Samantha's Child Molestation - 2nd Time Around.
Ben Holmes
complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said. He's implied that he'd be
willing to retract his false assertion if he saw the original. I'd like to give
him every possible chance to do the honest and right thing...
The relevant snip is about halfway through the post, copied here:
______________________________________________
>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.
______________________________________________
Here's the complete original post:
**************************************************************************
In article <f045d722-5370-49b1-b772-2751bf505...@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>Let's wrap why Ben has called me a liar so I can move on to more
>productive things (and the board can too).
>1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment when
>Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment
>traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
And based your entire argument around that lie. For without Frazier saying
"bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome dent, but
Frazier never said that.
>I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also said this
>is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
>velocity rifle.
Of course, you're lying right now.
Frazier was referencing the fragment as being "fairly high velocity" IN RELATION
TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. In other words, when Frazier said "fairly high
velocity", he was speaking of a fragment traveling SLOWER than a normal bullet.
>Thus producing anything (fragment, bullet, etc...)
>that would exit a skull traveling faster than it went in is highly
>improbable.
No-one but you has asserted such a silly statement.
Nor can you quote anyone saying anything of the sort.
>Meanwhile, the cause of death is listed as "high velocity
>projectiles" by the WCR on page 523. This brings up more questions,
>but for now I'll skip them.
You should... since you titled this post "Cliff Notes to An Accusation", and
this topic has NEVER come up between us.
>Furthermore, the size of the fragments
>indicate it is highly improbable they could cause a major dent in
>chrome.
With *NO* citation given. Rob doesn't like to admit that Frazier testified that
either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could have done the damage to the
chrome.
Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is attempting to
use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. Yet consistently fails to do
so.
And if Rob doesn't like the 21 or 44 grain size... I gave him a perfectly good
96 grain size.
>Ben says I lied.
You provably did. You implied another lie immediately above when comparing the
MC to Frazier's "fairly high velocity" statement.
You lied when you asserted that it's been said that the fragments COULD NOT HAVE
COME from the same bullet.
You lied when you asserted that ANYONE AT ALL had ever asserted that those
fragments might have come from CE399.
You probably told a few more... I'm starting to lose track of them.
>He of course offers no proof to back up his
>*assertions* as usual.
Other than quotes from Frazier's testimony, you mean.
>2) He says I "lied" when I said the fragments could not be linked to
>the same bullet.
No, I've never stated that.
Nor can you provide any quote of my doing so.
Indeed, it's the simple truth that the fragments could *NOT* be provably linked
to each other.
>The FBI
Who, at the FBI.
For some strange reason, Rob keeps running from this question.
>ran test on all of the fragments and the CE399 to determine if
>they matched. They did not, thus the term of being "similar" in
>metallic composition (there is only matching or not matching).
No, there is *NOT* only "matching or not matching". There are many times when
it is simply not possible to "prove" something. I've given you several
examples...
Tell us where that second pencil came from Rob?
If you can't prove that the sandblasted car was painted yellow, does that prove
that it had green racing stripes?
>They
>added a big "But" after this saying they "could not determine whether
>two or more of the fragments came from the same bullet" (WCR p.77
>first full paragraph). I concluded that based on this they could not
>prove their theory.
Very poor logic, of course. Tell us where the second pencil came from Rob?
>Ben said this is a "lie" as saying "not possible" is not proof that
>they couldn't have come from the same bullet.
No-one other than Rob has stated that it's "not possible" that the fragments
came from the same bullet.
Despite my quoting of Frazier asserting that this is indeed a possibility, Rob
keeps lying about it.
>Again, he offers no
>proof for his *assertion*.
Other than Frazier's explicit testimony, you mean.
>To him it is not possible and possible all
>at the same time.
You're a liar, Rob.
It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the same bullet.
It is POSSIBLE that they did. As Frazier testified to.
I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to simutaneously refer
to the same event.
>3) He called me a "liar" to the third power when I said based on the
>pronouncement that the two fragments did not come from the same bullet
No Rob - *NO-ONE* other than you is saying that CE567 & CE569 "did not come from
the same bullet".
You're a liar to suggest that anyone other than you has stated that.
The inability to *PROVE* that they came from the same bullet is not a
"pronouncement" that they did not. Indeed, both Frazier and Nicol EXPLICITLY
deny any such assumption.
Where's your second pencil, Rob?
>there had to more than the 3 shots.
Not by any evidence you've cited out of the WCR...
>I made the "mistake" of using Dr. Finck's assertion that JBC had more
>in his wrist than was lost from the magic bullet (CE399) AND right
>away Ben said this was from the Shaw trial in 1967/68 so it is outside
>the WCR.
It obviously is.
You made the mistake of asserting that based ONLY on your reading of the WCR,
that you could prove that there were more than three shots.
Can't be done.
>Obviously he assumes this was not mentioned to anyone during
>the "investigation". To be fair, I am not sure what area it may be
>mentioned in the WCR,
It wasn't. Don't you think it might be sorta silly for the WCR to say: "we
believe that CE399 went through JFK and Connally, and that no other bullet
struck Connally - but oh, by the way, there were more bullet fragments left in
Connally than were missing out of CE399"
I've told you time and time again that you can't impugn the WCR based ONLY on
the evidence that the WCR chose to tell you about in it's report. You *MUST* go
to the same evidence that they had - then it's relatively trivial to prove the
WCR a fraud.
Any number of books have done quite well demonstrating this... Walt Brown's
book, for example, or some of the books written by a historian, can't recall the
title... that dealt with the problems and misrepresentations of the WCR.
>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.
>Okay. I'm fair unlike him.
Difficult to maintain such... when you've just got through lying about what I've
said.
Tell me Rob - can you QUOTE a single example where I asserted that you'd said
something that you didn't say?
Yet you keep asserting things that *I'D NEVER SAID*. What's "fair" about that?
>Explain how a bullet who
>only lost 2.4 grains can parcel out a fragment the size of 44 grains
>or 21 grains or both? This is truly a magic bullet.
When you need to lie to make a point... the only point you've made is that
you're a liar.
I have no intention at all of answering a question based on something I never
stated.
>Ben can't think of this and makes another crazy assertion just like
>when he used his "math" to explain the two fragments coming from the
>head shot. For those of you who missed this (Can't blame you with this
>never ending thread) here it is.
>Bullet weight = 161 grains (per WCR)
>First fragment = 44 grains
>Second fragment = 21 grains
>Here is Ben's math problem.
>161-44-21=96 grains
>He *asserts* the remaining 96 grain fragment also exited (something
>the WCR wouldn't even say) and hit the chrome and bounced outside of
>the limo.
Nope... merely demonstrated that if you didn't like the size of the 21 or 44
grain fragment, that there was PROVABLY a larger fragment available to do the
job. Rob, you see, hasn't taken the time to review the ballistics studies,
which demonstrate that FMJ bullets typically break up into just a few fragments.
There was certainly *NOTHING* close to 96 grains left in JFK's head... so Rob
can't figure out what to do with the missing mass.
What happened to it, Rob? Where did it go? Is this the "magical fragment?"
It may not have weighed 96 grains... who knows, it might have weighed only 94
grains, it might have broken into *two* 48 grain pieces...
But what is *INDISPUTABLE* is that there is the possibility of a much larger
fragment, indeed; TWICE THE SIZE, of the 44 grain fragment that you disbelieve
could have caused the dented chrome.
>Somehow it misses the rearview mirror.
It also missed the side mirrors, the flags, Greer's head, the steering wheel...
well I could go on, but Rob would miss the point.
>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.
In fact, it was not long ago that I was asking you about the largest fragment
that was pulled out of JFK's head. I don't recall you answering that one.
>Does this make any sense? He is saying not one fragment would
>have stayed in the brain. And I'm the liar according to him.
You've provably lied... for you can't quote me saying any such thing - yet you
assert that I did.
>As usual Ben has no proof for his *assertion*.
The fact that you can't quote me saying what you just lied about is proof
enough.
>4) He said I "lied" when I said DVP was using Guinn to dispute the
>testimony and findings of the FBI and Frazier.
Never said any such thing. Here's the actual quote:
*******************************************************************
>I never used him as an expert, I simply wouldn't let DVP wiggle off
>the hook by using Guinn when he is the defender of the WCR. If he
>believes LHO did it then he has to deal with Frazier.
If you proclaim Frazier as an expert to contradict Guinn (and, of course, he
*doesn't* contradict Guinn on the two fragments possibly being from a single
bullet) then yes you did use Frazier as an expert.
You can't use him to "prove" what you believe, then deny his testimony on points
you don't like.
*******************************************************************
That's quite a bit different than calling you a liar for saying that DVP was
using the testimony and findings of the FBI and Frazier, isn't it? (Indeed, I
didn't even *read* what DVP wrote... for although it was in that post, DVP
rarely makes worthwhile comments)
And in fact, both Frazier and Nicol *BOTH* state that the two fragments could be
part of the same bullet. I've previously quoted Frazier, now here's Nicol on
the same topic:
*******************************************************************
Mr. DULLES. These are pretty badly mutilated, aren't they?
Mr. NICOL. Apparently they are separated so that one can't tell whether they
come from a single bullet or from two separate projectiles. One is a nose
portion and the other is a base.
Mr. DULLES. Is this the one that is the nose portion?
Mr. EISENBERG. You are handing, Mr. Dulles is handing Mr. Nicol Commission
Exhibit 569.
Mr. NICOL. No, that would be the base portion.
Mr. DULLES. That is what I thought. Are those different parts of the same bullet
possibly?
Mr. NICOL. That is possible, because there appears to be an interval of ap
proximately an eighth of an inch that is not present, so that the area where one
begins is not even with the other, so it is not possible to tell, at least I
couldn't to express an opinion.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, they might be two separate bullets or two parts of the
same bullet?
Mr. NICOL. Two parts of the same or separate bullets, that is right.
*******************************************************************
>Obviously by the time of the HSCA the government was aware of the same
>problem I had outlined, that if all the fragments couldn't be linked
>to the same set of bullets
The WCR already stated this. Why is this knowledge mystically hidden until the
HSCA?
>(2) they would have some "explainin' ta do",
Which they did back in 1964 with Frazier and Nicol's testimony.
>so in comes Guinn. He overturns the FBI and says they can match
>all the fragments to the two bullets.
Of course, both Frazier and Nicol *ALREADY* said that the fragments could be
part of the same bullet.
>I was simply showing DVP that
>the FBI via Frazier didn't agree in 1964.
You lie to make such an assertion. Frazier, *IN 1964* testified that the
fragments could be part of the same bullet. (As I've already quoted)
>Ben got all of this all twisted around (and I can't even remember what
>he was saying as it made no sense)
Here - let me repeat it again: The WCR cannot be impugn ONLY on the basis of the
evidence contained within it. You *MUST* examine the same evidence that they
did to prove their lies, misrepresentations, and chicanery.
>and called me a liar. Again, he
>offered no proof for his *assertion*.
See above...
>I could go on but these are the main points and there is no reason to
>at this point in time.
I do hope you get around to telling everyone where that second pencil came from.
*********************************************************************
Original post copied above can be found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d3fd79bf6cb5fe54?hl=en&
robcap...@netscape.com
"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not
included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said.
He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assertion if
he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chance to do
the honest and right thing..."
Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He defends the
official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer than
DVP!!!
No one cares what you are saying Benita, you are a uber-liar and
dishonest person who edits peoples' replies. You claimed you were
platoon leader for "rifle" cleaning right? You kept all the guys'
"rifles" clean?
> Original post copied above can be found here:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d3fd79bf6cb5fe5...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 16, 7:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not
>included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said.
>He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assertion if
>he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chance to do
>the honest and right thing..."
>
>Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He defends the
>official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer than
>DVP!!!
And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or quotes.
Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is *NOT* the same as
becoming a LNT'er...
A real CT'er is interesting only in the truth. Nothing less will do. Nothing
less is *needed*
>No one cares what you are saying Benita, you are a uber-liar and
>dishonest person who edits peoples' replies. You claimed you were
>platoon leader for "rifle" cleaning right? You kept all the guys'
>"rifles" clean?
You've already proven your dishonesty... no need to hammer the point home...
Lurkers, many of Samantha's lies concerning official testimony are included in
the post below... feel free to browse.
>> The relevant snip is about halfway through the post, copied here:
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >so let's play the game his way. =A0He 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.
>> ______________________________________________
>>
>> Here's the complete original post:
>>
>> **************************************************************************=
>
>> In article <f045d722-5370-49b1-b772-2751bf505...@w40g2000hsb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >Let's wrap why Ben has called me a liar so I can move on to more
>> >productive things (and the board can too).
>> >1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment when
>> >Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment
>> >traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
>>
>> And based your entire argument around that lie. =A0For without Frazier say=
>ing
>> "bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
>>
>> You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome dent, bu=
>t
>> Frazier never said that.
>>
>> >I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also said this
>> >is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
>> >velocity rifle.
>>
>> Of course, you're lying right now.
>>
>> Frazier was referencing the fragment as being "fairly high velocity" IN RE=
>LATION
>> TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. =A0In other words, when Frazier said "fai=
>rly high
>> velocity", he was speaking of a fragment traveling SLOWER than a normal bu=
>llet.
>>
>> >Thus producing anything (fragment, bullet, etc...)
>> >that would exit a skull traveling faster than it went in is highly
>> >improbable.
>>
>> No-one but you has asserted such a silly statement.
>>
>> Nor can you quote anyone saying anything of the sort.
>>
>> >Meanwhile, the cause of death is listed as "high velocity
>> >projectiles" by the WCR on page 523. This brings up more questions,
>> >but for now I'll skip them.
>>
>> You should... since you titled this post "Cliff Notes to An Accusation", a=
>nd
>> this topic has NEVER come up between us.
>>
>> >Furthermore, the size of the fragments
>> >indicate it is highly improbable they could cause a major dent in
>> >chrome.
>>
>> With *NO* citation given. =A0Rob doesn't like to admit that Frazier testif=
>ied that
>> either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could have done the damage t=
>o the
>> chrome.
>>
>> Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is attempti=
>ng to
>> use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. =A0Yet consistently fails =
>to do
>> so.
>>
>> And if Rob doesn't like the 21 or 44 grain size... I gave him a perfectly =
>good
>> 96 grain size.
>>
>> >Ben says I lied.
>>
>> You provably did. =A0You implied another lie immediately above when compar=
>ing the
>> MC to Frazier's "fairly high velocity" statement.
>>
>> You lied when you asserted that it's been said that the fragments COULD NO=
>T HAVE
>> COME from the same bullet.
>>
>> You lied when you asserted that ANYONE AT ALL had ever asserted that those=
>
>> fragments might have come from CE399.
>>
>> You probably told a few more... I'm starting to lose track of them.
>>
>> >He of course offers no proof to back up his
>> >*assertions* as usual.
>>
>> Other than quotes from Frazier's testimony, you mean.
>>
>> >2) He says I "lied" when I said the fragments could not be linked to
>> >the same bullet.
>>
>> No, I've never stated that.
>>
>> Nor can you provide any quote of my doing so.
>>
>> Indeed, it's the simple truth that the fragments could *NOT* be provably l=
>inked
>> to each other.
>>
>> >The FBI
>>
>> Who, at the FBI.
>>
>> For some strange reason, Rob keeps running from this question.
>>
>> >ran test on all of the fragments and the CE399 to determine if
>> >they matched. =A0They did not, thus the term of being "similar" in
>> >metallic composition (there is only matching or not matching).
>>
>> No, there is *NOT* only "matching or not matching". =A0There are many time=
>s when
>> it is simply not possible to "prove" something. =A0I've given you several
>> examples...
>>
>> Tell us where that second pencil came from Rob?
>>
>> If you can't prove that the sandblasted car was painted yellow, does that =
>prove
>> that it had green racing stripes?
>>
>> >They
>> >added a big "But" after this saying they "could not determine whether
>> >two or more of the fragments came from the same bullet" (WCR p.77
>> >first full paragraph). I concluded that based on this they could not
>> >prove their theory.
>>
>> Very poor logic, of course. =A0Tell us where the second pencil came from R=
>ob?
>>
>> >Ben said this is a "lie" as saying "not possible" is not proof that
>> >they couldn't have come from the same bullet.
>>
>> No-one other than Rob has stated that it's "not possible" that the fragmen=
>ts
>> came from the same bullet.
>>
>> Despite my quoting of Frazier asserting that this is indeed a possibility,=
> Rob
>> keeps lying about it.
>>
>> >Again, he offers no
>> >proof for his *assertion*.
>>
>> Other than Frazier's explicit testimony, you mean.
>>
>> >To him it is not possible and possible all
>> >at the same time.
>>
>> You're a liar, Rob.
>>
>> It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the same bullet=
>.
>>
>> It is POSSIBLE that they did. =A0As Frazier testified to.
>>
>> I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to simutaneously r=
>efer
>> to the same event.
>>
>> >3) He called me a "liar" to the third power when I said based on the
>> >pronouncement that the two fragments did not come from the same bullet
>>
>> No Rob - *NO-ONE* other than you is saying that CE567 & CE569 "did not com=
>e from
>> the same bullet".
>>
>> You're a liar to suggest that anyone other than you has stated that.
>>
>> The inability to *PROVE* that they came from the same bullet is not a
>> "pronouncement" that they did not. =A0Indeed, both Frazier and Nicol EXPLI=
>CITLY
>> deny any such assumption.
>>
>> Where's your second pencil, Rob?
>>
>> >there had to more than the 3 shots.
>>
>> Not by any evidence you've cited out of the WCR...
>>
>> >I made the "mistake" of using Dr. Finck's assertion that JBC had more
>> >in his wrist than was lost from the magic bullet (CE399) AND right
>> >away Ben said this was from the Shaw trial in 1967/68 so it is outside
>> >the WCR.
>>
>> It obviously is.
>>
>> You made the mistake of asserting that based ONLY on your reading of the W=
>CR,
>> that you could prove that there were more than three shots.
>>
>> Can't be done.
>>
>> >Obviously he assumes this was not mentioned to anyone during
>> >the "investigation". =A0To be fair, I am not sure what area it may be
>> >mentioned in the WCR,
>>
>> It wasn't. =A0Don't you think it might be sorta silly for the WCR to say: =
>"we
>> believe that CE399 went through JFK and Connally, and that no other bullet=
>
>> struck Connally - but oh, by the way, there were more bullet fragments lef=
>t in
>> Connally than were missing out of CE399"
>>
>> I've told you time and time again that you can't impugn the WCR based ONLY=
> on
>> the evidence that the WCR chose to tell you about in it's report. =A0You *=
>MUST* go
>> to the same evidence that they had - then it's relatively trivial to prove=
> the
>> WCR a fraud.
>>
>> Any number of books have done quite well demonstrating this... Walt Brown'=
>s
>> book, for example, or some of the books written by a historian, can't reca=
>ll the
>> title... that dealt with the problems and misrepresentations of the WCR.
>>
>> >so let's play the game his way. =A0He 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 AN=
>YONE
>> 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 ne=
>ver
>> said.
>>
>> >Okay. I'm fair unlike him.
>>
>> Difficult to maintain such... when you've just got through lying about wha=
>t I've
>> said.
>>
>> Tell me Rob - can you QUOTE a single example where I asserted that you'd s=
>aid
>> something that you didn't say?
>>
>> Yet you keep asserting things that *I'D NEVER SAID*. =A0What's "fair" abou=
>t that?
>>
>> >Explain how a bullet who
>> >only lost 2.4 grains can parcel out a fragment the size of 44 grains
>> >or 21 grains or both? =A0This is truly a magic bullet.
>>
>> When you need to lie to make a point... the only point you've made is that=
>
>> you're a liar.
>>
>> I have no intention at all of answering a question based on something I ne=
>ver
>> stated.
>>
>> >Ben can't think of this and makes another crazy assertion just like
>> >when he used his "math" to explain the two fragments coming from the
>> >head shot. For those of you who missed this (Can't blame you with this
>> >never ending thread) here it is.
>> >Bullet weight =3D 161 grains (per WCR)
>> >First fragment =3D 44 grains
>> >Second fragment =3D 21 grains
>> >Here is Ben's math problem.
>> >161-44-21=3D96 grains
>> >He *asserts* the remaining 96 grain fragment also exited (something
>> >the WCR wouldn't even say) and hit the chrome and bounced outside of
>> >the limo.
>>
>> Nope... merely demonstrated that if you didn't like the size of the 21 or =
>44
>> grain fragment, that there was PROVABLY a larger fragment available to do =
>the
>> job. =A0Rob, you see, hasn't taken the time to review the ballistics studi=
>es,
>> which demonstrate that FMJ bullets typically break up into just a few frag=
>ments.
>>
>> There was certainly *NOTHING* close to 96 grains left in JFK's head... so =
>Rob
>> can't figure out what to do with the missing mass.
>>
>> What happened to it, Rob? =A0Where did it go? =A0Is this the "magical frag=
>ment?"
>>
>> It may not have weighed 96 grains... who knows, it might have weighed only=
> 94
>> grains, it might have broken into *two* 48 grain pieces...
>>
>> But what is *INDISPUTABLE* is that there is the possibility of a much larg=
>er
>> fragment, indeed; TWICE THE SIZE, of the 44 grain fragment that you disbel=
>ieve
>> could have caused the dented chrome.
>>
>> >Somehow it misses the rearview mirror.
>>
>> It also missed the side mirrors, the flags, Greer's head, the steering whe=
>el...
>> well I could go on, but Rob would miss the point.
>>
>> >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 mol=
>est?
>>
>> For just like your assertion of your gender preference, at no time did I e=
>ver
>> state that none of the bullet[s] that struck JFK's head remained in his he=
>ad.
>>
>> In fact, it was not long ago that I was asking you about the largest fragm=
>ent
>> that was pulled out of JFK's head. =A0I don't recall you answering that on=
>e.
>>
>> >Does this make any sense? He is saying not one fragment would
>> >have stayed in the brain. And I'm the liar according to him.
>>
>> You've provably lied... for you can't quote me saying any such thing - yet=
> you
>> assert that I did.
>>
>> >As usual Ben has no proof for his *assertion*.
>>
>> The fact that you can't quote me saying what you just lied about is proof
>> enough.
>>
>> >4) He said I "lied" when I said DVP was using Guinn to dispute the
>> >testimony and findings of the FBI and Frazier.
>>
>> Never said any such thing. =A0Here's the actual quote:
>>
>> *******************************************************************
>>
>> >I never used him as an expert, I simply wouldn't let DVP wiggle off
>> >the hook by using Guinn when he is the defender of the WCR. If he
>> >believes LHO did it then he has to deal with Frazier.
>>
>> If you proclaim Frazier as an expert to contradict Guinn (and, of course, =
>he
>> *doesn't* contradict Guinn on the two fragments possibly being from a sing=
>le
>> bullet) then yes you did use Frazier as an expert.
>>
>> You can't use him to "prove" what you believe, then deny his testimony on =
>points
>> you don't like.
>> *******************************************************************
>>
>> That's quite a bit different than calling you a liar for saying that DVP w=
>as
>> using the testimony and findings of the FBI and Frazier, isn't it? =A0(Ind=
>eed, I
>> didn't even *read* what DVP wrote... for although it was in that post, DVP=
>
>> rarely makes worthwhile comments)
>>
>> And in fact, both Frazier and Nicol *BOTH* state that the two fragments co=
>uld be
>> part of the same bullet. =A0I've previously quoted Frazier, now here's Nic=
>ol on
>> the same topic:
>>
>> *******************************************************************
>> Mr. DULLES. These are pretty badly mutilated, aren't they?
>> Mr. NICOL. Apparently they are separated so that one can't tell whether th=
>ey
>> come from a single bullet or from two separate projectiles. One is a nose
>> portion and the other is a base.
>> Mr. DULLES. Is this the one that is the nose portion?
>> Mr. EISENBERG. You are handing, Mr. Dulles is handing Mr. Nicol Commission=
>
>> Exhibit 569.
>> Mr. NICOL. No, that would be the base portion.
>> Mr. DULLES. That is what I thought. Are those different parts of the same =
>bullet
>> possibly?
>> Mr. NICOL. That is possible, because there appears to be an interval of ap=
>
>> proximately an eighth of an inch that is not present, so that the area whe=
>re one
>> begins is not even with the other, so it is not possible to tell, at least=
> I
>> couldn't to express an opinion.
>> Mr. EISENBERG. That is, they might be two separate bullets or two parts of=
> the
>> same bullet?
>> Mr. NICOL. Two parts of the same or separate bullets, that is right.
>> *******************************************************************
>>
>> >Obviously by the time of the HSCA the government was aware of the same
>> >problem I had outlined, that if all the fragments couldn't be linked
>> >to the same set of bullets
>>
>> The WCR already stated this. =A0Why is this knowledge mystically hidden un=
>til the
>> HSCA?
>>
>> >(2) they would have some "explainin' ta do",
>>
>> Which they did back in 1964 with Frazier and Nicol's testimony.
>>
>> >so in comes Guinn. He overturns the FBI and says they can match
>> >all the fragments to the two bullets.
>>
>> Of course, both Frazier and Nicol *ALREADY* said that the fragments could =
>be
>> part of the same bullet.
>>
>> >I was simply showing DVP that
>> >the FBI via Frazier didn't agree in 1964.
>>
>> You lie to make such an assertion. =A0Frazier, *IN 1964* testified that th=
>e
>> fragments could be part of the same bullet. (As I've already quoted)
>>
>> >Ben got all of this all twisted around (and I can't even remember what
>> >he was saying as it made no sense)
>>
>> Here - let me repeat it again: The WCR cannot be impugn ONLY on the basis =
>of the
>> evidence contained within it. =A0You *MUST* examine the same evidence that=
> they
>> did to prove their lies, misrepresentations, and chicanery.
>>
>> >and called me a liar. =A0Again, he
>> >offered no proof for his *assertion*.
>>
>> See above...
>>
>> >I could go on but these are the main points and there is no reason to
>> >at this point in time.
>>
>> I do hope you get around to telling everyone where that second pencil came=
> from.
>>
>> *********************************************************************
>>
>> Original post copied above can be found here:http://groups.google.com/grou=
>p/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d3fd79bf6cb5fe5...
>
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On May 16, 7:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> >"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not
> >included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said.
> >He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assertion if
> >he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chance to do
> >the honest and right thing..."
>
> >Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He defends the
> >official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer than
> >DVP!!!
>
"And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or
quotes."
You are a liar, I have shown the invalid theory put forth by the WC,
and you, to be full of crap.
"Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is *NOT* the
same as becoming a LNT'er..."
Who lied? I love his testimony as it proves the official theory is
full of crap.
"A real CT'er is interesting only in the truth. Nothing less will do.
Nothing less is *needed*"
This is why you are a LNer! You only care about your ego and winning,
not the truth.
>
> >No one cares what you are saying Benita, you are a uber-liar and
> >dishonest person who edits peoples' replies. You claimed you were
> >platoon leader for "rifle" cleaning right? You kept all the guys'
> >"rifles" clean?
"You've already proven your dishonesty... no need to hammer the point
home..."
You have been proving your dishonesty here for many, many years.
"Lurkers, many of Samantha's lies concerning official testimony are
included in the post below... feel free to browse."
Browse away, I don't support the official theory like you so I have
NOTHING to hide.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gotta love these dumb kooks. In nature, the sub normal eat their own
lol.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 16, 8:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 16, 7:03=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not
>> >included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said.
>> >He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assertion if
>> >he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chance to do
>> >the honest and right thing..."
Strangely, given the complete post, and the entire context, Samantha has not
*ONCE* addressed the lie he told.
Nor offered a retraction.
>> >Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He defends the
>> >official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer than
>> >DVP!!!
>>
>
>"And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or
>quotes."
>
>You are a liar,
And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or quotes...
You've stated that I'm a "LNer"
Cite for it.
You've asserted that I defend "official theory".
Cite for it.
You assert that I quote Bugliosi.
Quote it.
You assert that my posts are "longer than DVP"
Produce one.
>I have shown the invalid theory put forth by the WC,
>and you, to be full of crap.
And yet, you only do so by lying about the testimony, and misrepresenting the
evidence.
That's not needed... the evidence IS IN FAVOR OF CT'ers!
>"Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is *NOT* the
>same as becoming a LNT'er..."
>
>Who lied?
You did. Would you like to place a bet on it? We'll both send money to a third
party who will hold it, and I will copy some of your more outrageous lies, along
with the actual quotes of Frazier - and we'll post it in this forum, and let all
CT'ers vote on it.
>I love his testimony as it proves the official theory is
>full of crap.
Then you shouldn't need to lie about it.
>"A real CT'er is interesting only in the truth. Nothing less will do.
>Nothing less is *needed*"
>
>This is why you are a LNer!
LNT'ers care about the truth? What are *YOU* smoking?
>You only care about your ego and winning,
>not the truth.
I won't be 'agreeable' if it means lying about the evidence.
>> >No one cares what you are saying Benita, you are a uber-liar and
>> >dishonest person who edits peoples' replies. =A0You claimed you were
>> >platoon leader for "rifle" cleaning right? You kept all the guys'
>> >"rifles" clean?
>
>"You've already proven your dishonesty... no need to hammer the point
>home..."
>
>You have been proving your dishonesty here for many, many years.
>
>"Lurkers, many of Samantha's lies concerning official testimony are
>included in the post below... feel free to browse."
>
>Browse away, I don't support the official theory like you so I have
>NOTHING to hide.
>
>
>> >> The relevant snip is about halfway through the post, copied here:
>> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> >so let's play the game his way. =3DA0He 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 th=
>e
>> >> 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 molestatio=
>n.
>>
>> >> For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they were=
>
>> >> never said.
>> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> Here's the complete original post:
>>
>> >> ***********************************************************************=
>***=3D
>>
>> >> In article <f045d722-5370-49b1-b772-2751bf505...@w40g2000hsb.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >Let's wrap why Ben has called me a liar so I can move on to more
>> >> >productive things (and the board can too).
>> >> >1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment when
>> >> >Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment
>> >> >traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
>>
>> >> And based your entire argument around that lie. =3DA0For without Frazie=
>r say=3D
>> >ing
>> >> "bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
>>
>> >> You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome dent,=
> bu=3D
>> >t
>> >> Frazier never said that.
>>
>> >> >I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also said this=
>
>> >> >is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
>> >> >velocity rifle.
>>
>> >> Of course, you're lying right now.
>>
>> >> Frazier was referencing the fragment as being "fairly high velocity" IN=
> RE=3D
>> >LATION
>> >> TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. =3DA0In other words, when Frazier said=
> "fai=3D
>> >rly high
>> >> velocity", he was speaking of a fragment traveling SLOWER than a normal=
> bu=3D
>> >llet.
>>
>> >> >Thus producing anything (fragment, bullet, etc...)
>> >> >that would exit a skull traveling faster than it went in is highly
>> >> >improbable.
>>
>> >> No-one but you has asserted such a silly statement.
>>
>> >> Nor can you quote anyone saying anything of the sort.
>>
>> >> >Meanwhile, the cause of death is listed as "high velocity
>> >> >projectiles" by the WCR on page 523. This brings up more questions,
>> >> >but for now I'll skip them.
>>
>> >> You should... since you titled this post "Cliff Notes to An Accusation"=
>, a=3D
>> >nd
>> >> this topic has NEVER come up between us.
>>
>> >> >Furthermore, the size of the fragments
>> >> >indicate it is highly improbable they could cause a major dent in
>> >> >chrome.
>>
>> >> With *NO* citation given. =3DA0Rob doesn't like to admit that Frazier t=
>estif=3D
>> >ied that
>> >> either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could have done the damag=
>e t=3D
>> >o the
>> >> chrome.
>>
>> >> Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is attem=
>pti=3D
>> >ng to
>> >> use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. =3DA0Yet consistently f=
>ails =3D
>> >to do
>> >> so.
>>
>> >> And if Rob doesn't like the 21 or 44 grain size... I gave him a perfect=
>ly =3D
>> >good
>> >> 96 grain size.
>>
>> >> >Ben says I lied.
>>
>> >> You provably did. =3DA0You implied another lie immediately above when c=
>ompar=3D
>> >ing the
>> >> MC to Frazier's "fairly high velocity" statement.
>>
>> >> You lied when you asserted that it's been said that the fragments COULD=
> NO=3D
>> >T HAVE
>> >> COME from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> You lied when you asserted that ANYONE AT ALL had ever asserted that th=
>ose=3D
>>
>> >> fragments might have come from CE399.
>>
>> >> You probably told a few more... I'm starting to lose track of them.
>>
>> >> >He of course offers no proof to back up his
>> >> >*assertions* as usual.
>>
>> >> Other than quotes from Frazier's testimony, you mean.
>>
>> >> >2) He says I "lied" when I said the fragments could not be linked to
>> >> >the same bullet.
>>
>> >> No, I've never stated that.
>>
>> >> Nor can you provide any quote of my doing so.
>>
>> >> Indeed, it's the simple truth that the fragments could *NOT* be provabl=
>y l=3D
>> >inked
>> >> to each other.
>>
>> >> >The FBI
>>
>> >> Who, at the FBI.
>>
>> >> For some strange reason, Rob keeps running from this question.
>>
>> >> >ran test on all of the fragments and the CE399 to determine if
>> >> >they matched. =3DA0They did not, thus the term of being "similar" in
>> >> >metallic composition (there is only matching or not matching).
>>
>> >> No, there is *NOT* only "matching or not matching". =3DA0There are many=
> time=3D
>> >s when
>> >> it is simply not possible to "prove" something. =3DA0I've given you sev=
>eral
>> >> examples...
>>
>> >> Tell us where that second pencil came from Rob?
>>
>> >> If you can't prove that the sandblasted car was painted yellow, does th=
>at =3D
>> >prove
>> >> that it had green racing stripes?
>>
>> >> >They
>> >> >added a big "But" after this saying they "could not determine whether
>> >> >two or more of the fragments came from the same bullet" (WCR p.77
>> >> >first full paragraph). I concluded that based on this they could not
>> >> >prove their theory.
>>
>> >> Very poor logic, of course. =3DA0Tell us where the second pencil came f=
>rom R=3D
>> >ob?
>>
>> >> >Ben said this is a "lie" as saying "not possible" is not proof that
>> >> >they couldn't have come from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> No-one other than Rob has stated that it's "not possible" that the frag=
>men=3D
>> >ts
>> >> came from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> Despite my quoting of Frazier asserting that this is indeed a possibili=
>ty,=3D
>> > Rob
>> >> keeps lying about it.
>>
>> >> >Again, he offers no
>> >> >proof for his *assertion*.
>>
>> >> Other than Frazier's explicit testimony, you mean.
>>
>> >> >To him it is not possible and possible all
>> >> >at the same time.
>>
>> >> You're a liar, Rob.
>>
>> >> It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the same bul=
>let=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> It is POSSIBLE that they did. =3DA0As Frazier testified to.
>>
>> >> I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to simutaneousl=
>y r=3D
>> >efer
>> >> to the same event.
>>
>> >> >3) He called me a "liar" to the third power when I said based on the
>> >> >pronouncement that the two fragments did not come from the same bullet=
>
>>
>> >> No Rob - *NO-ONE* other than you is saying that CE567 & CE569 "did not =
>com=3D
>> >e from
>> >> the same bullet".
>>
>> >> You're a liar to suggest that anyone other than you has stated that.
>>
>> >> The inability to *PROVE* that they came from the same bullet is not a
>> >> "pronouncement" that they did not. =3DA0Indeed, both Frazier and Nicol =
>EXPLI=3D
>> >CITLY
>> >> deny any such assumption.
>>
>> >> Where's your second pencil, Rob?
>>
>> >> >there had to more than the 3 shots.
>>
>> >> Not by any evidence you've cited out of the WCR...
>>
>> >> >I made the "mistake" of using Dr. Finck's assertion that JBC had more
>> >> >in his wrist than was lost from the magic bullet (CE399) AND right
>> >> >away Ben said this was from the Shaw trial in 1967/68 so it is outside=
>
>> >> >the WCR.
>>
>> >> It obviously is.
>>
>> >> You made the mistake of asserting that based ONLY on your reading of th=
>e W=3D
>> >CR,
>> >> that you could prove that there were more than three shots.
>>
>> >> Can't be done.
>>
>> >> >Obviously he assumes this was not mentioned to anyone during
>> >> >the "investigation". =3DA0To be fair, I am not sure what area it may b=
>e
>> >> >mentioned in the WCR,
>>
>> >> It wasn't. =3DA0Don't you think it might be sorta silly for the WCR to =
>say: =3D
>> >"we
>> >> believe that CE399 went through JFK and Connally, and that no other bul=
>let=3D
>>
>> >> struck Connally - but oh, by the way, there were more bullet fragments =
>lef=3D
>> >t in
>> >> Connally than were missing out of CE399"
>>
>> >> I've told you time and time again that you can't impugn the WCR based O=
>NLY=3D
>> > on
>> >> the evidence that the WCR chose to tell you about in it's report. =3DA0=
>You *=3D
>> >MUST* go
>> >> to the same evidence that they had - then it's relatively trivial to pr=
>ove=3D
>> > the
>> >> WCR a fraud.
>>
>> >> Any number of books have done quite well demonstrating this... Walt Bro=
>wn'=3D
>> >s
>> >> book, for example, or some of the books written by a historian, can't r=
>eca=3D
>> >ll the
>> >> title... that dealt with the problems and misrepresentations of the WCR=
>.
>>
>> >> >so let's play the game his way. =3DA0He 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 h=
>ave=3D
>> > been
>> >> the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide the quote of=
> AN=3D
>> >YONE
>> >> AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to show everyone where =
>Rob=3D
>>
>> >> claimed that he'd been convicted of child molestation.
>>
>> >> For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they were=
> ne=3D
>> >ver
>> >> said.
>>
>> ...
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <204a213c-d431-419a-bd79-6e40d6544...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On May 16, 8:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >> In article <4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >On May 16, 7:03=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not
> >> >included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said.
> >> >He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assertion if
> >> >he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chance to do
> >> >the honest and right thing..."
>
"Strangely, given the complete post, and the entire context, Samantha
has not *ONCE* addressed the lie he told."
Ben, you NEVER posted the entire quote to show I'm a liar.
"Nor offered a retraction."
I did, even though I don't believe I said you claimed the two
fragments were tied to CE399 I apologized anyway. This is more than
you have done.
> >> >Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He defends the
> >> >official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer than
> >> >DVP!!!
>
> >"And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or
> >quotes."
>
> >You are a liar,
>
"And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or
quotes..."
These *assertions* are in ALL of your posts, why do I have to cite
them? As you said, "searching Google is easy", so if anyone wants
them they know where to find them.
"You've stated that I'm a "LNer"
Cite for it."
You are the one arguing a LNer point (notice DVP went after me, NOT
you in this post) and quoting Bugliosi, not me. Normally I wouldn't
care as each person is entitled to their opinion, and like it or not,
that is what much of what we discuss is - opinion! Where's the cite I
claimed I was a child molester?
"You've asserted that I defend "official theory".
Cite for it."
You are defending them, you are supporting the idea the three shot/2
hit scenario is very likely. In my mind, that is supporting them as
this is as key as supporting the SBT. I know your initial reason was
to make me look bad, but that is what it has evolved into.
"You assert that I quote Bugliosi.
Quote it."
In a recent post you had a link to an article or something (I'll
admit, I never looked at it) that had his name in it, so I assumed it
was his theory on events.
"You assert that my posts are "longer than DVP"
Produce one."
That is like saying produce a hen that lays eggs, everyone can see for
themselves how long these posts have gotten. We have been repeating
the same things forever now. You made your points and I made mine,
there is no need to go on and on about it.
> >I have shown the invalid theory put forth by the WC,
> >and you, to be full of crap.
>
"And yet, you only do so by lying about the testimony, and
misrepresenting the evidence."
This is your *assertion* and you have shown you are incapable of
proving it. I know what Frazier said, it could have been one bullet
or two or more that caused the fragments, but the main points are he
would NOT give his firm expert opinion that they came from just one
bullet and they could not match the two fragments using their new
wonder weapon - NAA.
Here is what Fraizier testified to:
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567
(nose); and 569 (base) are portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - **No, sir.**
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit
together.
However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such
as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section
of 569, **so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
course, they could be parts of separate bullets.**
You have said all along this makes it possible to be from one bullet,
and technically I can't argue with you on that (and have not), but
what I have arugued for is this is NOT a definitive answer to back
their theory. He and Nicol would NOT put themselves in a position of
lying by saying they thought they came from one bullet, and to me this
raises a ton of doubt. Even the words he uses are vague, "could be"
does NOT inspire a lot of confidence in me from an expert witness.
There is NO proof they came from one bullet, two bullets or more than
two bullets, I agree with you on this, but the issue is they were
putting forth a theory that REQUIRED they come from just one bullet
and they COULDN'T PROVE THIS to be a fact.
"That's not needed... the evidence IS IN FAVOR OF CT'ers!"
It is, that is why no matter what you have argued, I realized they had
NOT met the standard of proof that is required to earn a conviction
for a capital crime.
> >"Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is *NOT* the
> >same as becoming a LNT'er..."
>
> >Who lied?
>
"You did. Would you like to place a bet on it? We'll both send money
to a third party who will hold it, and I will copy some of your more
outrageous lies, along with the actual quotes of Frazier - and we'll
post it in this forum, and let all CT'ers vote on it."
I did not lie, I made a typo regarding the "high-velocity fragment",
the rest is the truth. You think I ingore the words they "could be
from one bullet", but I don't, I have highlighted over and over how
this is NOT definitive proof an expert witness is usually called to
deliver. All he left is a ton of doubt, a defense lawyer would have
had a field day.
> >I love his testimony as it proves the official theory is
> >full of crap.
>
"Then you shouldn't need to lie about it."
Cite what I lied about beyond the "high-velocity" fragment I
accidently typed as a bullet. I have admitted long ago this was an
error.
> >"A real CT'er is interesting only in the truth. Nothing less will do.
> >Nothing less is *needed*"
>
> >This is why you are a LNer!
>
"LNT'ers care about the truth? What are *YOU* smoking?"
My point exactly.
> >You only care about your ego and winning,
> >not the truth.
>
"I won't be 'agreeable' if it means lying about the evidence."
Then you won't mind when I point out things you type I don't agree
with, right?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 17, 12:32=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <204a213c-d431-419a-bd79-6e40d6544...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 16, 8:03=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@y38g2000hsy.googlegrou=
>>
>> >> >"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not
>> >> >included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said.
>> >> >He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assertion if
>> >> >he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chance to do
>> >> >the honest and right thing..."
>>
>
>"Strangely, given the complete post, and the entire context, Samantha
>has not *ONCE* addressed the lie he told."
>
>Ben, you NEVER posted the entire quote to show I'm a liar.
I posted the ENTIRE POST. It's not possible to fail to quote the particular
statement of yours when the entire post has been reposted.
>"Nor offered a retraction."
>
>I did, even though I don't believe I said you claimed the two
>fragments were tied to CE399 I apologized anyway. This is more than
>you have done.
It's rather difficult to accept an apology when you still refuse to admit what
you stated...
But it's no doubt the best I'll get, so I accept it...
>"You did. =A0Would you like to place a bet on it? =A0We'll both send money
>to a third party who will hold it, and I will copy some of your more
>outrageous lies, along with the actual quotes of Frazier - and we'll
>post it in this forum, and let all CT'ers vote on it."
>
>I did not lie, I made a typo regarding the "high-velocity fragment",
>the rest is the truth. You think I ingore the words they "could be
>from one bullet", but I don't, I have highlighted over and over how
>this is NOT definitive proof an expert witness is usually called to
>deliver. All he left is a ton of doubt, a defense lawyer would have
>had a field day.
>
>> >I love his testimony as it proves the official theory is
>> >full of crap.
>>
>
>"Then you shouldn't need to lie about it."
>
>Cite what I lied about beyond the "high-velocity" fragment I
>accidently typed as a bullet. I have admitted long ago this was an
>error.
>
>
>> >"A real CT'er is interesting only in the truth. Nothing less will do.
>> >Nothing less is *needed*"
>>
>> >This is why you are a LNer!
>>
>
>"LNT'ers care about the truth? =A0What are *YOU* smoking?"
>
>My point exactly.
>
>
>> >You only care about your ego and winning,
>> >not the truth.
>>
>
>"I won't be 'agreeable' if it means lying about the evidence."
>
>Then you won't mind when I point out things you type I don't agree
>with, right?
>
>
>> >> >No one cares what you are saying Benita, you are a uber-liar and
>> >> >dishonest person who edits peoples' replies. =3DA0You claimed you were=
>
>> >> >platoon leader for "rifle" cleaning right? You kept all the guys'
>> >> >"rifles" clean?
>>
>> >"You've already proven your dishonesty... no need to hammer the point
>> >home..."
>>
>> >You have been proving your dishonesty here for many, many years.
>>
>> >"Lurkers, many of Samantha's lies concerning official testimony are
>> >included in the post below... feel free to browse."
>>
>> >Browse away, I don't support the official theory like you so I have
>> >NOTHING to hide.
>>
>> >> >> The relevant snip is about halfway through the post, copied here:
>> >> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> >> >so let's play the game his way. =3D3DA0He 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 coul=
>d
>> >> >> have been the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> quote of ANYONE AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to s=
>how=3D
>>
>> >> >> everyone where Rob claimed that he'd been convicted of child molesta=
>tio=3D
>> >n.
>>
>> >> >> For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they w=
>ere=3D
>>
>> >> >> never said.
>> >> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> >> Here's the complete original post:
>>
>> >> >> ********************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >***=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> In article <f045d722-5370-49b1-b772-2751bf505...@w40g2000hsb.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >Let's wrap why Ben has called me a liar so I can move on to more
>> >> >> >productive things (and the board can too).
>> >> >> >1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment wh=
>en
>> >> >> >Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment
>> >> >> >traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
>>
>> >> >> And based your entire argument around that lie. =3D3DA0For without F=
>razie=3D
>> >r say=3D3D
>> >> >ing
>> >> >> "bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
>>
>> >> >> You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome de=
>nt,=3D
>> > bu=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> Frazier never said that.
>>
>> >> >> >I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also said t=
>his=3D
>>
>> >> >> >is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
>> >> >> >velocity rifle.
>>
>> >> >> Of course, you're lying right now.
>>
>> >> >> Frazier was referencing the fragment as being "fairly high velocity"=
> IN=3D
>> > RE=3D3D
>> >> >LATION
>> >> >> TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. =3D3DA0In other words, when Frazier=
> said=3D
>> > "fai=3D3D
>> >> >rly high
>> >> >> velocity", he was speaking of a fragment traveling SLOWER than a nor=
>mal=3D
>> > bu=3D3D
>> >> >llet.
>>
>> >> >> >Thus producing anything (fragment, bullet, etc...)
>> >> >> >that would exit a skull traveling faster than it went in is highly
>> >> >> >improbable.
>>
>> >> >> No-one but you has asserted such a silly statement.
>>
>> >> >> Nor can you quote anyone saying anything of the sort.
>>
>> >> >> >Meanwhile, the cause of death is listed as "high velocity
>> >> >> >projectiles" by the WCR on page 523. This brings up more questions,=
>
>> >> >> >but for now I'll skip them.
>>
>> >> >> You should... since you titled this post "Cliff Notes to An Accusati=
>on"=3D
>> >, a=3D3D
>> >> >nd
>> >> >> this topic has NEVER come up between us.
>>
>> >> >> >Furthermore, the size of the fragments
>> >> >> >indicate it is highly improbable they could cause a major dent in
>> >> >> >chrome.
>>
>> >> >> With *NO* citation given. =3D3DA0Rob doesn't like to admit that Fraz=
>ier t=3D
>> >estif=3D3D
>> >> >ied that
>> >> >> either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could have done the da=
>mag=3D
>> >e t=3D3D
>> >> >o the
>> >> >> chrome.
>>
>> >> >> Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is at=
>tem=3D
>> >pti=3D3D
>> >> >ng to
>> >> >> use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. =3D3DA0Yet consisten=
>tly f=3D
>> >ails =3D3D
>> >> >to do
>> >> >> so.
>>
>> >> >> And if Rob doesn't like the 21 or 44 grain size... I gave him a perf=
>ect=3D
>> >ly =3D3D
>> >> >good
>> >> >> 96 grain size.
>>
>> >> >> >Ben says I lied.
>>
>> >> >> You provably did. =3D3DA0You implied another lie immediately above w=
>hen c=3D
>> >ompar=3D3D
>> >> >ing the
>> >> >> MC to Frazier's "fairly high velocity" statement.
>>
>> >> >> You lied when you asserted that it's been said that the fragments CO=
>ULD=3D
>> > NO=3D3D
>> >> >T HAVE
>> >> >> COME from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> >> You lied when you asserted that ANYONE AT ALL had ever asserted that=
> th=3D
>> >ose=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> fragments might have come from CE399.
>>
>> >> >> You probably told a few more... I'm starting to lose track of them.
>>
>> >> >> >He of course offers no proof to back up his
>> >> >> >*assertions* as usual.
>>
>> >> >> Other than quotes from Frazier's testimony, you mean.
>>
>> >> >> >2) He says I "lied" when I said the fragments could not be linked t=
>o
>> >> >> >the same bullet.
>>
>> >> >> No, I've never stated that.
>>
>> >> >> Nor can you provide any quote of my doing so.
>>
>> >> >> Indeed, it's the simple truth that the fragments could *NOT* be prov=
>abl=3D
>> >y l=3D3D
>> >> >inked
>> >> >> to each other.
>>
>> >> >> >The FBI
>>
>> >> >> Who, at the FBI.
>>
>> >> >> For some strange reason, Rob keeps running from this question.
>>
>> >> >> >ran test on all of the fragments and the CE399 to determine if
>> >> >> >they matched. =3D3DA0They did not, thus the term of being "similar"=
> in
>> >> >> >metallic composition (there is only matching or not matching).
>>
>> >> >> No, there is *NOT* only "matching or not matching". =3D3DA0There are=
> many=3D
>> > time=3D3D
>> >> >s when
>> >> >> it is simply not possible to "prove" something. =3D3DA0I've given yo=
>u sev=3D
>> >eral
>> >> >> examples...
>>
>> >> >> Tell us where that second pencil came from Rob?
>>
>> >> >> If you can't prove that the sandblasted car was painted yellow, does=
> th=3D
>> >at =3D3D
>> >> >prove
>> >> >> that it had green racing stripes?
>>
>> >> >> >They
>> >> >> >added a big "But" after this saying they "could not determine wheth=
>er
>> >> >> >two or more of the fragments came from the same bullet" (WCR p.77
>> >> >> >first full paragraph). I concluded that based on this they could no=
>t
>> >> >> >prove their theory.
>>
>> >> >> Very poor logic, of course. =3D3DA0Tell us where the second pencil c=
>ame f=3D
>> >rom R=3D3D
>> >> >ob?
>>
>> >> >> >Ben said this is a "lie" as saying "not possible" is not proof that=
>
>> >> >> >they couldn't have come from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> >> No-one other than Rob has stated that it's "not possible" that the f=
>rag=3D
>> >men=3D3D
>> >> >ts
>> >> >> came from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> >> Despite my quoting of Frazier asserting that this is indeed a possib=
>ili=3D
>> >ty,=3D3D
>> >> > Rob
>> >> >> keeps lying about it.
>>
>> >> >> >Again, he offers no
>> >> >> >proof for his *assertion*.
>>
>> >> >> Other than Frazier's explicit testimony, you mean.
>>
>> >> >> >To him it is not possible and possible all
>> >> >> >at the same time.
>>
>> >> >> You're a liar, Rob.
>>
>> >> >> It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the same =
>bul=3D
>> >let=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> It is POSSIBLE that they did. =3D3DA0As Frazier testified to.
>>
>> >> >> I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to simutaneo=
>usl=3D
>> >y r=3D3D
>> >> >efer
>> >> >> to the same event.
>>
>> >> >> >3) He called me a "liar" to the third power when I said based on th=
>e
>> >> >> >pronouncement that the two fragments did not come from the same bul=
>let=3D
>>
>> >> >> No Rob - *NO-ONE* other than you is saying that CE567 & CE569 "did n=
>ot =3D
>> >com=3D3D
>> >> >e from
>> >> >> the same bullet".
>>
>> >> >> You're a liar to suggest that anyone other than you has stated that.=
>
>>
>> >> >> The inability to *PROVE* that they came from the same bullet is not =
>a
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <daeeef70-3925-405e-bc7f-65a289ef7...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 17, 12:32=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >> In article <204a213c-d431-419a-bd79-6e40d6544...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >On May 16, 8:03=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >> >> In article <4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@y38g2000hsy.googlegrou=
> >ps.=3D
> >> >com>,
> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >> >On May 16, 7:03=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not
> >> >> >included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said.
> >> >> >He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assertion if
> >> >> >he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chance to do
> >> >> >the honest and right thing..."
>
> >"Strangely, given the complete post, and the entire context, Samantha
> >has not *ONCE* addressed the lie he told."
>
> >Ben, you NEVER posted the entire quote to show I'm a liar.
>
"I posted the ENTIRE POST. It's not possible to fail to quote the
particular statement of yours when the entire post has been reposted."
You may have, I did not read it all. I'm not sure what lead before me
saying ..."so now he claims...." as this is starting mid-sentence.
> >"Nor offered a retraction."
>
> >I did, even though I don't believe I said you claimed the two
> >fragments were tied to CE399 I apologized anyway. This is more than
> >you have done.
>
"It's rather difficult to accept an apology when you still refuse to
admit what
> you stated..."
If I said in full context that you claimed the two fragments came from
CE399, then I apologize for that. If I didn't say this then there is
no need to apologize. That is whay I'm saying. I am not trying to
make anyone look bad by claiming things they did not say. You did not
post the entire post or I could have seen what was said leading up to
this statement. As I have said before, I respond to what was just
said, that is why I put your statements (or anyone's) in quotes so I'm
just wondering what was said before.
"But it's no doubt the best I'll get, so I accept it..."
I apologized if I said you claimed that, I don't know what else I can
do. Just remember, you have not apologized for claiming something way
worse.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 18, 11:10=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <daeeef70-3925-405e-bc7f-65a289ef7...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On May 17, 12:32=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <204a213c-d431-419a-bd79-6e40d6544...@i76g2000hsf.googlegrou=>> >> >On May 16, 8:03=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@y38g2000hsy.googleg=
>>
>> >> >> >"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not
>> >> >> >included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd said.
>
>> >> >> >he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chance to =
>do
>> >> >> >the honest and right thing..."
>>
>> >"Strangely, given the complete post, and the entire context, Samantha
>> >has not *ONCE* addressed the lie he told."
>>
>> >Ben, you NEVER posted the entire quote to show I'm a liar.
>>
>
>particular statement of yours when the entire post has been reposted."
>
>You may have, I did not read it all. I'm not sure what lead before me
>saying ..."so now he claims...." as this is starting mid-sentence.
>
>
>> >"Nor offered a retraction."
>>
>> >I did, even though I don't believe I said you claimed the two
>> >you have done.
>>
>
>"It's rather difficult to accept an apology when you still refuse to
>admit what
>> you stated..."
>
>If I said in full context that you claimed the two fragments came from
>CE399, then I apologize for that. If I didn't say this then there is
>no need to apologize. That is whay I'm saying. I am not trying to
>make anyone look bad by claiming things they did not say. You did not
>post the entire post
Yes, I most certainly did. I'll repost it AGAIN today just for your
entertainment.
>or I could have seen what was said leading up to
>this statement. As I have said before, I respond to what was just
>said, that is why I put your statements (or anyone's) in quotes so I'm
>just wondering what was said before.
>
>"But it's no doubt the best I'll get, so I accept it..."
>
>I apologized if I said you claimed that, I don't know what else I can
>do. Just remember, you have not apologized for claiming something way
>worse.
Why should I, Rob? You *STILL* can't even admit that you apologized for
something YOU DID.
>> >> >> >Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He defends the
>> >> >> >official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer than
>> >> >> >DVP!!!
>>
>> >> >"And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or
>> >> >quotes."
>>
>> >> >You are a liar,
>>
>> >"And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or
>> >quotes..."
>>
>> >These *assertions* are in ALL of your posts, why do I have to cite
>> >them? =A0As you said, "searching Google is easy", so if anyone wants
>> >them they know where to find them.
>>
>> >"You've stated that I'm a "LNer"
>>
>> >Cite for it."
>>
>> >You are the one arguing a LNer point (notice DVP went after me, NOT
>> >you in this post) and quoting Bugliosi, not me. =A0Normally I wouldn't
>> >care as each person is entitled to their opinion, and like it or not,
>> >that is what much of what we discuss is - opinion! =A0Where's the cite I
>> >claimed I was a child molester?
>>
>> >"You've asserted that I defend "official theory".
>>
>> >Cite for it."
>>
>> >You are defending them, you are supporting the idea the three shot/2
>> >hit scenario is very likely. =A0In my mind, that is supporting them as
>> >this is as key as supporting the SBT. =A0I know your initial reason was
>> >to make me look bad, but that is what it has evolved into.
>>
>> >"You assert that I quote Bugliosi.
>>
>> >Quote it."
>>
>> >In a recent post you had a link to an article or something (I'll
>> >admit, I never looked at it) that had his name in it, so I assumed it
>> >was his theory on events.
>>
>> >"You assert that my posts are "longer than DVP"
>>
>> >Produce one."
>>
>> >That is like saying produce a hen that lays eggs, everyone can see for
>> >themselves how long these posts have gotten. =A0We have been repeating
>> >the same things forever now. =A0You made your points and I made mine,
>> >there is no need to go on and on about it.
>>
>> >> >I have shown the invalid theory put forth by the WC,
>> >> >and you, to be full of crap.
>>
>> >"And yet, you only do so by lying about the testimony, and
>> >misrepresenting the evidence."
>>
>> >This is your *assertion* and you have shown you are incapable of
>> >proving it. =A0I know what Frazier said, it could have been one bullet
>> >or two or more that caused the fragments, but the main points are he
>> >would NOT give his firm expert opinion that they came from just one
>> >bullet and they could not match the two fragments using their new
>> >wonder weapon - NAA.
>>
>> >Here is what Fraizier testified to:
>>
>> >Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567
>> >(nose); and 569 (base) are portions of the originally same bullet?
>> >Mr. FRAZIER - **No, sir.**
>> >Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>> >Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
>> >condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit
>> >together.
>> >However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such
>> >as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section
>> >of 569, **so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
>> >course, they could be parts of separate bullets.**
>>
>> >You have said all along this makes it possible to be from one bullet,
>> >and technically I can't argue with you on that (and have not), but
>> >what I have arugued for is this is NOT a definitive answer to back
>> >their theory. He and Nicol would NOT put themselves in a position of
>> >lying by saying they thought they came from one bullet, and to me this
>> >raises a ton of doubt. =A0Even the words he uses are vague, "could be"
>> >does NOT inspire a lot of confidence in me from an expert witness.
>> >There is NO proof they came from one bullet, two bullets or more than
>> >two bullets, I agree with you on this, but the issue is they were
>> >putting forth a theory that REQUIRED they come from just one bullet
>> >and they COULDN'T PROVE THIS to be a fact.
>>
>> >"That's not needed... the evidence IS IN FAVOR OF CT'ers!"
>>
>> >It is, that is why no matter what you have argued, I realized they had
>> >NOT met the standard of proof that is required to earn a conviction
>> >for a capital crime.
>>
>> >> >"Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is *NOT* the
>> >> >same as becoming a LNT'er..."
>>
>> >> >Who lied?
>>
>> >"You did. =3DA0Would you like to place a bet on it? =3DA0We'll both send =
>money
>> >to a third party who will hold it, and I will copy some of your more
>> >outrageous lies, along with the actual quotes of Frazier - and we'll
>> >post it in this forum, and let all CT'ers vote on it."
>>
>> >I did not lie, I made a typo regarding the "high-velocity fragment",
>> >the rest is the truth. =A0You think I ingore the words they "could be
>> >from one bullet", but I don't, I have highlighted over and over how
>> >this is NOT definitive proof an expert witness is usually called to
>> >deliver. =A0All he left is a ton of doubt, a defense lawyer would have
>> >had a field day.
>>
>> >> >I love his testimony as it proves the official theory is
>> >> >full of crap.
>>
>> >"Then you shouldn't need to lie about it."
>>
>> >Cite what I lied about beyond the "high-velocity" fragment I
>> >accidently typed as a bullet. I have admitted long ago this was an
>> >error.
>>
>> >> >"A real CT'er is interesting only in the truth. Nothing less will do.
>> >> >Nothing less is *needed*"
>>
>> >> >This is why you are a LNer!
>>
>> >"LNT'ers care about the truth? =3DA0What are *YOU* smoking?"
>>
>> >My point exactly.
>>
>> >> >You only care about your ego and winning,
>> >> >not the truth.
>>
>> >"I won't be 'agreeable' if it means lying about the evidence."
>>
>> >Then you won't mind when I point out things you type I don't agree
>> >with, right?
>>
>> >> >> >No one cares what you are saying Benita, you are a uber-liar and
>> >> >> >dishonest person who edits peoples' replies. =3D3DA0You claimed you=
> were=3D
>>
>> >> >> >platoon leader for "rifle" cleaning right? You kept all the guys'
>> >> >> >"rifles" clean?
>>
>> >> >"You've already proven your dishonesty... no need to hammer the point
>> >> >home..."
>>
>> >> >You have been proving your dishonesty here for many, many years.
>>
>> >> >"Lurkers, many of Samantha's lies concerning official testimony are
>> >> >included in the post below... feel free to browse."
>>
>> >> >Browse away, I don't support the official theory like you so I have
>> >> >NOTHING to hide.
>>
>> >> >> >> The relevant snip is about halfway through the post, copied here:=
>
>> >> >> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> >> >> >so let's play the game his way. =3D3D3DA0He claims this
>> >> >> >> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or bo=
>th =3D
>> >of
>> >> >> >> >the fragments.
>>
>> >> >> >> You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
>>
>> >> >> >> When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 c=
>oul=3D
>> >d
>> >> >> >> have been the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can prov=
>ide=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> >> quote of ANYONE AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy t=
>o s=3D
>> >how=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >> everyone where Rob claimed that he'd been convicted of child mole=
>sta=3D
>> >tio=3D3D
>> >> >n.
>>
>> >> >> >> For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that the=
>y w=3D
>> >ere=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >> never said.
>> >> >> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> >> >> Here's the complete original post:
>>
>> >> >> >> *****************************************************************=
>***=3D
>> >***=3D3D
>> >> >***=3D3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >> In article <f045d722-5370-49b1-b772-2751bf505...@w40g2000hsb.goog=
>leg=3D
>> >rou=3D3D
>> >> >ps.=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >Let's wrap why Ben has called me a liar so I can move on to more=
>
>> >> >> >> >productive things (and the board can too).
>> >> >> >> >1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment=
> wh=3D
>> >en
>> >> >> >> >Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment=
>
>> >> >> >> >traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
>>
>> >> >> >> And based your entire argument around that lie. =3D3D3DA0For with=
>out F=3D
>> >razie=3D3D
>> >> >r say=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ing
>> >> >> >> "bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
>>
>> >> >> >> You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome=
> de=3D
>> >nt,=3D3D
>> >> > bu=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >t
>> >> >> >> Frazier never said that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also sai=
>d t=3D
>> >his=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >> >is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
>> >> >> >> >velocity rifle.
>>
>> >> >> >> Of course, you're lying right now.
>>
>> >> >> >> Frazier was referencing the fragment as being "fairly high veloci=
>ty"=3D
>> > IN=3D3D
>> >> > RE=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >LATION
>> >> >> >> TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. =3D3D3DA0In other words, when Fr=
>azier=3D
>> > said=3D3D
>> >> > "fai=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >rly
>>
>> ...
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <f86b34f7-8fe6-4fa5-82e0-587da638c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Just read it and I don't see how you can take the issue of more
fragments in JBC's wrist than missing from the CE399, and the WC
failing to mention this fact, as proof that I said you claimed the two
(or one of the fragments) came from this bullet.
>
> >or I could have seen what was said leading up to
> >this statement. As I have said before, I respond to what was just
> >said, that is why I put your statements (or anyone's) in quotes so I'm
> >just wondering what was said before.
>
> >"But it's no doubt the best I'll get, so I accept it..."
>
> >I apologized if I said you claimed that, I don't know what else I can
> >do. Just remember, you have not apologized for claiming something way
> >worse.
>
"Why should I, Rob? You *STILL* can't even admit that you apologized
for something YOU DID."
You read too much into it, and you should apologize for the simple
fact that bringing child molestation to this board is inappropriate
for any reason, and other CTers should feel the same way, but everyone
is just staying out of it. I don't care if you are a LNer, a CTer or
somewhere in the middle, bringing up the issue of child molestation in
whatever fashion is wrong. Adding it to titles where it will stay
forever is really wrong.
If you don't see this then there is no reason to really talk with you
in the future.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 19, 9:57=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <f86b34f7-8fe6-4fa5-82e0-587da638c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On May 18, 11:10=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <daeeef70-3925-405e-bc7f-65a289ef7...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroup=
>s.c=3D
>> >om>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On May 17, 12:32=3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <204a213c-d431-419a-bd79-6e40d6544...@i76g2000hsf.googleg=>> >> >> >On May 16, 8:03=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@y38g2000hsy.goog=
>leg=3D
>> >rou=3D3D
>> >> >ps.=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >On May 16, 7:03=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> >> >> >"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've not=
>
>> >> >> >> >included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd sai=
>d.
>> >> >> >> >He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assertion=
> if=3D
>>
>> >> >> >> >he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chance =
>to =3D
>> >do
>> >> >> >> >the honest and right thing..."
>>
>> >> >"Strangely, given the complete post, and the entire context, Samantha
>> >> >has not *ONCE* addressed the lie he told."
>>
>> >> >Ben, you NEVER posted the entire quote to show I'm a liar.
>>
>> >particular statement of yours when the entire post has been reposted."
>>
>> >saying ..."so now he claims...." =A0as this is starting mid-sentence.
>>
>> >> >"Nor offered a retraction."
>>
>> >> >I did, even though I don't believe I said you claimed the two
>an
>> >> >you have done.
>>
>> >"It's rather difficult to accept an apology when you still refuse to
>> >admit what
>> >> you stated..."
>>
>> >If I said in full context that you claimed the two fragments came from
>> >CE399, then I apologize for that. If I didn't say this then there is
>> >no need to apologize. That is whay I'm saying. I am not trying to
>> >make anyone look bad by claiming things they did not say. You did not
>> >post the entire post
>>
>
>"Yes, I most certainly did. I'll repost it AGAIN today just for your
>entertainment."
>
>Just read it and I don't see how you can take the issue of more
>fragments in JBC's wrist than missing from the CE399, and the WC
>failing to mention this fact, as proof that I said you claimed the two
>(or one of the fragments) came from this bullet.
This really isn't rocket science, Rob. Read your statement, you said I claimed
something... tell the lurkers here, and be VERY SPECIFIC... what is it that I
"claimed".
Then quote me doing so.
>> >or I could have seen what was said leading up to
>> >this statement. =A0As I have said before, I respond to what was just
>> >said, that is why I put your statements (or anyone's) in quotes so I'm
>> >just wondering what was said before.
>>
>> >"But it's no doubt the best I'll get, so I accept it..."
>>
>> >I apologized if I said you claimed that, I don't know what else I can
>> >do. =A0Just remember, you have not apologized for claiming something way
>> >worse.
>>
>
>"Why should I, Rob? You *STILL* can't even admit that you apologized
>for something YOU DID."
>
>You read too much into it,
"He claims..." is pretty specific. If "he didn't claim..." then you lied.
Particularly when what you had me "claiming" was so far out of the realm of the
possible that it could only be ridiculous.
>and you should apologize for the simple
>fact that bringing child molestation to this board is inappropriate
>for any reason,
Lying about what I said is okay... but having it done to you in return is not?
>and other CTers should feel the same way, but everyone
>is just staying out of it. I don't care if you are a LNer, a CTer or
>somewhere in the middle,
If you can't figure it out from all the posts I've made, then don't worry about
it. I'm sure lurkers can...
>bringing up the issue of child molestation in
>whatever fashion is wrong.
Yep... it might clue you in to how I feel about people putting words in my mouth
that I've never said.
I've done *precisely* the same thing before to others, and should someone try to
assert that I've said something I've never said in the future, you'll see the
*SAME CLAIM* again.
>Adding it to titles where it will stay
>forever is really wrong.
It also stays forever in the posts. By adding it to the title, it makes it
easier for me to locate it in the future when you, or someone else - refers to
it without the context. It also clues those who aren't interested in such posts
to avoid them...
>If you don't see this then there is no reason to really talk with you
>in the future.
Doesn't matter to me. If I see an incorrect statement, or a post with no
context, I'll jump in. You don't have to reply.
>> >> >> >> >Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He defends th=
>e
>> >> >> >> >official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer than=
>
>> >> >> >> >DVP!!!
>>
>> >> >> >"And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or
>> >> >> >quotes."
>>
>> >> >> >You are a liar,
>>
>> >> >"And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or
>> >> >quotes..."
>>
>> >> >These *assertions* are in ALL of your posts, why do I have to cite
>> >> >them? =3DA0As you said, "searching Google is easy", so if anyone wants=
>
>> >> >them they know where to find them.
>>
>> >> >"You've stated that I'm a "LNer"
>>
>> >> >Cite for it."
>>
>> >> >You are the one arguing a LNer point (notice DVP went after me, NOT
>> >> >you in this post) and quoting Bugliosi, not me. =3DA0Normally I wouldn=
>'t
>> >> >care as each person is entitled to their opinion, and like it or not,
>> >> >that is what much of what we discuss is - opinion! =3DA0Where's the ci=
>te I
>> >> >claimed I was a child molester?
>>
>> >> >"You've asserted that I defend "official theory".
>>
>> >> >Cite for it."
>>
>> >> >You are defending them, you are supporting the idea the three shot/2
>> >> >hit scenario is very likely. =3DA0In my mind, that is supporting them =
>as
>> >> >this is as key as supporting the SBT. =3DA0I know your initial reason =
>was
>> >> >to make me look bad, but that is what it has evolved into.
>>
>> >> >"You assert that I quote Bugliosi.
>>
>> >> >Quote it."
>>
>> >> >In a recent post you had a link to an article or something (I'll
>> >> >admit, I never looked at it) that had his name in it, so I assumed it
>> >> >was his theory on events.
>>
>> >> >"You assert that my posts are "longer than DVP"
>>
>> >> >Produce one."
>>
>> >> >That is like saying produce a hen that lays eggs, everyone can see for=
>
>> >> >themselves how long these posts have gotten. =3DA0We have been repeati=
>ng
>> >> >the same things forever now. =3DA0You made your points and I made mine=
>,
>> >> >there is no need to go on and on about it.
>>
>> >> >> >I have shown the invalid theory put forth by the WC,
>> >> >> >and you, to be full of crap.
>>
>> >> >"And yet, you only do so by lying about the testimony, and
>> >> >misrepresenting the evidence."
>>
>> >> >This is your *assertion* and you have shown you are incapable of
>> >> >proving it. =3DA0I know what Frazier said, it could have been one bull=
>et
>> >> >or two or more that caused the fragments, but the main points are he
>> >> >would NOT give his firm expert opinion that they came from just one
>> >> >bullet and they could not match the two fragments using their new
>> >> >wonder weapon - NAA.
>>
>> >> >Here is what Fraizier testified to:
>>
>> >> >Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567
>> >> >(nose); and 569 (base) are portions of the originally same bullet?
>> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - **No, sir.**
>> >> >Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated
>> >> >condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit
>> >> >together.
>> >> >However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such=
>
>> >> >as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section
>> >> >of 569, **so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
>> >> >course, they could be parts of separate bullets.**
>>
>> >> >You have said all along this makes it possible to be from one bullet,
>> >> >and technically I can't argue with you on that (and have not), but
>> >> >what I have arugued for is this is NOT a definitive answer to back
>> >> >their theory. He and Nicol would NOT put themselves in a position of
>> >> >lying by saying they thought they came from one bullet, and to me this=
>
>> >> >raises a ton of doubt. =3DA0Even the words he uses are vague, "could b=
>e"
>> >> >does NOT inspire a lot of confidence in me from an expert witness.
>> >> >There is NO proof they came from one bullet, two bullets or more than
>> >> >two bullets, I agree with you on this, but the issue is they were
>> >> >putting forth a theory that REQUIRED they come from just one bullet
>> >> >and they COULDN'T PROVE THIS to be a fact.
>>
>> >> >"That's not needed... the evidence IS IN FAVOR OF CT'ers!"
>>
>> >> >It is, that is why no matter what you have argued, I realized they had=
>
>> >> >NOT met the standard of proof that is required to earn a conviction
>> >> >for a capital crime.
>>
>> >> >> >"Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is *NOT* t=
>he
>> >> >> >same as becoming a LNT'er..."
>>
>> >> >> >Who lied?
>>
>> >> >"You did. =3D3DA0Would you like to place a bet on it? =3D3DA0We'll bot=
>h send =3D
>> >money
>> >> >to a third party who will hold it, and I will copy some of your more
>> >> >outrageous lies, along with the actual quotes of Frazier - and we'll
>> >> >post it in this forum, and let all CT'ers vote on it."
>>
>> >> >I did not lie, I made a typo regarding the "high-velocity fragment",
>> >> >the rest is the truth. =3DA0You think I ingore the words they "could b=
>e
>> >> >from one bullet", but I don't, I have highlighted over and over how
>> >> >this is NOT definitive proof an expert witness is usually called to
>> >> >deliver. =3DA0All he left is a ton of doubt, a defense lawyer would ha=
>ve
>> >> >had a field day.
>>
>> >> >> >I love his testimony as it proves the official theory is
>> >> >> >full of crap.
>>
>> >> >"Then you shouldn't need to lie about it."
>>
>> >> >Cite what I lied about beyond the "high-velocity" fragment I
>> >> >accidently typed as a bullet. I have admitted long ago this was an
>> >> >error.
>>
>> >> >> >"A real CT'er is interesting only in the truth. Nothing less will d=
>o.
>> >> >> >Nothing less is *needed*"
>>
>> >> >> >This is why you are a LNer!
>>
>> >> >"LNT'ers care about the truth? =3D3DA0What are *YOU* smoking?"
>>
>> >> >My point exactly.
>>
>> >> >> >You only care about your ego and winning,
>> >> >> >not the truth.
>>
>> >> >"I won't be 'agreeable' if it means lying about the evidence."
>>
>> >> >Then you won't mind when I point out things you type I don't agree
>> >> >with, right?
>>
>> >> >> >> >No one cares what you are saying Benita, you are a uber-liar and=
>
>> >> >> >> >dishonest person who edits peoples' replies. =3D3D3DA0You claime=
>d you=3D
>> > were=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >> >platoon leader for "rifle" cleaning right? You kept all the guys=
>'
>> >> >> >> >"rifles" clean?
>>
>> >> >> >"You've already proven your dishonesty... no need to hammer the poi=
>nt
>> >> >> >home..."
>>
>> >> >> >You have been proving your dishonesty here for many, many years.
>>
>> >> >> >"Lurkers, many of Samantha's lies concerning official testimony are=
>
>> >> >> >included in the post below... feel free to browse."
>>
>> >> >> >Browse away, I don't support the official theory like you so I have=
>
>> >> >> >NOTHING to hide.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> The relevant snip is about halfway through the post, copied he=
>re:=3D
>>
>> >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >so let's play the game his way. =3D3D3D3DA0He claims this
>> >> >> >> >> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or=
> bo=3D
>> >th =3D3D
>> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >> >the fragments.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE39=
>9 c=3D
>> >oul=3D3D
>> >> >d
>> >> >> >> >> have been the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can p=
>rov=3D
>> >ide=3D3D
>> >> > th=3D3D3D
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <16e2ccbc-14c8-4f60-a90c-db29c3f46...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
No it isn't rocket science and you are a laugh riot, in the header of
this thread you are accusing me of being a child molester, and yet I'm
supposed to apologize because you think I said, you said, that one or
two of the fragments could have come from CE399!!! That is not how I
read it, I read it that the bullet was put back into play, nothing
said you said the fragments came from CE399.
> >> >or I could have seen what was said leading up to
> >> >this statement. =A0As I have said before, I respond to what was just
> >> >said, that is why I put your statements (or anyone's) in quotes so I'm
> >> >just wondering what was said before.
>
> >> >"But it's no doubt the best I'll get, so I accept it..."
>
> >> >I apologized if I said you claimed that, I don't know what else I can
> >> >do. =A0Just remember, you have not apologized for claiming something way
> >> >worse.
>
> >"Why should I, Rob? You *STILL* can't even admit that you apologized
> >for something YOU DID."
>
> >You read too much into it,
>
""He claims..." is pretty specific. If "he didn't claim..." then you
lied."
Here he goes splicing up my answer again.
"Particularly when what you had me "claiming" was so far out of the
realm of the possible that it could only be ridiculous."
Kinda like this, huh?:
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."*
So you can prove I claimed to be a child molester, right? You went to
a sick place Ben, so I am reluctant to agree with you. If that is how
you took it, I apologize (I think I have done this already), but you
need to do the same and not be so quick to call others a liar in the
future until it has been proven to be the case.
> >and you should apologize for the simple
> >fact that bringing child molestation to this board is inappropriate
> >for any reason,
>
"Lying about what I said is okay... but having it done to you in
return is not?"
I didnt' write it to be a lie, I am not a liar by nature, you just
assume everyone is. What you thought I lied about is NOT the same as
bringing up child molestation Ben, this is a horrific crime that
destroys the lives of children and only causes them in many cases to
do it to others when they grow up. Why you would even think to go
there is beyond me, but you did. Calling me a liar is enough I think.
> >and other CTers should feel the same way, but everyone
> >is just staying out of it. I don't care if you are a LNer, a CTer or
> >somewhere in the middle,
>
"If you can't figure it out from all the posts I've made, then don't
worry about it. I'm sure lurkers can..."
First of all, there AREN'T THAT MAY LURKERS BEN, get over it, not many
people are hanging on to your words or mine. Secondly, you took what
you thought was a slight and escalated it to a level a normal person
would not think to do in most cases.
> >bringing up the issue of child molestation in
> >whatever fashion is wrong.
>
"Yep... it might clue you in to how I feel about people putting words
in my mouth that I've never said."
You can try and defend it, but the beloved lurkers will think you are
disturbed to use such a tactic I'm sure. What's next? Maybe just
send anthrax to those who you think put words in your mouth?
"I've done *precisely* the same thing before to others, and should
someone try to assert that I've said something I've never said in the
future, you'll see the *SAME CLAIM* again."
This only digs the hole deeper for you Ben, it shows you have had
mental issues for awhile, as NO rational person makes the leap from a
discussion board disagreement to child molestation accusations. You
are in the company of John McAdams. All you have to do is show you
never said that, why is that is not good enough?
> >Adding it to titles where it will stay
> >forever is really wrong.
"It also stays forever in the posts. By adding it to the title, it
makes it easier for me to locate it in the future when you, or someone
else - refers to it without the context. It also clues those who
aren't interested in such posts to avoid them..."
Ben, I'm not a neophyte with computers, I have been in the software
business for many years, I understand how searches work. It is a sick
tactic, whatever your reasons.
> >If you don't see this then there is no reason to really talk with you
> >in the future.
>
"Doesn't matter to me. If I see an incorrect statement, or a post
with no context, I'll jump in. You don't have to reply."
Ben, I have never minded this, what I do mind is when someone jumps in
screaming liar before they have proven anything. Your incorrect
statement about Tomlinson comes to mind (in regards to saying it was
NOT JFK's stretcher) as I could have jumped in and called you a liar,
like you did right out of the gate with Frazier, as I knew he did not
say that, but I didn't, did I? I gave you a chance to review and go
one way or the other. You admitted he did not say this, but would you
have given me the same chance? Probably not.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 19, 7:01=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <16e2ccbc-14c8-4f60-a90c-db29c3f46...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On May 19, 9:57=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <f86b34f7-8fe6-4fa5-82e0-587da638c...@y21g2000hsf.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On May 18, 11:10=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <daeeef70-3925-405e-bc7f-65a289ef7...@b1g2000hsg.googlegr=
>oup=3D
>> >s.c=3D3D
>> >> >om>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >On May 17, 12:32=3D3D3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article <204a213c-d431-419a-bd79-6e40d6544...@i76g2000hsf.goog=>> >> >> >> >On May 16, 8:03=3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wro=
>te:
>> >> >> >> >> In article <4b6564d3-8265-486c-96c5-28f89b070...@y38g2000hsy.g=
>oog=3D
>> >leg=3D3D
>> >> >rou=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ps.=3D3D3D3D
>> >> >> >> >com>,
>> >> >> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >On May 16, 7:03=3D3D3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com=
>> wro=3D
>> >te:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >"Samantha - aka Rob - has complained several times that I've =
>not=3D
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >included the complete context of his lie concerning what I'd =
>sai=3D
>> >d.
>> >> >> >> >> >He's implied that he'd be willing to retract his false assert=
>ion=3D
>> > if=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >he saw the original. I'd like to give him every possible chan=
>ce =3D
>> >to =3D3D
>> >> >do
>> >> >> >> >> >the honest and right thing..."
>>
>ha
>> >> >> >has not *ONCE* addressed the lie he told."
>>
>> >> >> >Ben, you NEVER posted the entire quote to show I'm a liar.
>>
>he
>> >> >particular statement of yours when the entire post has been reposted."=
>
>>
>> >> >You may have, I did not read it all. =3DA0I'm not sure what lead befor=
>e me
>> >> >saying ..."so now he claims...." =3DA0as this is starting mid-sentence=
>.
>>
>> >> >> >"Nor offered a retraction."
>>
>> >> >> >I did, even though I don't believe I said you claimed the two
>re th=3D
>> >an
>> >> >> >you have done.
>>
>> >> >"It's rather difficult to accept an apology when you still refuse to
>> >> >admit what
>> >> >> you stated..."
>>
>
>> >> >CE399, then I apologize for that. If I didn't say this then there is
>> >> >no need to apologize. That is whay I'm saying. I am not trying to
>> >> >make anyone look bad by claiming things they did not say. You did not
>> >> >post the entire post
>>
>> >"Yes, I most certainly did. I'll repost it AGAIN today just for your
>> >entertainment."
>>
>> >Just read it and I don't see how you can take the issue of more
>> >fragments in JBC's wrist than missing from the CE399, and the WC
>> >failing to mention this fact, as proof that I said you claimed the two
>> >(or one of the fragments) came from this bullet.
>>
>
>"This really isn't rocket science, Rob. Read your statement, you said
>I claimed something... tell the lurkers here, and be VERY SPECIFIC...
>what is it that I "claimed".
Dead silence.
>Then quote me doing so."
No quotes...
>No it isn't rocket science and you are a laugh riot, in the header of
>this thread you are accusing me of being a child molester, and yet I'm
>supposed to apologize because you think I said,
No Rob... there's no "thinking" involved. If their were, you'd not have ducked
and ran from this question.
>you said, that one or
>two of the fragments could have come from CE399!!! That is not how I
>read it, I read it that the bullet was put back into play, nothing
>said you said the fragments came from CE399.
You stated that "He [that is, me] claimed..."
Tell everyone what I claimed, Rob...
Why are you ducking this simple question? One that goes right to the heart of
the issue?
>> >> >or I could have seen what was said leading up to
>> >> >this statement. =3DA0As I have said before, I respond to what was just=
>
>> >> >said, that is why I put your statements (or anyone's) in quotes so I'm=
>
>> >> >just wondering what was said before.
>>
>> >> >"But it's no doubt the best I'll get, so I accept it..."
>>
>> >> >I apologized if I said you claimed that, I don't know what else I can
>> >> >do. Just remember, you have not apologized for claiming something way
>> >> >worse.
>>
>> >"Why should I, Rob? You *STILL* can't even admit that you apologized
>> >for something YOU DID."
>>
>> >You read too much into it,
>>
>
>""He claims..." is pretty specific. If "he didn't claim..." then you
>lied."
>
>Here he goes splicing up my answer again.
You stated that I claimed something... what was it that I "claimed", Rob?
Then QUOTE IT.
Why are you running away from this simple question?
Can't you support your own words???
>"Particularly when what you had me "claiming" was so far out of the
>realm of the possible that it could only be ridiculous."
>
>Kinda like this, huh?:
*EXACTLY*
>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."*
>
>So you can prove I claimed to be a child molester, right?
Yep... I can... just as *YOU* can quote me saying what you asserted I'd
"claimed"
And just as soon as you produce a quote of mine asserting what YOU STATED I
"claimed", I'll do so.
>You went to
>a sick place Ben, so I am reluctant to agree with you.
And yet, you claim to be an honest man...
What did you assert that I'd "claimed", Rob? Can you be specific here, then
quote me saying it?
And if not, why are you ducking that question?
>If that is how
>you took it, I apologize (I think I have done this already), but you
>need to do the same and not be so quick to call others a liar in the
>future until it has been proven to be the case.
It *HAS* been proven, Rob... you just refuse to admit it.
>> >and you should apologize for the simple
>> >fact that bringing child molestation to this board is inappropriate
>> >for any reason,
>>
>
>"Lying about what I said is okay... but having it done to you in
>return is not?"
>
>I didnt' write it to be a lie,
What did you assert that I'd "claimed," Rob? And can you QUOTE ME SAYING IT?
Tis a simple question...
>I am not a liar by nature, you just
>assume everyone is.
Provably, I don't. There's any number of people who post here whom I've *never*
felt the need to label a comment of theirs a lie, or them a liar.
>What you thought I lied about is NOT the same as
>bringing up child molestation Ben,
That's *YOUR* opinion. I have a very distinct dislike (to put it mildly) of
having someone assert something I've never said. Quite likely on par with your
dislike of being labeled a child molester.
In fact, I see very little difference between the two...
>this is a horrific crime that
>destroys the lives of children and only causes them in many cases to
>do it to others when they grow up. Why you would even think to go
>there is beyond me, but you did. Calling me a liar is enough I think.
And yet... months later, you remember quite vividly what happens when you try to
assert that I'd said something that I didn't.
If this is what it takes, so be it.
>> >and other CTers should feel the same way, but everyone
>> >is just staying out of it. =A0I don't care if you are a LNer, a CTer or
>> >somewhere in the middle,
>>
>
>"If you can't figure it out from all the posts I've made, then don't
>worry about it. I'm sure lurkers can..."
>
>First of all, there AREN'T THAT MAY LURKERS BEN, get over it, not many
>people are hanging on to your words or mine.
Don't do much Googling, do you?
>Secondly, you took what
>you thought was a slight and escalated it to a level a normal person
>would not think to do in most cases.
How many times have you told someone else what they said - when in fact they'd
never said it?
Just how many people, as a percentage, do you presume would simply ignore such
assertions?
>> >bringing up the issue of child molestation in
>> >whatever fashion is wrong.
>>
>
>"Yep... it might clue you in to how I feel about people putting words
>in my mouth that I've never said."
>
>You can try and defend it, but the beloved lurkers will think you are
>disturbed to use such a tactic I'm sure. What's next? Maybe just
>send anthrax to those who you think put words in your mouth?
Bugs you, doesn't it?
Now you're living in my world...
>"I've done *precisely* the same thing before to others, and should
>someone try to assert that I've said something I've never said in the
>future, you'll see the *SAME CLAIM* again."
>
>This only digs the hole deeper for you Ben, it shows you have had
>mental issues for awhile, as NO rational person makes the leap from a
>discussion board disagreement to child molestation accusations.
Oh, perhaps you don't care if people think you've made absolutely *STUPID*
statements.
>You are in the company of John McAdams. All you have to do is show you
>never said that,
I have... many times... you've *NEVER* acknowledged it.
>why is that is not good enough?
Because your statement is still out there - un-retracted.
>> >Adding it to titles where it will stay
>> >forever is really wrong.
>
>"It also stays forever in the posts. By adding it to the title, it
>makes it easier for me to locate it in the future when you, or someone
>else - refers to it without the context. It also clues those who
>aren't interested in such posts to avoid them..."
>
>Ben, I'm not a neophyte with computers, I have been in the software
>business for many years, I understand how searches work. It is a sick
>tactic, whatever your reasons.
Then you surely understand that title or post, matters little. But title allows
people to judge whether to read or not.
I *do* have reasons for renaming posts.
>> >If you don't see this then there is no reason to really talk with you
>> >in the future.
>>
>
>"Doesn't matter to me. If I see an incorrect statement, or a post
>with no context, I'll jump in. =A0You don't have to reply."
>
>Ben, I have never minded this, what I do mind is when someone jumps in
>screaming liar before they have proven anything.
How, precisely, did you expect me to prove a negative? For example, *PROVE TO
ME* that you've not explained what flavors quarks come in.
I assert that you *DID* discuss quark flavors, prove me wrong.
>Your incorrect
>statement about Tomlinson comes to mind (in regards to saying it was
>NOT JFK's stretcher) as I could have jumped in and called you a liar,
Then you would have been right semantically, and wrong on the facts.
>like you did right out of the gate with Frazier, as I knew he did not
>say that, but I didn't, did I? I gave you a chance to review and go
>one way or the other. You admitted he did not say this, but would you
>have given me the same chance? Probably not.
You could have backed up and apologized right away, and ADMITTED that you'd gone
further than the facts allowed, and I'd have been happy to apologize right then
and there. But now you'll never know.
Although you've apologized, and I accepted it - both you and I know that it's
far less than what an "honest" man would do.
>> >> >> >> >> >Benita - a.k.a. Ben, has become an LNer overnight. He defends=
> th=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >> >> >official theory, he quotes Bugliosi and he has posts longer t=
>han=3D
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >DVP!!!
>>
>> >> >> >> >"And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or
>> >> >> >> >quotes."
>>
>> >> >> >> >You are a liar,
>>
>> >> >> >"And yet, you can't support these assertions with any cites or
>> >> >> >quotes..."
>>
>> >> >> >These *assertions* are in ALL of your posts, why do I have to cite
>> >> >> >them? =3D3DA0As you said, "searching Google is easy", so if anyone =
>wants=3D
>>
>> >> >> >them they know where to find them.
>>
>> >> >> >"You've stated that I'm a "LNer"
>>
>> >> >> >Cite for it."
>>
>> >> >> >You are the one arguing a LNer point (notice DVP went after me, NOT=
>
>> >> >> >you in this post) and quoting Bugliosi, not me. =3D3DA0Normally I w=
>ouldn=3D
>> >'t
>> >> >> >care as each person is entitled to their opinion, and like it or no=
>t,
>> >> >> >that is what much of what we discuss is - opinion! =3D3DA0Where's t=
>he ci=3D
>> >te I
>> >> >> >claimed I was a child molester?
>>
>> >> >> >"You've asserted that I defend "official theory".
>>
>> >> >> >Cite for it."
>>
>> >> >> >You are defending them, you are supporting the idea the three shot/=
>2
>> >> >> >hit scenario is very likely. =3D3DA0In my mind, that is supporting =
>them =3D
>> >as
>> >> >> >this is as key as supporting the SBT. =3D3DA0I know your initial re=
>ason =3D
>> >was
>> >> >> >to make me look bad, but that is what it has evolved into.
>>
>> >> >> >"You assert that I quote Bugliosi.
>>
>> >> >> >Quote it."
>>
>> >> >> >In a recent post you had a link to an article or something (I'll
>> >> >> >admit, I never looked at it) that had his name in it, so I assumed =
>it
>> >> >> >was his theory on events.
>>
>> >> >> >"You assert that my posts are "longer than DVP"
>>
>> >> >> >Produce one."
>>
>> >> >> >That is like saying produce a hen that lays eggs, everyone can see =
>for=3D
>>
>> >> >> >themselves how long these posts have gotten. =3D3DA0We have been re=
>peati=3D
>> >ng
>> >> >> >the same things forever now. =3D3DA0You made your points and I made=
> mine=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> >there is no need to go on and on about it.
>>
>> >> >> >> >I have shown the invalid theory put forth by the WC,
>> >> >> >> >and you, to be full of crap.
>>
>> >> >> >"And yet, you only do so by lying about the testimony, and
>> >> >> >misrepresenting the evidence."
>>
>> >> >> >This is your *assertion* and you have shown you are incapable of
>> >> >> >proving it. =3D3DA0I know what Frazier said, it could have been one=
> bull=3D
>> >et
>> >> >> >or two or more that caused the fragments, but the main points are h=
>e
>> >> >> >would NOT give his firm expert opinion that they came from just one=
>
>> >> >> >bullet and they could not match the two fragments using their new
>> >> >> >wonder weapon - NAA.
>>
>> >> >> >Here is what Fraizier testified to:
>>
>> >> >> >Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567=
>
>> >> >> >(nose); and 569 (base) are portions of the originally same bullet?
>> >> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - **No, sir.**
>> >> >> >Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
>> >> >> >Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilat=
>ed
>> >> >> >condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit
>> >> >> >together.
>> >> >> >However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, s=
>uch=3D
>>
>> >> >> >as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base sectio=
>n
>> >> >> >of 569, **so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
>> >> >> >course, they could be parts of separate bullets.**
>>
>> >> >> >You have said all along this makes it possible to be from one bulle=
>t,
>> >> >> >and technically I can't argue with you on that (and have not), but
>> >> >> >what I have arugued for is this is NOT a definitive answer to back
>> >> >> >their theory. He and Nicol would NOT put themselves in a position o=
>f
>> >> >> >lying by saying they thought they came from one bullet, and to me t=
>his=3D
>>
>> >> >> >raises a ton of doubt. =3D3DA0Even the words he uses are vague, "co=
>uld b=3D
>> >e"
>> >> >> >does NOT inspire a lot of confidence in me from an expert witness.
>> >> >> >There is NO proof they came from one bullet, two bullets or more th=
>an
>> >> >> >two bullets, I agree with you on this, but the issue is they were
>> >> >> >putting forth a theory that REQUIRED they come from just one bullet=
>
>> >> >> >and they COULDN'T PROVE THIS to be a fact.
>>
>> >> >> >"That's not needed... the evidence IS IN FAVOR OF CT'ers!"
>>
>> >> >> >It is, that is why no matter what you have argued, I realized they =
>had=3D
>>
>> >> >> >NOT met the standard of proof that is required to earn a conviction=
>
>> >> >> >for a capital crime.
>>
>> >> >> >> >"Pointing out that you've lied about Frazier's testimony is *NOT=
>* t=3D
>> >he
>> >> >> >> >same as becoming a LNT'er..."
>>
>> >> >> >> >Who lied?
>>
>> >> >> >"You did. =3D3D3DA0Would you
>>
>> ...