it admits it, but if I say they are from two bullets I am a
> >LIAR! Go figure.
>
"You *ARE* a liar, Rob. Or simply vastly more stupid than the average
person."
Nice attempt at a side-step, but it is blatantly obvious to all you
CANNOT prove your assertion, but you call others liars. Your *ARE*
the liar sir.
"I've proven my statement, and you ran from the proof."
ANOTHER LIE, as you think your pencil analogy is proof. It is NOT as
you are assuming a conclusion you CANNOT prove, i.e. that the two
fragments came from the same source. You are a liar!
> >Later in this post he will act like he has proven it,
>
"I did that back in November... you ran away."
You did NOT prove anything, another lie. Can you speak without
lying? I did not run, we spent 2-3 weeks covering this, how long
should we go on and on? I made my points - you are sick, a liar and
coward for accusing me of calling myself a child molester.
> >but we know the
> >truth. The first problem with the analogy (of using a pencil) is you
> >don't know where the middle part went, so how can you assume there was
> >one in the first place (to form a whole single bullet)? The second
> >problem is the base and nose COULD NOT BE positively matched as having
> >come from the same bullet. You have nothing. You are a liar.
>
"I'll present the pencil analogy again for the lurkers - as you've
certainly not stated it accurately."
Sure, present away. Disclaimer for lurkers: the premise of this
analogy is unprovable in any way, i.e. that the two fragments came
from one bullet, thus the analogy is incorrect from the start since it
CANNOT be proven. Basic science laws apply. Did you get this example
from “Sesame Street?” That is where this juvenile analogy belongs.
"Given: I have a complete, normal pencil."
Yes, but it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE the two fragments started as ONE
bullet.
"Given: I cut it into three equal pieces - and place the middle of the
three pieces in my pocket."
AGAIN, he is assuming the two fragments (a base and a nose)
constitutes portions of A SINGLE bullet, but this is UNPROVABLE.
"Given: I hand the two ends of the pencil to Rob."
But we don't know when the two fragments were put in the limo as they
would not be found for 12-15 hours when the limo got back to
Washington, D.C. They could have been planted after the shooting.
"He will now claim that the fact that the two ends cannot be "matched"
to each other (just as the 44 grain and 21 grain pieces have no
'matching' areas - the entire middle is missing) proves that there
were TWO pencils."
I'm not claiming anything, the WC's expert witness, Robert Frazier,
testified to the fact they COULD NOT prove the two fragments were part
of the same bullet. See Ben thinks because the two ends could be
shown to be put together to form a whole bullet I assume there were
two, but instead their metallic composition was tested and the FBI and
the WC had to admit it did NOT match, making the ability to say they
were from the same bullet IMPOSSIBLE. Since this is the real story,
how can Ben say with certainty (and this is needed to call someone a
liar) that they DID NOT come from separate bullets?
"Question: Where's the other pencil?"
The real questions are: 1) where is the middle part?, and 2) why could
they NOT match the two fragments based on metallic composition?
"Rob, were he smart enough to understand this simple analogy, would
understand that proving that two ends of an object cannot be matched
to each other IS NOT PROOF THAT THERE WERE ORIGINALLY TWO OBJECTS."
I UNDERSTAND the analogy that is NOT the problem, the problem is it is
BASED ON A FAULTY PREMISE - i.e. that the two fragments came from one
source. You CANNOT PROVE THIS TO BE A FACT, therefore, it is a faulty
premise.
"Tis as simple as that..."
It sure is liar.
"Rob - it was a given. Do try to keep up..."
Sure was, but the problem is this was a faulty analogy, it is NOT a
given there was a middle part of the bullet. You are confused.
"Nope... never said that, and you can't quote me saying any such
thing. You're a liar, Rob..."
I NEVER said you said that, I am saying based on your silly and
juvenile analogy there should be!! You are the one saying there was a
middle part in your analogy. Where is it for the two fragments?
Ooops, that is right, you CAN'T prove there was one. You are a liar.
"Yes Rob, we *DO* know that there was a middle piece. You see, you
can't fire just the tip of the bullet... or just the base of a
bullet. You fire a bullet."
But you are againg assuming they came from ONE bullet, but you CAN'T
prove this, can you? Therefore, discussing a middle part is
irrelevant. You are totally confused and a liar.
"There could have been 15 bullets... and the only remains are one
nose, and one tail... a 44 grain, and a 21 grain. But it's sheer
stupidity to believe that because you can't find the 14 1/3 bullets,
that at least 1/3rd doesn't exist."
Of course it existed, but the MAIN point you fail to grasp is it COULD
NOT BE PROVEN to connect the base and the nose found as they were
incapable of PROVING they started out as part of the SAME bullet in
the first place. Their statement was they COULD NOT PROVE the two
fragments were from the same bullet based on their metallic
composition.
"Of course not. Nor did I make any such statement. Strawmen are fun,
aren't they?"
You are a liar Ben as I took your advise and this is from a November
30th exchange between us. You wrote this stuff. I love Ben, he says
prove he lied by showing citations, and when you do he acts like he
never said them in the first place. A liar through and through. I
guess so that is why you use them so much.
> >- for example, before DNA
> >testing, it
> >was *NOT POSSIBLE* to exclude suspects in a rape case. Yet by your
> >logic,
>
“By Rob's logic, we have a missing pencil. Where's the pencil, Rob?”
By Ben’s distorted logic we have a missing part that was NEVER shown
to exist in the first place. Make sense to any of you? Not me.
Where’s the proof Ben that the two fragments are from the same bullet?
> >DNA testing MUST ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY FEASIBLE AND
> >ABLE TO BE PERFORMED.
>
> >Because without DNA testing, it was *IMPOSSIBLE* to preclude an
> >innocent suspect based on non-existent DNA testing.
>
“And without the flux capacitor, time travel is not possible.”
Strawmen arguments are funny aren’t they?
> >There are examples of unprovable things all around you. I've given
> >you several
> >examples, and you've ducked and run from the pencil example,
“Why lie, Rob? I've never "ducked and ran" from the pencil example -
IT WAS MY
EXAMPLE TO BEGIN WITH!”
You’re a liar and a moron, you wrote this and that is why it is inside
quotation marks!!!!!! So quick to call someone a liar aren’t you?
> >and will
> >undoubtably duck and run from the sandblasting example. "
“Sandblast away, Rob.”
You wrote that moron.
> >Like ballistic and NAA testing is conducted like these things are. He
> >also is implying that there was NO ballistic testing in 1964 by using
> >DNA testing for comparison.
>
"A meaningless statement that I never "implied," nor will you be able
to quote me "implying" it."
Who's talking about implying, you used DNA testing as an example of
how things were unprovable, well ballistic matching was NOT unprovable
in 1963/64 so your examples are as good as your analogies. Did you
get that one from the "Electric Company?"
"You're a liar, Rob."
You wish, you are showing all who read this what lengths you will go
to "win", you will lie, use strawmen, distort, and duck and run (see
Yellow Legs everyone).
> >These things were provable in 1964, the
> >WC was just unable to do so, therefore, Ben is lying yet again.
>
"And yet, you seem incapable of quoting me, and providing the cite
that makes it a lie ... as I've done repeatedly with you."
You are delusional and a liar. You have repeatedly said the fact they
could not PROVE both fragments came from one bullet still means they
could have. This is a lie, if they were from the same bullet the
ballistic test would have confirmed this to be the case. The point
your small mind can NOT wrap around is science is cut and dried,
unlike life, either things match or they don't. When they don't there
is NO proof to support your thoery, and this is the fact you and the
WC have to deal with.
"Why is that, Rob?"
Ah, because you are a born liar?
> >This is a waste of time because I did not say anything to discredit
> >the CT cause, just something Ben thinks makes him look bad. His ego
> >is hurt.
>
> Ouch....
>
> >I do plan on ending this as I don't plan to waste weeks again.
>
"Of course you do. You've been caught in a lie, and now you're going
to do as you did before - you're going to run away."
I did not run moron. We discussed this issue for THREE WEEKS, then I
realized you are a liar and a game player who will do anything to
"win", so why waste anymore time. You think childhood analogies are
valid. You think analogies with false premises are valid. You are a
liar and a joke. The only one who runs is you, the LNers have you on
the run quite a bit. When Tim from down under is not afraid to jump
in you are really in trouble.
"But you *DID* lie about what I've stated... I'm sure you've had
plenty of time to go back and verify that you did indeed state what I
quoted... so your dishonesty in refusing to retract your lie will stay
on the record."
I never lied, you have failed to prove the lie with a FULL cite. You
on the other hand admit it is impossible to prove the two fragments
came from the same source, yet you act like your pencil ("Sesame
Street") analogy is valid proof. You are a liar to the core.
"Lurkers - read below to see how Rob is now demonstrating his
cowardice by refusing to support:"
Lurkers - this is a man who's first thought is to have sex with kids
as he projects this on to me and others, yet then has no balls to
admit it, instead he says "You claimed you were a sex offender", what
a joke. I though pansies weren't allowed in the Marines, but I guess
Ben slipped through. Man up, admit your first thoughts are of child
molestation. Then get into a good program.
> In article <86b2d5ae-15cf-4f6a-b62d-fdf9b793d...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
Ben Holmes
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 14, 1:11=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> Lurkers may wish to view the end of the post for Rob's most hilarious
>> >> statement... but to save you time, here it is:
>>
>> >> Rob:
>>
>> >> >> >By the
>> >> >> >way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
>> >> >> >the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
>> >> >> >fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
>>
>> >> Ben:
>>
>> >> >"What proof are you willing to accept?"
>>
>"(A question, I might note, that has *STILL* not been answered...)"
>
>Right out of the gate - he lies!!! I guess he hoped no one saw this
>from the other day:
>
>""What proof are you willing to accept?"
>
>You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know
>the
>exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
>the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
>tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
Most people automatically presume that a bullet is not fired out of a rifle
consisting *ONLY* of the nose end, or the tail end.
Your argument that I must prove that a *KNOWN* portion of a bullet "existed" is
too silly to respond to.
Once again, just what proof are you willing to accept to show that the chrome
damage was caused by a bullet? (or rather, a portion of a bullet...)
Trying to get me to "prove" that bullets can be fired so as to only leave the
nose, or the tail, or both... and have the middle or 2/3rds of the bullet
magically disappear, never having existed... is too silly for words.
If this is the only proof that you're willing to accept - then my case is
already made. Ask around...
>"If you are unwilling to accept expert testimony ... then you're
>asking the impossible... and you can't fault someone for failing to
>accomplish the impossible."
>
>
>If the expert testimony is of the WC's making, yes forget it.
Dealt with before... you ducked.
>This is
>why I couldn't understand why you thought the WCR couldn't prove
>itself there was a conspiracy.
You *STILL* have been unable to do so.
Present the evidence of conspiracy, using *ONLY* the WCR.
>You do this all the time. Well, that
>is why I thought it was unfair for you to grill me for weeks on my
>point that NOT being able to match the fragments to one bullet did
>not
>carry weight (or at least present a lot of doubt to the official
>theory), especially when you or anyone can't prove they came from the
>same bullet."
No-one complains about the point you just named. Nor can you find me
complaining about it.
It's your assertion that because the two limo fragments could not be positively
matched to each other that it PROVES THAT THERE WERE TWO BULLETS that I
disagreed with.
And have given multiple analogies that you still fail to comprehend.
>The man lies more than a rug!
And yet, you've still been unable to quote any such "lie", along with the
citation that makes it so. Why is that, Rob? And why do you keep ducking and
refusing to answer this simple challenge?
>> >> Rob:
>>
>> >> >You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know the=
>
>> >> >exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
>> >> >the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
>> >> >tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
>>
>> >"Rob is referring to the 44 and 21 grain fragments, one of which was
>> >the head of a bullet, and the other was the tail end. He's asking
>> >where's the proof that the middle of this bullet ever existed... can
>> >you believe this???"
>>
>> >Ben is a coward.
>>
>
>"And yet, it's *YOU* that has ducked answering the rest of this
>post... indeed, you snipped most of it. Don't worry... I've put it
>back in so that people can see what you ducked and ran from."
>
>I haven't ducked anything,
What do *you* call it when you refuse to support your own words after I've
pointed out your errors?
Lurkers... read the entire post to see how much Rob is running from...
>you have FAILED to PROVE there was a middle
>part.
Nor do I intend to try. I usually pass on those asking me to prove that the
Earth is round, or that we landed on the moon, or other such nonsense as well.
Tell us, Rob... how many bullets have you fired out of a rifle that consist only
of the nose... or the tail?
>You have to do this first before any other claims are put into
>place.
No Rob... I don't.
I merely have to quote the child molester incident any time you bring it up
without putting it into context.
>Since you said it was impossible to prove they came (two
>fragments) from one bullet, how do you plan on proving there was a
>middle part?
I don't. Nor will I prove to you that the Earth is round. Take your victory
and run back home.
>> >He is saying in this long-winded post that I claimed
>> >I was a child molester when we all know he said it.
>>
>
>"I stated that in the very first post. Are you illiterate?"
>
>Another lie.
Are you asserting that I *didn't* state so in my very first post? Or that you
aren't illiterate?
Be precise.
>I NEVER claimed I was a child molester.
Nor did I claim that a 44 and/or 21 grain fragment could have come out of CE399.
Your point?
>Since Ben
>thinks of this right away to accuse others of I would remove my child
>from his judo class if I were their parents.
Feel free to step right up and visit the class... you can speak to the parents
who are there. There's usually up to a half a dozen parents watching the
class... No-one will stop you.
>> >Ben is a liar and here is some proof:
>>
>> >"It's a lie, Rob; to suggest that *ANYONE* ever considered that the 44
>> >or 21 grain fragment came from CE399. Cite for this assertion, or retract
>> >this lie."
>>
>> >Notice the wording here - "considered" is the key one - how can he say
>> >NO ONE ever considered this? Has he talked with everyone tied to the
>> >quasi-investigation? How about the WC? How about all the independent
>> >researchers over the years? He asserts something he can't possibly
>> >know, yet everyone else is the liar.
>>
>
>"I've often challenged people to QUOTE my "lie", and the citation that
>makes it so... unfortunately yet again - your illiteracy is peeking
>out. YOU FORGOT THE CITATION."
>
>This IS the citation, how can you prove you know everything considered
>by everyone in this case?
I will ALSO make the flat assertion that not one single commissioner, or staff,
ever considered the curvature of the Earth's surface while calculating the
trajectory of the bullets.
Call me a liar for that assertion as well.
I can put together a ton of assertions like this...
>You can't!!! I'm not talking about what was
>finally reported, but "considered" as you said, there is NO way for
>you to support this ridiculous statement. YOU are a liar.
Where's the citation that proves me false? Once again, you keep forgetting that
part.
>"You see, you made an assertion that I'd "claimed" this - and yet, you
>can't provide any source where I said it."
>
>The claim itself is the LIE, since you can't possibly know EVERYTHING
>considered in 1963/64, no one can.
In which case, you're lying about the two limo fragments.
>"Nor can you provide a citation where ANYONE AT ALL has ever asserted
>this. So my statement has the support, and yours is noticeably
>lacking."
>
>You used the word "considered", not publised or wrote. You are a
>liar.
You're getting rather tiring, Rob. You're going to have to come up with some
new material. Why not study the trolls for a while... some of them can
occasionally get creative.
>> >He has said repeatedly that not proving the two fragments did not come
>> >from the same bullet does not mean they came from two separate ones,
>>
>
>"Yep... still as true today as the day I first said it. I've even
>proven it with my pencil analogy."
>
>Your pencil analogy is faulty as it ASSUMES both fragments came from
>one source, something that COULD NOT be proven.
You don't "prove" things that are a given.
Does it hurt to be stupid?
>You are using a
>faulty analogy to prove your case. You are a liar and a fraud.
Feel free to provide your own analogy. It will *STILL* prove your assertion
incorrect.
>> >yet he has admitted he can't prove they came from one. Here it is:
>>
>
>"How does "admitting" that I cannot prove the 44 grain, and 21 grain
>limo fragments came from a single bullet prove that they came from
>two?"
>
>It doesn't,
Thank-you. That's what I've been telling you all along. That is, in fact, what
my pencil analogy proves.
It's good to see that you're finally getting some sense...
>but in a court of law you would have to PROVE they came
>from one to show the 3 shot, two hit scenario to be correct, and as we
>have covered, and you admitted, this is IMPOSSIBLE to prove.
No Rob, you would *NOT* have to "prove" anything at all. Clearly, the WCR
didn't.
>It also
>makes your stupid pencil analogy moot since that started with a faulty
>premise (they all came from one source).
You still can't comprehend what's right in front of your face, can you Rob?
The pencil analogy had nothing whatsoever to do with whatever *YOU* think it
did... it proved, beyond any disputable doubt, that an inability to prove two
pieces of pencil came from one DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT THERE WERE TWO
PENCILS.
I keep repeating this, and you keep looking more and more stupid.
>"You *still* look stupid, Rob."
>
>The only person who looks stupid is the one who uses faulty premises
>as proof, and calls people liars for things he/she CANNOT prove.
>Mirror, meet Ben.
By all means, present your argument for a false premise.
But before you do - see if you can name the correct reasoning BEHIND the pencil
analogy.
>> >>Prove what you say, that
>> >>they came from one bullet.
>>
>> >No Rob, I said that it cannot be proven.
>>
>> >Here it admits it, but if I say they are from two bullets I am a
>> >LIAR! Go figure.
>>
>
>"You *ARE* a liar, Rob. Or simply vastly more stupid than the average
>person."
>
>Nice attempt at a side-step, but it is blatantly obvious to all you
>CANNOT prove your assertion, but you call others liars. Your *ARE*
>the liar sir.
I *have* proven my assertion, Rob. Did so with multiple analogies that you keep
trying to misrepresent.
This is really simple: an inability to prove that two fragments came from the
same bullet IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY CAME FROM TWO BULLETS.
>"I've proven my statement, and you ran from the proof."
>
>ANOTHER LIE, as you think your pencil analogy is proof.
It is, rather iron-clad, too.
>It is NOT as
>you are assuming a conclusion you CANNOT prove, i.e. that the two
>fragments came from the same source. You are a liar!
The pencil analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with any presumptions about the
two limo fragments.
What it *does* prove, is that an inability to prove that two pencil fragments
that originally DID belong to a single pencil, yet cannot now be proven to have
done so - IS NOT PROOF THAT THERE'S ANOTHER PENCIL INVOLVED.
It seems that no matter how many times I repeat this, and no matter how many
different ways I say it, you're just bound and determined to be stupid, aren't
you Rob?
>> >Later in this post he will act like he has proven it,
>>
>
>"I did that back in November... you ran away."
>
>You did NOT prove anything, another lie.
Of course I did. The pencil analogy is the perfect proof of my assertion.
>Can you speak without
>lying? I did not run, we spent 2-3 weeks covering this, how long
>should we go on and on? I made my points - you are sick, a liar and
>coward for accusing me of calling myself a child molester.
So does that make you sick, a liar and a coward for doing the same thing?
After all, you *DID* do the same thing - put words in my mouth that I'd never
said.
>> >but we know the
>> >truth. The first problem with the analogy (of using a pencil) is you
>> >don't know where the middle part went, so how can you assume there was
>> >one in the first place (to form a whole single bullet)? The second
>> >problem is the base and nose COULD NOT BE positively matched as having
>> >come from the same bullet. You have nothing. You are a liar.
>>
>
>"I'll present the pencil analogy again for the lurkers - as you've
>certainly not stated it accurately."
>
>Sure, present away. Disclaimer for lurkers: the premise of this
>analogy is unprovable in any way, i.e. that the two fragments came
>from one bullet, thus the analogy is incorrect from the start since it
>CANNOT be proven. Basic science laws apply. Did you get this example
>from Sesame Street? That is where this juvenile analogy belongs.
Then all you have to do is present a reasoned argument to refute it.
>"Given: I have a complete, normal pencil."
>
>Yes, but it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE the two fragments started as ONE
>bullet.
Yes, but it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE the two fragments started as TWO bullets.
>"Given: I cut it into three equal pieces - and place the middle of the
>three pieces in my pocket."
>
>AGAIN, he is assuming the two fragments (a base and a nose)
>constitutes portions of A SINGLE bullet, but this is UNPROVABLE.
AGAIN, he is assuming the two fragments (a base and a nose) constitutes portions
of TWO bullets, but this is UNPROVABLE.
>"Given: I hand the two ends of the pencil to Rob."
>
>But we don't know when the two fragments were put in the limo as they
>would not be found for 12-15 hours when the limo got back to
>Washington, D.C. They could have been planted after the shooting.
Then why are you even speaking about this?
You have no evidence that there are ANY FRAGMENTS AT ALL, based on what you're
willing to accept as evidence.
>"He will now claim that the fact that the two ends cannot be "matched"
>to each other (just as the 44 grain and 21 grain pieces have no
>'matching' areas - the entire middle is missing) proves that there
>were TWO pencils."
>
>I'm not claiming anything,
And yet, you did.
>the WC's expert witness, Robert Frazier,
>testified to the fact they COULD NOT prove the two fragments were part
>of the same bullet.
Yep... that's true.
>See Ben thinks because the two ends could be
>shown to be put together to form a whole bullet
As did both Frazier and Nicol...
>I assume there were
>two, but instead their metallic composition was tested and the FBI and
>the WC had to admit it did NOT match,
They wouldn't necessarily match... so this argument is meaningless.
>making the ability to say they
>were from the same bullet IMPOSSIBLE. Since this is the real story,
>how can Ben say with certainty (and this is needed to call someone a
>liar) that they DID NOT come from separate bullets?
They could indeed have come from two bullets... that's never been in question.
What's been in dispute is your assertion that they MUST HAVE come from two
bullets.
It's silly, and it's disprovable.
>"Question: Where's the other pencil?"
>
>The real questions are: 1) where is the middle part?, and 2) why could
>they NOT match the two fragments based on metallic composition?
#1 - The middle part is somewhere.
#2 - Because it's meaningless. It simply can't be done. Here's merely one
citation:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt
>"Rob, were he smart enough to understand this simple analogy, would
>understand that proving that two ends of an object cannot be matched
>to each other IS NOT PROOF THAT THERE WERE ORIGINALLY TWO OBJECTS."
>
>I UNDERSTAND the analogy that is NOT the problem, the problem is it is
>BASED ON A FAULTY PREMISE - i.e. that the two fragments came from one
>source.
Stupid, aren't you.
That's a GIVEN... you do understand what a given is, right? The problem *YOU*
have, is that you can't seem to find my second pencil.
>You CANNOT PROVE THIS TO BE A FACT,
A given, BY DEFINITION, is a fact.
>therefore, it is a faulty premise.
Does it hurt to be this stupid?
>"Tis as simple as that..."
>
>It sure is liar.
>
>"Rob - it was a given. Do try to keep up..."
>
>Sure was, but the problem is this was a faulty analogy, it is NOT a
>given there was a middle part of the bullet.
Yes Rob, it is.
Tell you what... you load a 6.5mm rifle with just the nose, or just the tail of
a bullet (your choice). I'll load *my* 6.5mm rifle with a complete bullet.
Then let's stand a dozen feet away, point our rifles at each other, and fire.
You know where to find me if you want to try this experiment. If you're right,
then I won't be posting any more...
>You are confused.
>
>"Nope... never said that, and you can't quote me saying any such
>thing. You're a liar, Rob..."
>
>I NEVER said you said that, I am saying based on your silly and
>juvenile analogy there should be!! You are the one saying there was a
>middle part in your analogy. Where is it for the two fragments?
>Ooops, that is right, you CAN'T prove there was one. You are a liar.
Does stupidity run in your family? Have you shown these posts to any members of
your family?
>"Yes Rob, we *DO* know that there was a middle piece. You see, you
>can't fire just the tip of the bullet... or just the base of a
>bullet. You fire a bullet."
>
>But you are againg assuming they came from ONE bullet, but you CAN'T
>prove this, can you? Therefore, discussing a middle part is
>irrelevant. You are totally confused and a liar.
The pencil analogy would be just as correct if the shooter had fired TWO
bullets, and the two limo fragments came from TWO bullets.
But you don't seem to be capable of grasping that.
>"There could have been 15 bullets... and the only remains are one
>nose, and one tail... a 44 grain, and a 21 grain. But it's sheer
>stupidity to believe that because you can't find the 14 1/3 bullets,
>that at least 1/3rd doesn't exist."
>
>Of course it existed,
Whew! You sure eliminated yourself from total lunacy with *that* admission...
>but the MAIN point you fail to grasp is it COULD
>NOT BE PROVEN to connect the base and the nose found as they were
>incapable of PROVING they started out as part of the SAME bullet in
>the first place.
Yep... Tis true. I've been in agreement all along. You're too stupid to be
able to find a quote of mine saying otherwise.
>Their statement was they COULD NOT PROVE the two
>fragments were from the same bullet based on their metallic
>composition.
Yep... nor would they have been able to. (Although science of the day didn't
realize that.)
>"Of course not. Nor did I make any such statement. Strawmen are fun,
>aren't they?"
>
>You are a liar Ben as I took your advise and this is from a November
>30th exchange between us.
Quote it, coward...
>You wrote this stuff. I love Ben, he says
>prove he lied by showing citations,
And yet, neither the quotation nor the citation seem to be here... what
happened, Rob; did you forget?
>and when you do he acts like he
>never said them in the first place. A liar through and through. I
>guess so that is why you use them so much.
And yet, you can't seem to quote any such "lie"... why is that, Rob?
>> >- for example, before DNA
>> >testing, it
>> >was *NOT POSSIBLE* to exclude suspects in a rape case. Yet by your
>> >logic,
>>
>
>By Rob's logic, we have a missing pencil. Where's the pencil, Rob?
>
>By Ben's distorted logic we have a missing part that was NEVER shown
>to exist in the first place.
Untrue.
>Make sense to any of you? Not me.
>Where's the proof Ben that the two fragments are from the same bullet?
Why do you keep bringing up stuff that I've stated, over and over, to be true?
There is NO PROOF POSSIBLE for those two fragments.
Illiteracy is a sad thing. When are you going to learn to read, Rob?
>> >DNA testing MUST ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY FEASIBLE AND
>> >ABLE TO BE PERFORMED.
>>
>> >Because without DNA testing, it was *IMPOSSIBLE* to preclude an
>> >innocent suspect based on non-existent DNA testing.
>>
>
>And without the flux capacitor, time travel is not possible.
>
>Strawmen arguments are funny aren't they?
You tell me... I'm just continuing what you start.
>> >There are examples of unprovable things all around you. I've given
>> >you several
>> >examples, and you've ducked and run from the pencil example,
>
>
>Why lie, Rob? I've never "ducked and ran" from the pencil example - IT WAS MY
>EXAMPLE TO BEGIN WITH!
>
>You're a liar and a moron, you wrote this and that is why it is inside
>quotation marks!!!!!!
Actually, no. Here's your original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a5c8277209d3fb89?
>So quick to call someone a liar aren't you?
Only known liars... Rob.
>> >and will
>> >undoubtably duck and run from the sandblasting example. "
>
>Sandblast away, Rob.
>
>You wrote that moron.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a5c8277209d3fb89?
>> >Like ballistic and NAA testing is conducted like these things are. He
>> >also is implying that there was NO ballistic testing in 1964 by using
>> >DNA testing for comparison.
>>
>
>"A meaningless statement that I never "implied," nor will you be able
>to quote me "implying" it."
>
>Who's talking about implying, you used DNA testing as an example of
>how things were unprovable, well ballistic matching was NOT unprovable
>in 1963/64 so your examples are as good as your analogies. Did you
>get that one from the "Electric Company?"
Show us, Rob; where I implied or said that: "there was NO ballistic testing in
1964 by using DNA testing for comparison."
Quote it.
Or run like I know you plan to... who cares?
>"You're a liar, Rob."
>
>You wish, you are showing all who read this what lengths you will go
>to "win", you will lie, use strawmen, distort, and duck and run (see
>Yellow Legs everyone).
I see you're providing another example of your willingness to lie. For much as
in so many other cases, you'll not be able to provide a quote of any such thing
said by me.
>> >These things were provable in 1964, the
>> >WC was just unable to do so, therefore, Ben is lying yet again.
>>
>
>"And yet, you seem incapable of quoting me, and providing the cite
>that makes it a lie ... as I've done repeatedly with you."
>
>You are delusional and a liar. You have repeatedly said the fact they
>could not PROVE both fragments came from one bullet still means they
>could have.
Yep... tis true. Both Frazier and Nicol so testified.
>This is a lie,
Then all you have to do is provide a citation to anything that would make their
testimony a lie. Or my assertion in agreement with their testimony a lie.
But you won't.
>if they were from the same bullet the
>ballistic test would have confirmed this to be the case.
No Rob... it couldn't have.
Tell us Rob - just what is there about a "ballistic" test, that can prove that
two fragments were originally part of the same bullet?
Police routinely use a TEST bullet, and using ballistic matching, prove that the
fatal bullet WAS FIRED FROM THE SAME GUN... both the "test" bullet and the fatal
bullet HAVING IDENTICAL BALLISTIC CHARACTERISTICS.
So how can a ballistics test that "proves" a test bullet identical to a fatal
bullet mean anything?
(I know, of course, that what you're *trying* to refer to is NAA testing... but
if you're going to be stupid... and you've done this one before... I'll keep
trying to educate you.)
>The point
>your small mind can NOT wrap around is science is cut and dried,
>unlike life, either things match or they don't.
Untrue. See my citation given above.
>When they don't there
>is NO proof to support your thoery, and this is the fact you and the
>WC have to deal with.
My "theory" is that an inability to prove that two fragments originally belonged
to the same bullet is NOT PROOF THAT THEY MUST HAVE BELONGED TO TWO BULLETS.
You see, you seem to have your mind stuck on the factoid that "ballistic" (read,
NAA) testing can invariably prove that two fragments of lead originally came
from the same bullet. Despite citations to the contrary.
>"Why is that, Rob?"
>
>Ah, because you are a born liar?
>
>
>> >This is a waste of time because I did not say anything to discredit
>> >the CT cause, just something Ben thinks makes him look bad. His ego
>> >is hurt.
>>
>> Ouch....
>>
>> >I do plan on ending this as I don't plan to waste weeks again.
>>
>
>"Of course you do. You've been caught in a lie, and now you're going
>to do as you did before - you're going to run away."
>
>I did not run moron.
And yet, you did.
>We discussed this issue for THREE WEEKS, then I
>realized you are a liar and a game player who will do anything to
>"win", so why waste anymore time.
I pointed out a number of lies about Frazier's testimony, for example. You've
never retracted any of them either...
>You think childhood analogies are
>valid. You think analogies with false premises are valid. You are a
>liar and a joke. The only one who runs is you, the LNers have you on
>the run quite a bit. When Tim from down under is not afraid to jump
>in you are really in trouble.
That pretty much places you, Rob. When Tim the troll is your friend, we know
where you stand.
>"But you *DID* lie about what I've stated... I'm sure you've had
>plenty of time to go back and verify that you did indeed state what I
>quoted... so your dishonesty in refusing to retract your lie will stay
>on the record."
>
>I never lied, you have failed to prove the lie with a FULL cite.
I cited the entire statement. Will you retract if I cite the entire post? The
entire thread?
You're dishonest, Rob... you know it, I know it, and every lurker who has any
conception of what CE399 is knows it.
>You
>on the other hand admit it is impossible to prove the two fragments
>came from the same source, yet you act like your pencil ("Sesame
>Street") analogy is valid proof. You are a liar to the core.
And yet, you *STILL* can't quote any such "lie", and provide the citation that
makes it so.
Why is that, Rob?
>"Lurkers - read below to see how Rob is now demonstrating his
>cowardice by refusing to support:"
>
>Lurkers - this is a man who's first thought is to have sex with kids
Sounds rather Freudian to me.
>as he projects this on to me and others, yet then has no balls to
>admit it, instead he says "You claimed you were a sex offender", what
>a joke. I though pansies weren't allowed in the Marines, but I guess
>Ben slipped through. Man up, admit your first thoughts are of child
>molestation. Then get into a good program.
Sad that people such as this claim to be CT'ers...
I see that you're STILL refusing to support your own words in the post below:
>> In article <86b2d5ae-15cf-4f6a-b62d-fdf9b793d...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.co=
>m>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 13, 10:27=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <29d357cd-f385-4372-a1a2-2a7bc1fbb...@26g2000hsk.googlegroup=
>s.c=3D
>> >om>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On May 12, 8:51=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <9276e3f8-c14e-400b-ac16-ea251952d...@i76g2000hsf.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>> >> >> >> >I don't agree with this at all, I think Ben thinks he is defendi=
>ng
>> >> >> >> >the truth and you can't fault him for that. What I faulted Ben f=
>or
>> >> >> >> >was calling me a child abuser which is drastic in any case, but =
>I'l=3D
>> >l
>> >> >> >> >survive.
>>
>> >> >> >> Just for any interested lurkers - here it is:
>>
>> >> >> >> *****************************************************************=
>***
>>
>> >> >> >> >so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>> >> >> >> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or bo=
>th of
>> >> >> >> >the fragments.
>>
>> >> >> >> You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
>>
>> >> >> >> When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 c=
>ould
>> >> >> >> have been the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can prov=
>ide
>> >> >> >> the quote of ANYONE AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be hap=
>py to
>> >> >> >> show everyone where Rob claimed that he'd been convicted of child=
>
>> >> >> >> molestation.
>>
>> >> >> >"For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they=
>
>> >> >> >were never said."
>>
>> >> >> >I think we covered this one, as I never said anyone said they (the
>> >> >> >fragments) came from CE 399,
>>
>> >> >"Just what did you think "the magic bullet" was, exactly? If you
>> >> >believe that it's not CE399, then you have even greater problems..."
>>
>> >> >I have no idea what you are talking about here.
>>
>> >"Then you're an illiterate idiot. You were just quoted referring to
>> >"the magic bullet", yet you're now claiming that you *NEVER* "said
>> >anyone said they (the fragments) came from CE 399."
>>
>> >Where does this:
>>
>> >>">The other two wind
>> >>>up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
>> >>>Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
>> >>>head!!
>>
>> >mention anything about the CE399?
>>
>> It doesn't. Nor does this: "No Rob... the *original* assertion is that you=
>
>> can't indict the WCR using only the WCR. You *MUST* use the 26 volumes."
>>
>> Both statements are similar in that they occurred far down below, instead =
>of
>> immediately above my response.
>>
>> >You are losing me. What did the
>> >magic bullet have to do with JFK's head?
>>
>> No Rob, I'm not losing you at all. You're simply thinking that people are =
>too
>> stupid to catch what you just did. Trust me, they aren't.
>>
>> Now, back to the issue... you stated: "I think we covered this one, as I n=
>ever
>> said anyone said they (the fragments) came from CE 399,"
>>
>> And yet, you ALSO stated: "He claims this puts the magic bullet back into =
>play
>> as the source for one or both of the fragments."
>>
>> Now, how can you state that I "claim" what you also say you never stated t=
>hat
>> anyone had said?
>>
>> YOU'RE A LIAR, ROB - AND YOU THINK PEOPLE WILL NOT NOTICE IT.
>>
>> >"Let's review your statement again: "so let's play the game his way.
>> >He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for
>> >one or both of the fragments.""
>>
>> >You are quoting out of context Ben,
>>
>> Just what part of "He claims..." is out of context, Rob?
>>
>> I DEFY YOU TO PRODUCE A CITATION OF ME ACTUALLY SAYING THAT!
>>
>> Until you do, Rob - you're a proven liar. And none of your denials is goin=
>g to
>> mean anything.
>>
>> >you must have said something to
>> >make me say this,
>>
>> The *ONLY* thing that I could have said that wouldn't prove *YOU* a liar i=
>s to
>> have actually said what you stated I "claimed."
>>
>> Cite it.
>>
>> >I wouldn't have just made it up.
>>
>> And yet, you did. Since neither then, nor now, can you provide a quote of =
>me
>> saying any such thing - YOU'RE PROVEN A LIAR, ROB!
>>
>> >I guess you were
>> >making silly, unprovable assumptions about the head shot, like you
>> >could prove they (both fragments) came from one bullet per Frazier.
>> >You need to prove this if you are going to continue to support
>> >Frazier's statment.
>>
>> No, Rob; I don't. I merely have to keep correcting *YOUR* false assertions=
>.
>>
>> >"Now, you could *ONLY* be telling the truth right now if "the magic
>> >bullet" is not the same as CE399."
>>
>> >I have no idea what made me say that, but I'm not playing your silly
>> >games. Of course I know the CE399 is the magic bullet and I know the
>> >fragments in JBC's wrist is what was considered to have come from the
>> >magic bullet.
>>
>> No Rob... the wrist fragments were *NOT* under discussion - the two fragme=
>nts
>> found in the limo *were*.
>>
>> I very carefully quoted the exhibit numbers to be 100% correct.
>>
>> >Don't change the topic,
>>
>> The "topic", Rob - is your mention of my assertion that you labeled yourse=
>lf a
>> child molester... I merely provided the context for lurkers to read for
>> themselves.
>>
>> You lied... and to this day, you've STILL not either cited where I made an=
>y such
>> comment, nor retracted your false allegation.
>>
>> >you said the fact the WC, via
>> >Frazier, could NOT prove the two limo fragments came from the same
>> >bullet did NOT mean they came from seperate bullets. It is put up or
>> >shut up time Ben. Prove they came from the same bullet.
>>
>> My statement is 100% correct. The counter-statement is provably false.
>>
>> You lose.
>>
>> >"So tell the truth, Rob... did you make the above statement?"
>>
>> >It is a partial statement
>>
>> The simple answer Rob - is *yes*, you made the statement. I'll quote the e=
>ntire
>> post if it makes you feel better - but I QUOTED your lie.
>>
>> >and the context is not known by me at this
>> >time.
>>
>> Then go back and read it.
>>
>> If you couldn't figure out how to quote any such statement of mine back th=
>en,
>> you can see if you can do so now.
>>
>> >I know we were discussing which bullet the two limo fragments
>> >could have come from and I know I said they could not come from the
>> >magic bullet since they were too large.
>>
>> And yet, just above, you tried to claim that we were discussing the JBC wr=
>ist
>> fragments.
>>
>> Funny thing about lying... you never can remember just what you lied about=
>, and
>> what you were telling the truth about.
>>
>> I learned that lesson back when I was still a kid.
>>
>> >Now, you may have taken this
>> >to mean I thought you thought this, but that was not my point.
>>
>> >"And why are you willing to lie about it now? You did *INDEED* put
>> >those words in my mouth - so you did indeed say that someone (me) said
>> >that the fragments came from CE399 (aka the magic bullet)"
>>
>> >I didn't put words in your mouth Ben, you interpreted it that way,
>>
>> What part of "He claims..." did you misunderstand?
>>
>> Here... let's play the semantic game... Rob thinks that the 44 & 21 grain
>> fragments found in the limo *must* be from separate bullets, since there i=
>s no
>> proof possible that they are from the same bullet. He claims that he's a c=
>hild
>> molester, but refuses to provide his arrest record.
>>
>> Did you catch that? Need I repeat it?
>>
>> Now... I "didn't put words in your mouth", Rob... I used PRECISELY the sam=
>e
>> sentence construction you did, to wit: "He claims..."
>>
>> So you have nothing to complain about, right?
>>
>> >I was trying to show the size of the fragments eliminated the magic
>> >bullet from play,
>>
>> No-one... NO-ONE... has ever even spent a half of a millisecond thinking t=
>hat
>> the 44 & 21 grain fragments came from CE399.
>>
>> So why are you trying to "eliminate" the impossible?
>>
>> And why did you assert that *I* claimed that these fragments came from CE3=
>99?
>>
>> >and given the head shot bullet could not be
>> >definitively proven to be the source (beyond all reasonable doubt)
>> >they had a problem. You chose to suppor them and say by not showing
>> >them to be from one bullet does NOT mean they came from two. I am now
>> >saying PROVE it.
>>
>> Already have. Did so with the same evidence that Albert Einstein often use=
>d.
>>
>> Go back and re-read the original thread. (Hint: look up "pencil")
>>
>> >> >The presumption by
>> >> >many associated with the WC was the fragments in the wrist of JBC were=
>
>> >> >tied to the magic bullet, NOT the fragments in the limo.
>>
>> >"In order to avoid any confusion, I used the specific evidence
>> >numbers."
>>
>> >Yes, you did, but I did not say you said this.
>>
>> You can keep going around in circles, Rob - but until you provide a cite o=
>f me
>> saying what you asserted I "claimed", you're a proven liar.
>>
>> >"Don't try to weasel out now, Rob. CE567 & CE569 are under discussion.
>> >Always have been. 44 grain and 21 grain, as I recall... any lurker
>> >can go back to November 2007 and read the originals..."
>>
>> >Ben, they are now, but we discussed so much in November and you are
>> >providing a partial quote, that is not really fair.
>>
>> The "partial quote" was EXACTLY what I wanted lurkers to read - to underst=
>and
>> the "child molester" remark in it's entirety.
>>
>> You're free to quote *ANYTHING* I've ever posted.
>>
>> >I know you would
>> >know they were too large,
>>
>> I quoted *PRECISELY* what was needed for people to see the context. No oth=
>er
>> context was needed.
>>
>> Unless, of course, I actually *said* what you asserted I'd "claimed"... th=
>en
>> it's up to you to cite it.
>>
>> >but you were sticking to your guns that not
>> >being able to prove they came from one bullet did not mean they came
>> >from two.
>>
>> Of course I am. The truth hasn't changed.
>>
>> >I want you to prove to me this fact per the WC. Prove they
>> >came from one bullet. The WC would have had to at trial.
>>
>> My statement is still correct. (even if you misrepresent it) You ran from =
>my
>> proof of it.
>>
>> >>(interestingly, down below in this very same post you revert back to CE5=
>67 &
>> >> CE569)
>>
>> >> >I don't know
>> >> >where you got this conclusion.
>>
>> >"Not discussing JBC's wrist fragments, Rob. Changing the topic won't
>> >get you anywhere."
>>
>> >More games Ben?
>>
>> Anytime you want to cite for what you asserted I'd "claimed", you go right=
>
>> ahead. In the meantime, if you bring up the "child molester" incident, I'l=
>l be
>> happy to quote it for everyone so that they can see what you're talking ab=
>out.
>>
>> >You post a 6 month old patial quote'
>>
>> The quote was *complete* for what I was showing. Feel free to do your own
>> quoting.
>>
>> >and you are
>> >stating with it that I claimed certain things which are not true.
>>
>> I've never stated what you asserted I'd "claimed". Tis that simple.
>>
>> Nothing has changed... you've STILL never been able to cite it.
>>
>> >We went back and forth for weeks and I can't remember everything that was=
>
>> >said.
>>
>> Then by all means, go back and read it. It's all there. I can't read it fo=
>r
>> you.
>>
>> >You obviously took it that I claimed you said that,
>>
>> What part of "He claims..." did you not understand? Or perhaps *my* usage =
>of
>> "He claims that he's a child molester, but refuses to provide his arrest
>> record." didn't disturb you at all. If so, let me know, and I'll retract m=
>y
>> assertion that you lied. (Of course, I'll then reserve the right to use th=
>e "He
>> claims" sentence construction when debating you.)
>>
>> >but I know
>> >I did not. You are not going to pin me to a "fact" that has not been
>> >proven to be a fact in the first place.
>>
>> I quoted it. You can keep denying you said it if you want... who cares?
>>
>> >"You put words in my mouth that you can't quote. You lied. You have
>> >STILL not retracted those statements."
>>
>> >Perhaps I can't quote them because I never put them in your mouth?
>>
>> "He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one=
> or
>> both of the fragments."
>>
>> Your words, Rob. Or do you mind if I continue to say "He claims that he's =
>a
>> child molester, but refuses to provide his arrest record," after all, I ne=
>ver
>> put the words in your mouth... I just said that "he claims"
>>
>> Maybe you forgot personal pronouns in English class...
>>
>> >I know this is not what you want to consider because you live for
>> >calling people liars, but this is the truth. I can't help how you
>> >take things. One fragment was 44 grains and one was 21 grains, how
>> >could I think you would say they came from the magic bullet (missing
>> >2.0 to 2.4 grains in total).
>>
>> You *did* Rob... I really don't care why you would.
>>
>> >I do remember doing some math problem
>> >with the weights and you went ballistic (pardon the pun) after this,
>> >so perhaps you thought something in the problem portray something you
>> >did not mean. Who knows. The point is the two are not equal. How
>> >does that compare (what you think I said) to calling me a child
>> >molester?
>>
>> I didn't. I stated: "You claim that you're a convicted child molester..."
>>
>> Just as *YOU* stated that I'd "claimed" something.
>>
>> The two sentences *ARE* equal... they are both false.
>>
>> >Asking if I like young boys or girls? I notice how you keep
>> >running from this. I would be embarrased too.
>>
>> I haven't run from it at all. In fact, each time you bring it up, I'm happ=
>y to
>> point out that it's another example of where you'd lied about what I'd sai=
>d. I
>> answered it below where you first brought it up... so you're lying when yo=
>u
>> assert that I'm "running" from it, aren't you?
>>
>> You see, each time you try to claim that *I* said something I never said -=
> then
>> I'm going to do the same to you. And you don't get to pick the topic - jus=
>t as
>> *I* have no option to chose the topic that you're going to claim I said.
>>
>> >> >However, these fragments again
>> >> >outweighed the portion missing from the magic bullet so this
>> >> >conclusion would be proven to be false at the Shaw trial.
>>
>> >> 44 & 21 grains did indeed MASSIVELY outweigh the possible loss on CE399=
>.
>>
>> >> >"You *did* refer to "the magic bullet"... if you're trying to assert
>> >> >now that you weren't talking about CE399 - then by all means, Rob -
>> >> >now is your chance."
>>
>> >> >I don't remember this to be honest as it was many months ago and I
>> >> >don't catalogue my conversations like you obviously do,
>>
>> >"Anything you type is instantly searchable via Google Groups search.
>> >No need to "catalogue" posts. This is horrible for those who lie, and
>> >refuse to retract - as your lies are available for anyone to review for
>> >many years to come."
>>
>> >You have to remember the context of the post to find it.
>>
>> No, Rob; you don't. Merely typing "child molester," and a few moments of s=
>earch
>> will pull up the relevant thread. Searching by date order helps immensely.=
>
>>
>> But if you want lessons on how to use the Google Archives search, why not =
>search
>> it out?
>>
>> >We discussed
>> >many things in those weeks. I'm sorry, I don't have hours to devote
>> >to this. I know I did not say that and that is all that really
>> >matters to me.
>>
>> And yet, I quoted YOUR EXACT WORDS. Cut & paste is quite useful for these =
>sorts
>> of things.
>>
>> You claim you didn't say it - yet you refuse to label me a liar for statin=
>g that
>> you did indeed say EXACTLY what I quoted you saying.
>>
>> For surely, if you really didn't say: "so let's play the game his way. He =
>claims
>> this puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of=
> the
>> fragments." - then I've lied... haven't I? Why don't you accuse me of it?
>>
>> Cat got your tongue? Or a smidgen of honesty....?
>>
>> >Your lies are available for many as well. You think
>> >you don't lie because no one spends hours to go back and find them,
>> >but this does not exonerate you as you know yourself when you are
>> >being dishonest.
>>
>> Oh, by all means, GO BACK AND FIND THEM!
>>
>> Then QUOTE THEM RIGHT HERE!
>>
>> Be sure to provide the citation that proves it to be a lie.
>>
>> >> >however, the
>> >> >only time I can recall mentioning the magic bullet was to say the limo=
>
>> >> >fragments were too large to have come from that so all we have left is=
>
>> >> >the head shot for them to be associated with.
>>
>> >"And yet, you were willing to pretend that *I* said it was possible:
>> >"so let's play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet
>> >back into play as the source for one or both of the fragments.""
>>
>> >Ben, only a dishonest person would post a partial quote.
>>
>> I posted the ENTIRE quote of you claiming that I'd said something I hadn't=
>. If
>> you want to repost the entire post, go right ahead and do so.
>>
>> >What else did I say? There had to be something you said to make me say th=
>is
>> >part.
>>
>> Sorry Rob... the *ONLY* thing that would excuse you would be if I'd actual=
>ly
>> claimed what you lied about... but I didn't. Nor have you ever been able t=
>o
>> find it and cite it.
>>
>> >Why are you not putting that in here?
>>
>> Asking me to provide a quote of a statement I never said? How silly!!
>>
>> >I really don't remember
>> >this in full.
>>
>> Who cares whether you remember it or not?
>>
>> You remembered enough to mention the "child molester" incident ... now you=
>'re
>> upset because I took the time to locate the actual quote, and repost it fo=
>r
>> people who may not have been around the first time...
>>
>> >You can call me a liar all you want to but I have
>> >enough posts here now to show I am not.
>>
>> You can posts thousands of posts... it won't erase a lie.
>>
>> Ask Tom Lowry...
>>
>> >Your opinion of me really
>> >matters little.
>>
>> Who cares?
>>
>> I *do* care, however; for the words that *I* type. I refuse to allow someo=
>ne
>> else to claim I'd said something I didn't without a response.
>>
>> >"Lied, didn't you? You can't quote me *EVER* making such a stupid
>> >assertion. There isn't any possibility WHATSOEVER that 44 & 21 grain
>> >fragments could have come from CE399."
>>
>> >Lied about what?
>>
>> "so let's play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back=
> into
>> play as the source for one or both of the fragments."
>>
>> You lied, Rob. Tis that simple. You can't quote me EVER stating what you j=
>ust
>> said I'd "claimed"
>>
>> >Again, you are pasting a partial quote.
>>
>> No Rob... I posted your entire statement lying about what I'd said. Go bac=
>k to
>> the post and read it for yourself.
>>
>> >> >"You're just digging yourself in deeper..."
>>
>> >> >Only you think this and your thoughts are not always clear.
>>
>> >"You quoted another lie on your part, and you don't believe that it's
>> >putting you deeper in lies... but lurkers can see it."
>>
>> >I don't see it that way as I know I have not lied.
>>
>> And yet, you can't quote me saying what you asserted I'd said.
>>
>> >Your silly games
>> >aren't going to make me fell like one either. I am a very honest
>> >person, always have been.
>>
>> An *honest* person would have retracted such a statement. Or quoted me say=
>ing
>> what you asserted I did.
>>
>> >I see nothing to gain here by lying. I am
>> >not pushing a ridiculous theory like the LNers.
>>
>> Oh, I consider it ridiculous in the extreme to even *consider* that a 44 g=
>rain,
>> or 21 grain fragment could have come out of CE399.
>>
>> You're a liar to suggest that I ever claimed such.
>>
>> >> >> >but rather their size precluded this from
>> >> >> >being the case.
>>
>> >> >"No, Rob; let's be clear about this - YOU PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I=
>
>> >> >HAD NEVER STATED. *NO-ONE* has EVER stated that the two larger
>> >> >fragments, CE567 and CE569 could have come from CE399.
>>
>> >> >*No-one*, Rob... not one single person in history."
>>
>> >> >I think you are confused about what I wrote,
>>
>> >"Here it is again: "so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the=
>
>> >fragments.""
>>
>> >But what made me say it puts them back into play? Why the partial
>> >quote? I know it had something to do with the math problem
>> >(161-44-21=3D3D96) but I can't remember it.
>>
>> Go read it yourself, Rob. You lied about what I'd "claimed"... it's just t=
>hat
>> simple.
>>
>> >> >and this happened quite a
>> >> >bit.
>>
>> >"Feel free to "explain" your comment... here it is again: "so let's
>> >play the game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into
>> >play as the source for one or both of the fragments.""
>>
>> >If I could remember I would, but I don't remember exactly what you
>> >said that made me say that.
>>
>> And yet, you remembered the "child molester" statement...
>>
>> >All I can say was we were discussing the
>> >context of the WC in 1964, it was not known to all the amount of
>> >missing grains form CE399 at that time, therefore, the claim could
>> >have been made by the WC that the fragments, or one of them, did come
>> >from the magic bullet.
>>
>> How silly!
>>
>> At *NO TIME WHATSOEVER*, and by ANYONE AT ALL - was the idea EVER entertai=
>ned,
>> even briefly, that CE399 could have been the source of a 44 grain or 21 gr=
>ain
>> fragment.
>>
>> >You were playing devil's advocate and
>> >defending them, so you could have taken it as me saying it was you,
>> >not them. Beyond that I don't know as you are pasting a partial
>> >quote.
>>
>> You can continue to deny it all you want, Rob. I could quote the entire po=
>st,
>> and it wouldn't change the fact that you asserted that I'd "claimed" somet=
>hing I
>> had, in fact, never claimed.
>>
>> >> >I realize no one said this as they were refering to the
>> >> >fragments in JBC's wrist, not the limo fragments.
>>
>> >"So there's only two fragments from JBC's wrist? (Although this is
>> >what the WC claimed, it's not quite accurate, is it?) And they weigh
>> >44 and 21 grains? I think you'd better check the testimony again..."
>>
>> By the way, I checked back, CE842 consisted of *THREE* fragments... those =
>are
>> what the WC claimed came from JBC's wrist. (You see, Rob - I don't have
>> problems correcting myself if I say something incorrect.
>>
>> Now that we know that the JBC wrist fragments were alleged to have been TH=
>REE in
>> number, how do you defend this: "so let's play the game his way. He claims=
> this
>> puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the
>> fragments."
>>
>> Aren't you missing a fragment?
>>
>> "one or both of the fragments" referred to the 44 & 21 grain fragments... =
>but
>> you're trying to claim that "one or both of the fragments" was referring t=
>o
>> those found in JBC's wrist.
>>
>> Silly on the face of it.
>>
>> >Where in the partial quote you pasted is 44 and 21 gains listed?
>>
>> It was, of course, what the discussion was about. Feel free to go back and=
>
>> look.
>>
>> >I missed that. Why are you hell bent on showing people to be liars?
>>
>> Because you are.
>>
>> You can't cite me *ever* "claiming" what you asserted.
>>
>> Why are you so upset at someone claiming that you asserted that you were a=
> child
>> molester?
>>
>> Both statements have the same amount of truth to them. You seem confused t=
>hat I
>> would object to your false statements attributed to me, yet you can't seem=
> to
>> understand why anyone would make such false statements and attribute them =
>to
>> you.
>>
>> Hypocrisy seems a tad rampant, doesn't it?
>>
>> >"You're a liar, Rob."
>>
>> >In your opinion, which means nothing to me.
>>
>> It's not even debatable - since you can't cite me saying what you asserted=
> I'd
>> said.
>>
>> >> >NO matter what you
>> >> >think I said, there is NO excuse for resorting to child abuse
>> >> >comments.
>>
>> >"Why do you believe it's okay for *YOU* to put offensive statements in
>> >my mouth, and not okay for me to do the same to you?"
>>
>> >This sums it up I guess. Ben equates these two to be the same.
>>
>> Yep... both of them were lies.
>>
>> >He thinks I claimed he said one of the large limo fragments came from the=
>
>> >magic bullet,
>>
>> "One?" The actual number you asserted was "...one or both of the fragments=
>..."
>>
>> >therefore, I have to love having sex with and abusing
>> >kids. What a sick mind.
>>
>> And yet, long after you can't remember half of the debate, you remember qu=
>ite
>> well what happens to those who put words in my mouth.
>>
>> I do the same thing to you.
>>
>> You see... everyone can learn... and I'm quite interested in having others=
> learn
>> that you can't misquote me without paying a price.
>>
>> >"That which ye sow, that shall ye also reap."
>>
>> >You will reap it good on judgement day for sure. I'll pray for your
>> >soul anyway as this is what Jesus wants.
>>
>> >> >You are not really worthy of talking with. You call
>> >> >everyone a liar, but you have been caught in so many yourself and then=
>
>> >> >you run, see "Yellow Pants" threads.
>>
>> >"You are known by those you associate with. I see that you're willing
>> >to be associated with the trolls."
>>
>> >I at least know where they stand.
>>
>> They stand for dishonesty, lies, and cowardice.
>>
>> Seems that you prefer that to the clarity of truth. In fact, come to think=
> of
>> it, Dennis Prager likes to say that he prefers clarity to agreement. A tho=
>ught
>> well worth considering.
>>
>> >You act like a CTer yet you
>> >defended the WC so hard in those posts I thought you were a LNer.
>>
>> Oh? Can you quote any such "defense" of the WC?
>>
>> >I would never associate with someone of your quality.
>>
>> That speaks volumes...
>>
>> >"That speaks volumes..."
>>
>> >Sure does.
>>
>> >> >> >> *****************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >***=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >> When people are willing to put words in *my* mouth - they shouldn=
>'t =3D
>> >be
>> >> >> >> surprised if I return the favor.
>>
>> >> >> >> I note for the record that not only could Rob *NOT* document his
>> >> >> >> misquoting of my words, this was the last time Rob *ever* tried t=
>o
>> >> >> >> misquote me.
>>
>> >> >> >"Sad that it takes this sort of tactic to force someone to use thei=
>r
>> >> >> >'quotes' more carefully."
>>
>> >> >> >Lurkers, this is what Ben calles a tactic:
>>
>> >> >> Yep... put any word you want to it. If you try putting words in *MY*=
>
>> >> >> mouth, simply expect the same. It's a Biblical principle that's been=
>
>> >> >> known for thousands of years... that which ye sow...
>>
>> >> >> >">The other two wind
>> >> >> >>up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this =
>is
>> >> >> >>Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's=
>
>> >> >> >>head!!
>>
>> >> >> >I forgot, Rob... was that little boys or little girls that you like=
> to
>> >> >> >molest?
>> >> >> >For just like your assertion of your gender preference, at no time =
>did
>> >> >> >I ever state that none of the bullet[s] that struck JFK's head rema=
>ined
>> >> >> >in his head."
>>
>> >> >"Good of you to quote another one of your lies, Rob. You *STILL*
>> >> >can't provide the quote of me saying what you asserted. Indeed,
>> >> >people can locate posts where
>> >> >I discuss the fragments found in JFK's head."
>>
>> Strangely, Rob tried to claim that I "ran" from this - yet there it is,
>> immediately above; my response.
>>
>> I wonder why Rob feels the need to lie so frequently?
>>
>> >> >Ben, it is put up or shut up time. You want to defend the WC's
>> >> >assertion that the two limo fragments came from one bullet, fine.
>> >> >Prove it then.
>>
>> >"Okay... first, let's note for the record that you've switched back to
>> >the original theme - the two limo fragments. Suddenly the "JBC wrist
>> >fragments" have disappeared from view."
>>
>> >Because this was the tone of the two weeks of messages.
>>
>> Thankyou for that admission.
>>
>> Now, can you explain how the "tone of the two weeks of messages" suddenly,=
> and
>> with no notice, suddenly shifts to the JBC wrist fragments? Is it perhaps
>> because in your moments of thoughtfulness, you realize just how idiotic it=
> was
>> to accuse me of claiming that one or both of the limo fragments came from =
>CE399?
>>
>> >You said I
>> >was wrong for saying because they couldn't prove they came from one
>> >bullet, they came from two or more.
>>
>> Yep... it's *STILL* wrong. As I proved.
>>
>> >I mentioned the JBC wrist
>> >fragments because I have no idea what you are talking about in the
>> >partial quote you pasted.
>>
>> Go back and read the thread, then.
>>
>> >"That puts the lie to your assertion above that you were referring to
>> >JBC's wrist fragments, doesn't it?"
>>
>> >Again, you are all over the place.
>>
>> You admit that the thread was about the two limo fragments, yet you can't =
>seem
>> to understand that this undercuts your sudden argument that you were reall=
>y
>> talking about JBC's wrist fragments.
>>
>> >Instead of proving your assertion
>>
>> Already done. You ran...
>>
>> >you are stalling. I have no idea what the partial quote was about,
>>
>> And yet, you remember my response to it, don't you?
>>
>> >I do not remember saying you thought the large limo fragments came from
>> >CE399, but obviously you said something that sparked that.
>>
>> Feel free to cite where I said any such thing.
>>
>> >"Are you willing to admit that you lied when you tried putting those
>> >words in my mouth?"
>>
>> >Why would I?
>>
>> Because you did. Because I QUOTED you doing so... and because you can't su=
>pport
>> your claim with a citation.
>>
>> You lied. You got caught.
>>
>> >You have NOT proven I did put them to your mouth in the
>> >first place.
>>
>> "He claims..."
>>
>> Words have meanings.
>>
>> >NOR have you proven both limo fragments came from one
>> >bullet. Why are you stalling?
>>
>> I have no intention of proving that both limo fragments came from one bull=
>et.
>>
>> I've *ALREADY* proven what I *did* say. You ran.
>>
>> >"Are you willing to retract it?"
>>
>> >Are you willing to prove it?
>>
>> The quote *IS* the proof. Coward, aren't you?
>>
>> >Where is the rest of the quote?
>>
>> I'll be happy to quote the ENTIRE POST... but you still won't offer a
>> retraction. Dishonest, aren't you?
>>
>> >IF I did
>> >say that, yes I will retract it, I have been wrong before.
>>
>> Look up your words yourself.
>>
>> >You on the
>> >other hand act like you are never wrong.
>>
>> I rarely am. But then, I usually stay away from topics I'm unfamiliar with=
>, and
>> double-check my posts before I send 'em.
>>
>> Then I'm also not afraid to immediately correct or retract incorrect state=
>ments.
>>
>> You've been sitting on these lies since November... and I suspect that nex=
>t year
>> you'll STILL be sitting on your false statements about what I "claim."
>>
>> >Show me where I said in full
>> >context you thought one or both of the limo fragments came from the
>> >magic bullet (with all the leading stuff included) and I will
>> >apologize if I'm wrong.
>>
>> Feel free to look it up yourself. I've *QUOTED* your statement. What you
>> apparently hope to find is *MY* claim... but you couldn't find it in Novem=
>ber -
>> why would you hope to find it now?
>>
>> >> >You are assuming the role of prosecutor, therefore, the
>> >> >burden of proof is on you, not me. =3DA0I just have to show reasonable=
>
>> >> >doubt that there could have been more bullets involved. =3DA0You didn'=
>t
>> >> >get that last year, you kept demanding I prove it, but the assertion
>> >> >came from your side.
>>
>> >"No Rob... the *original* assertion is that you can't indict the WCR
>> >using only the WCR. You *MUST* use the 26 volumes."
>>
>> >Again, NO I DON'T. Frazier is in the WCR saying they could NOT prove
>> >both came from one bullet, that is all the doubt I need. Maybe you
>> >need more, but not me. They could not prove this in court, and you
>> >obviously cannot prove it either as you again have avoided proving it
>> >as requested.
>>
>> I have, however; proven beyond any doubt that a lack of proof that the two=
> limo
>> fragments came from one bullet is *NOT* proof that they came from two.
>>
>> You ran...
>>
>> >> >"Anytime you're willing to lie, Rob - you'll know what to expect."
>>
>> >> >Good advice, you should remember it since you lie yourself.
>>
>> >"Quote it, Rob... and provide the citation that makes it a lie."
>>
>> >Why are you running from the LNers if you did not lie about Yellow
>> >Pants?
>>
>> Quote the lie, Rob... then quote the citation that makes it so.
>>
>> >"You STILL haven't quoted me saying what you said I said, have you?"
>>
>> >What?
>>
>> Are you brain dead or just terminally stupid? Once again: "so let's play t=
>he
>> game his way. He claims this puts the magic bullet back into play as the s=
>ource
>> for one or both of the fragments."
>>
>> Do you want to argue about the meaning of "He claims..." again?
>>
>> >"Go ahead, Rob... quote me: "so let's play the game his way. He claims
>> >this puts
>> >> the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of the fr=
>agm=3D
>> >ents.""
>>
>> >Go ahead Ben, prove both fragments came from one bullet anytime. We
>> >are waiting. Back up your big boast.
>>
>> Already did. You ran.
>>
>> >> >By the
>> >> >way, prove how the middle part caused the damage to the chrome since
>> >> >the head wound was in the back. You want to play devil's advocate,
>> >> >fine, then prove your case like any LNer has to.
>>
>> >"What proof are you willing to accept?"
>>
>> >You claimed the middle part could have hit the chrome, yet we know the
>> >exit wound was in the rear of the head. I would want to see proof of
>> >the middle part as we know the other two fragments were of a nose and
>> >tail. Where is the proof this part existed?
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!
>>
>> (Never answered the question, I note...)
>>
>> >"If you are unwilling to accept expert testimony ... then you're
>> >asking the impossible... and you can't fault someone for failing to
>> >accomplish the impossible."
>>
>> >If the expert testimony is of the WC's making, yes forget it.
>>
>> Then by all means, tell me what you *CAN* prove.
>>
>> Can you prove that a Mannlicher Carcano was alleged to have been involved?=
>
>>
>> >This is
>> >why I couldn't understand why you thought the WCR couldn't prove
>> >itself there was a conspiracy. You do this all the time.
>>
>> No, Rob; I *NEVER* have. I use the 26 volumes. The WCR by itself can't be =
>used
>> to prove it false.
>>
>> You *do* understand that "WCR" stands for the "Warren Commission Report", =
>don't
>> you? I'm sure you have a copy... feel free to QUOTE the section in the WCR=
> that
>> proves that there was a conspiracy... or that the rest of the WCR is wrong=
>.
>>
>> >Well, that
>> >is why I thought it was unfair for you to grill me for weeks on my
>> >point that NOT being able to match the fragments to one bullet did not
>> >carry weight (or at least present a lot of doubt to the official
>> >theory), especially when you or anyone can't prove they came from the
>> >same bullet.
>>
>> I could care less about *that* point. The real point, and surely you remem=
>ber
>> this, is that a lack of proof that the two fragments were originally one b=
>ullet
>> IS NOT PROOF THAT THE TWO FRAGMENTS MUST HAVE COME FROM TWO BULLETS.
>>
>> I even gave a very simply analogy using a pencil that you ran from.
>>
>> >> >"Real CT'ers don't need to lie... the evidence is all that's needed."
>>
>> >> >Then you are obviously NOT a real CTer. =3DA0Quit running from the LNe=
>rs
>> >> >as you make us all look bad.
>>
>> >"You've been quoted twice in this thread with lies you told. You
>> >STILL can't quote me saying what you asserted."
>>
>> >You have pasted partial quotes that do not show any lies, but in your
>> >mind they are.
>>
>> Until you can QUOTE ME saying what you asserted I did - you lied. You got
>> CAUGHT lying.
>>
>> >"Yet you aren't honest enough to retract such statements when I point
>> >it out."
>>
>> >Again, you think I'm dishonest.
>>
>> You are. You've been nailed accusing me of saying things that:
>> #1. I never said.
>> #2. You can't CITE me saying.
>>
>> >Post the proof
>>
>> The lie is your statement, the proof is the fact that you can't support it=
>.
>>
>> >and I'll retract it if
>> >I'm wrong, but partial quotes don't cut it.
>>
>> Feel free to quote the entire post. Then complain that the thread hasn't b=
>een
>> posted... then post the entire thread again...
>>
>> You've *STILL* been caught, and you're still dishonest.
>>
>> >"I don't "run" from LNT'ers... I'm more than happy to answer them.
>> >Trolls I don't have time for. You can play with the trolls if you
>> >want."
>>
>> >This is an out and out lie right here.
>>
>> Feel free to argue such a silly point if you want.
>>
>> >I have seen quite a few
>> >threads asking you to defend your position and you ignore them, why?
>>
>> Probably because I never see the post. You *do* understand what a killfile=
> is,
>> don't you?
>>
>> You see, I really do have a life outside of this forum. For example, I jus=
>t got
>> back from Judo practice, where I had a really fun time. This means, of cou=
>rse,
>> that I *don't* have time for liars and cowards. You, in fact, are on the e=
>dge
>> of being classified as a troll yourself.
>>
>> >You don't let others do this.
>>
>> Anyone can killfile me if they so desire.
>>
>> >NO, you create seperate posts with
>> >insults in the title if they dare to choose not to talk with you.
>>
>> Dare... dare...
>>
>> >I guess only Ben gets to decide when to end conversations.
>>
>> No, you decided to run back in November... and nothing stopped you. Nothin=
>g
>> stops you now. End it anytime you want.
>>
>> But don't expect to make comments about the "child molester" incident with=
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote: