45 Questions - One by One (#1)
Ben Holmes
avoid, duck, run-away from...
1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably
exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK’s face was
virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
This is, of course, a rather critical question - the trajectory of the WCR
*REQUIRES* JFK to be leaning well forward... but we know that he was not. The
problem was recognized, of course, which lead to the four inch change of entry
point.
But even the new entry point on JFK's head *STILL* would logically lead to an
exit out the forehead at a minimum. It seems that LNT'ers wish to demand a 6th
floor starting point - but simply refuse to see the trajectory that such a shot
would obviously create.
David Von Pein
cdddraftsman
So this is what exited your tiny brain ? : MC bullet didn't break
apart on impact yet we have fragments all thoughout the compartments
of the limo ? Now were in the hell did they come from ? If not LHO's
rifle what rifle are you willing to produce ? Barring imaginary
assassins who diappear leaving no visible trace I guess your
construct has been ko'd in the first round ......................tl
Ben's such a D U N C E ! Even Healy in Dealey can't stop that brain
that works in reverse overtime ............Hehehhehehe !
muc...@gmail.com
A few things come to mind here:
1) It might save some of us lurkers valuable time, if you were in the
habit of citing or providing links to actual evidence. Not all of us
have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits. Likely side effects: a
more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
shot, and (b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
disperse. It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
be no need for (a).
3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
received. The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
-Mark
aeffects
aeffects
you gotta slow down, hon..... back on point..... it's incumbent on the
Lone Nutter's to find the ANY perp ---- the CT side of the equation is
telling you dolts we ain't buying your LHO/SBT nonsense, the evidence
tell us so..... On the ball dolt. Address the points or climb back
into Mel Ayton's hidey-hole
aeffects
as a lurker with valued time [scoff], what leads you to believe the
"actual test 'wasn't designed to be quite as accurate' " as depicted?
> -Mark
muc...@gmail.com
Sit down, little guy. You're an undesired side (a)effect.
-Mark
Bud
What makes you think Ben is portraying the information accurately?
Have you checked?
> > -Mark
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
More then likely he's not Bud, thats why he doesn't supply any links
so we can read it for ourselves. He expects you to waste time looking
it up and in the meantime he'll sit there and say your running from
his questions. If he was going to ask it legitimately there would be
a link quoting what hes spewing. Therefore, I'm sure hes only used
what fits his agenda in his question.
Bud
much...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12 Sep., 16:15, Ben Holmes <ad...@scam-info.com> wrote:
> > LNT'ers like to avoid the evidence, so I'm starting a new series that they can
> > avoid, duck, run-away from...
> >
> > 1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
> > location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably
> > exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK's face was
> > virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
> >
> > This is, of course, a rather critical question - the trajectory of the WCR
> > *REQUIRES* JFK to be leaning well forward... but we know that he was not. The
> > problem was recognized, of course, which lead to the four inch change of entry
> > point.
> >
> > But even the new entry point on JFK's head *STILL* would logically lead to an
> > exit out the forehead at a minimum. It seems that LNT'ers wish to demand a 6th
> > floor starting point - but simply refuse to see the trajectory that such a shot
> > would obviously create.
>
> A few things come to mind here:
>
> 1) It might save some of us lurkers valuable time, if you were in the
> habit of citing or providing links to actual evidence. Not all of us
> have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
> look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits. Likely side effects: a
> more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
Neither of which Ben is interested in. He prefers declarations to
discussion.
> 2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
> high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
> shot, and (b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
> disperse. It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
> be no need for (a).
Also, the HSCA had a forensic panel look at the evidence, and they
concluded the entrance was a good bit higher than the autopsy had
placed it.
muc...@gmail.com
I think the proper term is "commandments".
> > 2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
> > high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
> > shot, and (b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
> > disperse. It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
> > be no need for (a).
>
> Also, the HSCA had a forensic panel look at the evidence, and they
> concluded the entrance was a good bit higher than the autopsy had
> placed it.
Ben thinks the FPP lied. Ben also thinks HB&F lied. Ben is an expert
on lying.
aeffects
we know where you LN idiots stand on the evidence, you're terrified --
all your posturing goes to show the length you'll go to avoid evidence
and testimony, LMAO!
muc...@gmail.com
Why don't you make yourself useful and ask Ben to produce some?
eca...@tx.rr.com
these days? Lest you "forget" that's the
fake author you created complete with fake
dialog between you and him.
MR ;^D
eca...@tx.rr.com
Benny the dwarf sez that place you have been
urinating in the trailer finally rusted out..
He sez snakes, rats and weeds are creeping
thru your pee spot so you'll need to shinny
under the trailer tonight after you give Ben
his daily 10W-40 motor oil enema, and patch
that urine hole with some newspapers and duct
tape. And btw ROFLMAO, Ben sez yer shitting
too close to the trailer again.
MR ;^D
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
What one must understand and has been proven numerous times here is
that Holmes is a "grown up" Jesus. He asks questions he himself
cannot answer...and he knows this. This is typical of the CT
community. Ask questions...but, supply no answers. The point
being....to a CT EVERYTHING that cannot be answered MUST BE SINISTER.
This is how this ilk thinks. Holmes is on par with Jesus as a
pathological liar. Just read older links. He has no answers...only
questions. He's refused to debate the issues as has Jesus. They lie,
then they run. Then they reappear with more lies. Their old news.
Sam Brown
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189621235.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
LOL Mark. He's Bens mini-Me
>
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
>
>On 12 Sep., 16:15, Ben Holmes <ad...@scam-info.com> wrote:
>>LNT'ers like to avoid the evidence, so I'm starting a new series that they can
>> avoid, duck, run-away from...
>>
>> 1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
>> location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably
>> exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK's face
>> was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
>>
>> This is, of course, a rather critical question - the trajectory of the WCR
>> *REQUIRES* JFK to be leaning well forward... but we know that he was not.
>> The problem was recognized, of course, which lead to the four inch change
>> of entry point.
>>
>> But even the new entry point on JFK's head *STILL* would logically lead
>> to an exit out the forehead at a minimum. It seems that LNT'ers wish to
>> demand a 6th floor starting point - but simply refuse to see the
>> trajectory that such a shot would obviously create.
>
>A few things come to mind here:
>
>1) It might save some of us lurkers valuable time, if you were in the
>habit of citing or providing links to actual evidence.
I presume that people are honest enough to search through the evidence
themselves.
I'm always happy to lead someone to specific evidence that they cannot find
themselves - but to cite for every statement I make would be silly.
You can certainly locate CE-861 & CE-862 on the Internet yourself.
There are also any number of books that deal with the evidence in this case to
which you can refer.
> Not all of us
>have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
>look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are *NEVER*
interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support their
theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and why it
was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
>Likely side effects: a
>more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
No, actually, I've discovered that the more detailed I lay out the evidence, the
more citations I *INITIALLY* give, the more silent the LNT'ers are. It's only
when they think that I can't prove what I assert that I get responses.
>2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
>high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
>shot,
Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of JFK's
head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to figure
out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from the 6th
floor from a known distance.
But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of hypocrisy be
showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with Dale
Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
My crystal ball says your answer would be "no", if you deigned to provide one.
>(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
>disperse.
Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING in my post
above that even hints at such a discussion.
>It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
>be no need for (a).
A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is melting
at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to match what
the WCR claimed.
>3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
>to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
>received.
Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it. Nor
do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
pointedly remarked originally.
Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a person's
head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance - with
the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will invariably
exit through the forehead or face.
You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
>brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can figure
it out themselves.
>-Mark
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1189617945.843003.83...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
Did you read what I said above? It might save some of us lurkers
valuable time, if you were in the habit of citing or providing links
to actual evidence.
> > Not all of us
> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
>
> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are *NEVER*
> interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support their
> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and why it
> was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
Nice diversion attempt. This is about your failure to cite or provide
links to actual evidence.
> >Likely side effects: a
> >more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
>
> No, actually, I've discovered that the more detailed I lay out the evidence, the
> more citations I *INITIALLY* give, the more silent the LNT'ers are. It's only
> when they think that I can't prove what I assert that I get responses.
Show us how you really would have liked to present Question #1. Would
you have:
a) provided links to Olivier's testimomy and the relevant photographic
exhibits?
b) uploaded scans of the relevant pages from your copy of the
ballistics report?
c) asked us plainly and honestly what we thought the test(s) proved
and didn't prove?
> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
> >shot,
>
> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of JFK's
> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
It takes more than that.
> It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to figure
> out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from the 6th
> floor from a known distance.
It takes more than that.
> But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of hypocrisy be
> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with Dale
> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
Myers doesn't claim to be able to predict the behaviour of bullets
hitting human heads. That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
> My crystal ball says your answer would be "no", if you deigned to provide one.
Why don't you show us his trajectory analysis of the head shot?
> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
> >disperse.
>
> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING in my post
> above that even hints at such a discussion.
I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
assumptions about trajectories.
> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
> >be no need for (a).
>
> A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is melting
> at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to match what
> the WCR claimed.
What I said above was that testing was unneccesary, if arithmetic and
logic could have done the job. Do you disagree?
> >3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
> >to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
> >received.
>
> Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it. Nor
> do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
> pointedly remarked originally.
You're exaggerating, but it would also be foolish to expect a close
resemblance. How many skulls were used? How much can you tell us about
the test conditions? In the real world, it can be quite satisfactory
just to obtain a similar result under similar conditions.
> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a person's
> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance - with
> the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will invariably
> exit through the forehead or face.
I honesty don't know that.
> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
Ad hominem.
> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
Do you disagree?
> This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can figure
> it out themselves.
Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
to the size of the damage.
-Mark
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Yep... not only read it, but I responded to it.
>> > Not all of us
>> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
>> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
>>
>> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are *NEVER*
>> interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support their
>> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and why it
>> was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
>
>Nice diversion attempt. This is about your failure to cite or provide
>links to actual evidence.
Why bother to lie, Mark? You, as well as every other LNT'er and troll know my
record quite well... I'm *ALWAYS* capable of supplying a cite to the evidence.
You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
Lurkers aren't stupid, Mark.
>> >Likely side effects: a
>> >more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
>>
>>No, actually, I've discovered that the more detailed I lay out the evidence, the
>>more citations I *INITIALLY* give, the more silent the LNT'ers are. It's only
>> when they think that I can't prove what I assert that I get responses.
>
>Show us how you really would have liked to present Question #1. Would
>you have:
I presented it the way I wanted to.
>a) provided links to Olivier's testimomy and the relevant photographic
>exhibits?
>b) uploaded scans of the relevant pages from your copy of the
>ballistics report?
>c) asked us plainly and honestly what we thought the test(s) proved
>and didn't prove?
It's a complete waste of time to "ask" LNT'ers 'what they think' about the
evidence. They will lie almost every time.
Take you, for example... I didn't even ask your opinion, but you were willing to
assert that CE 861 & 862 "depict the same type of wound that JFK received."
Despite the historical FACT that no frontal bone, and NO PART OF JFK'S FACE WAS
INVOLVED in the 13cm wound that the prosectors described.
You were willing to lie to support your faith. So why would I ask a LNT'er to
lie?
>> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
>> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
>> >shot,
>>
>> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of JFK's
>> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
>
>It takes more than that.
No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU* would
be too sane to dispute that.
>>It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to figure
>>out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from the 6th
>> floor from a known distance.
>
>It takes more than that.
You'll be too gutless to actually show this.
>>But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of hypocrisy be
>> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with Dale
>> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
>
>Myers doesn't claim to be able to predict the behaviour of bullets
>hitting human heads.
Nor did I. Myers deals with the SAME TOPIC I DO... a simple trajectory.
That you're willing to lie about this speaks volumes.
That you're unwilling to admit that Myers is DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING AS I
JUST DID is amusing, nothing more...
>That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly misunderstands
the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
>>My crystal ball says your answer would be "no", if you deigned to provide one.
And my crystal ball was correct. Yet again...
>Why don't you show us his trajectory analysis of the head shot?
Tell everyone upon what data he relied upon that I did not, and you can
certainly cite or quote it.
>> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
>> >disperse.
>>
>> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING
>> in my post above that even hints at such a discussion.
>
>I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
>assumptions about trajectories.
I really didn't expect you to be able to support a lie.
>> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
>> >be no need for (a).
>>
>>A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is melting
>>at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to match what
>> the WCR claimed.
>
>What I said above was that testing was unneccesary,
And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show... that the
bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
And you're willing to lie about it.
>if arithmetic and
>logic could have done the job. Do you disagree?
>
>> >3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
>> >to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
>> >received.
>>
>>Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it. Nor
>> do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
>> pointedly remarked originally.
>
>You're exaggerating,
Not at all. I invite all lurkers to view the evidence for themselves.
>but it would also be foolish to expect a close
>resemblance. How many skulls were used? How much can you tell us about
>the test conditions? In the real world, it can be quite satisfactory
>just to obtain a similar result under similar conditions.
Average people instinctively know that if the back of their head is shot at by
someone in the 6th floor... by a bullet heavy enough and fast enough to exit,
that it will exit their face.
You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT SUPPORT
THEIR THEORY.
This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat skin, and
the bullets through cadaver wrists...
>> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a person's
>> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance - with
>>the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will invariably
>> exit through the forehead or face.
>
>I honesty don't know that.
You really expect people to believe that? You have the evidence, WHICH YOU WERE
ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH, despite your request for me to provide it, which
demonstrates EXACTLY THAT. To be a LNT'er, you must simply duck and run away
from any contrary evidence.
>> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>
>Ad hominem.
Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit through the
face.
>> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
>> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
>
>Do you disagree?
By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it really
doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all you're
going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
>>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can figure
>> it out themselves.
>
>Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
>to the size of the damage.
Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the post was
quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the bullet invariably
exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK's face was
virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?"
>-Mark
Do your best, Mark... when you do your best, and lurkers see that you can't
supply any answers, then the weakness of the WCR becomes more obvious...
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <1189687585.312464.222...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
And we should take your word for this? Wheres the proof Holmes?
Picture, document stating the injury? I wouldn't take your word for
anything, you've proven yourself to be a liar more then once. You and
Jesus deserve each other.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1189617945....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> muc...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >On 12 Sep., 16:15, Ben Holmes <ad...@scam-info.com> wrote:
> >>LNT'ers like to avoid the evidence, so I'm starting a new series that they can
> >> avoid, duck, run-away from...
> >>
> >> 1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry
> >> location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably
> >> exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK's face
> >> was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?
> >>
> >> This is, of course, a rather critical question - the trajectory of the WCR
> >> *REQUIRES* JFK to be leaning well forward... but we know that he was not.
> >> The problem was recognized, of course, which lead to the four inch change
> >> of entry point.
> >>
> >> But even the new entry point on JFK's head *STILL* would logically lead
> >> to an exit out the forehead at a minimum. It seems that LNT'ers wish to
> >> demand a 6th floor starting point - but simply refuse to see the
> >> trajectory that such a shot would obviously create.
> >
> >A few things come to mind here:
> >
> >1) It might save some of us lurkers valuable time, if you were in the
> >habit of citing or providing links to actual evidence.
>
> I presume that people are honest enough to search through the evidence
> themselves.
What does honesty have to do with performing tedious tasks?
> I'm always happy to lead someone to specific evidence that they cannot find
> themselves - but to cite for every statement I make would be silly.
As would researching everything you say in an attempt to untangle
the information you misrepresent.
> You can certainly locate CE-861 & CE-862 on the Internet yourself.
I think Mark`s point was that providing links to the evidence you
are working from might facilitate discussion.
> There are also any number of books that deal with the evidence in this case to
> which you can refer.
There are a number of crackpot conspiracy books making a number of
claims.
> > Not all of us
> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
>
>
> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to.
Only an idiot would devote large chunks of his life researching
something that can be figured out in minutes.
> LNT'ers are *NEVER*
> interested in the actual evidence
This is it in a nutshell. When Ben says "actual evidence", what he
really means is kook bastardization of the evidence.
> because it simply doesn't support their
> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions,
This, of course, is a lie.
>and why it
> was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
I blew through your 45 without a great deal of difficulty. A few I
needed to look into, but for the most part where the problems that
arose were in the questions themselves.
> >Likely side effects: a
> >more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
>
>
> No, actually, I've discovered that the more detailed I lay out the evidence, the
> more citations I *INITIALLY* give, the more silent the LNT'ers are. It's only
> when they think that I can't prove what I assert that I get responses.
Yet Ben was complaining about the non-reposone to this series of
45 questions, which is nearly link-free as I recall.
> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
> >shot,
>
>
> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of JFK's
> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
We know none of us were on the WC performing this reconstruction.
Is Ben saying the WC got all that data 100% correct? I hate Warren
Commishion defenders.
> It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to figure
> out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from the 6th
> floor from a known distance.
It does require thoses things, plus reliable data to work with. LN
and CT have been arguing these things for years, how much JFK`s head
was tilted, how far inboard Connally was, ect.
> But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of hypocrisy be
> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with Dale
> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
Theres a diference between trying to plot the trajectory of the
bullets and trying to replicate the wounds.
> My crystal ball says your answer would be "no", if you deigned to provide one.
>
>
> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
> >disperse.
>
>
> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING in my post
> above that even hints at such a discussion.
>
>
> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
> >be no need for (a).
>
>
> A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is melting
> at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to match what
> the WCR claimed.
>
>
> >3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
> >to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
> >received.
>
>
> Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it. Nor
> do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
> pointedly remarked originally.
>
> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a person's
> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance - with
> the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film -
What kind of an idiot would support his position with evidence he
believed was tampered with?
Also, how the position of JFK`s head might seem from Zapruder`s
vantage could be skewed by several factors.
>the bullet will invariably
> exit through the forehead or face.
>
> You *know* this,
How does Ben "know" this, has he checked the WC`s data on this test
to determine it was done fllawlessly, or is he content to believe they
got it right?
> yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>
>
> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
>
>
> This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can figure
> it out themselves.
Lurkers interested in information developed by an person without a
crackpot agenda honestly trying to make sense of the medical evidence
of JFK`s head wound can try here...
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/
> >-Mark
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1189687585.312464.222...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
To suggest that other people should be "honest" enough to dig up
whatever evidence it is that you vaguely refer to isn't a response.
It's a joke.
> >> > Not all of us
> >> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
> >> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
>
> >> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are *NEVER*
> >> interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support their
> >> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and why it
> >> was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
>
> >Nice diversion attempt. This is about your failure to cite or provide
> >links to actual evidence.
>
> Why bother to lie, Mark? You, as well as every other LNT'er and troll know my
> record quite well... I'm *ALWAYS* capable of supplying a cite to the evidence.
You admit that you have no excuse?
> You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
It seems you're the liar here. I was wondering why you weren't
providing evidence, not asking for insults. I did explicitly ask you
to produce Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot. Why
didn't you do that?
> Lurkers aren't stupid, Mark.
Great. Perhaps your imaginary friends understand you.
> >> >Likely side effects: a
> >> >more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
>
> >>No, actually, I've discovered that the more detailed I lay out the evidence, the
> >>more citations I *INITIALLY* give, the more silent the LNT'ers are. It's only
> >> when they think that I can't prove what I assert that I get responses.
>
> >Show us how you really would have liked to present Question #1. Would
> >you have:
>
> I presented it the way I wanted to.
>
> >a) provided links to Olivier's testimomy and the relevant photographic
> >exhibits?
> >b) uploaded scans of the relevant pages from your copy of the
> >ballistics report?
> >c) asked us plainly and honestly what we thought the test(s) proved
> >and didn't prove?
>
> It's a complete waste of time to "ask" LNT'ers 'what they think' about the
> evidence. They will lie almost every time.
So Bud was absolutely correct in his observation that you prefer
declarations to discussion?
> Take you, for example... I didn't even ask your opinion, but you were willing to
> assert that CE 861 & 862 "depict the same type of wound that JFK received."
Indeed.
> Despite the historical FACT that no frontal bone, and NO PART OF JFK'S FACE WAS
> INVOLVED in the 13cm wound that the prosectors described.
>
> You were willing to lie to support your faith. So why would I ask a LNT'er to
> lie?
It seems you're the one lying (again). It was the same type of wound,
only the damage to the test skull was greater. I suggested below that
brittleness and absence of scalp and dura were factors that should be
taken into consideration, in case you didn't notice.
> >> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
> >> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
> >> >shot,
>
> >> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of JFK's
> >> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
>
> >It takes more than that.
>
> No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
>
> I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU* would
> be too sane to dispute that.
Let me try a slightly different way to approach this. If someone gave
you two skulls, two bullets, a rifle, and all the time in the world,
do you think you would be able to produce two identical looking
wounds? And you wouldn't even have to deal with the uncertainties
associated with JFK's wounds.
> >>It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to figure
> >>out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from the 6th
> >> floor from a known distance.
>
> >It takes more than that.
>
> You'll be too gutless to actually show this.
Are you man enough to tell us how you would predict precisely how a
bullet deflects and breaks up when it hits someone's head?
> >>But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of hypocrisy be
> >> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with Dale
> >> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
>
> >Myers doesn't claim to be able to predict the behaviour of bullets
> >hitting human heads.
>
> Nor did I. Myers deals with the SAME TOPIC I DO... a simple trajectory.
>
> That you're willing to lie about this speaks volumes.
>
> That you're unwilling to admit that Myers is DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING AS I
> JUST DID is amusing, nothing more...
Not quite. Among other things, Myers is aware of the uncertainties.
> >That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
>
> Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly misunderstands
> the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
That you're difficult to understand doesn't have to mean that you're
intelligent.
> >>My crystal ball says your answer would be "no", if you deigned to provide one.
>
> And my crystal ball was correct. Yet again...
>
> >Why don't you show us his trajectory analysis of the head shot?
>
> Tell everyone upon what data he relied upon that I did not, and you can
> certainly cite or quote it.
Allow me to just quote from his website:
"In conclusion, a headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from the
available evidence, due to (a) the possibility that the bullet
fragmented, creating more than one exit wound, and (b) the likelihood
that the course of the bullet changed after striking the skull. A
hypothetical trajectory plotted from the Texas School Book Depository
sniper's nest window - a known firing source - to the entrance wound
on the back of the president's head shows a number of angles that
correspond favorably with damage to the interior of the limousine.
However, the theoretical nature of this trajectory prevents any firm
conclusion from being drawn from the computer recreation alone."
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm
> >> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
> >> >disperse.
>
> >> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING
> >> in my post above that even hints at such a discussion.
>
> >I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
> >assumptions about trajectories.
>
> I really didn't expect you to be able to support a lie.
Do you deny that you make strong assumptions about trajectories?
> >> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
> >> >be no need for (a).
>
> >>A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is melting
> >>at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to match what
> >> the WCR claimed.
>
> >What I said above was that testing was unneccesary,
>
> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show... that the
> bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
You really should allow me to finish a sentence, before you respond.
> And you're willing to lie about it.
>
> >if arithmetic and
> >logic could have done the job. Do you disagree?
>
> >> >3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
> >> >to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
> >> >received.
>
> >>Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it. Nor
> >> do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
> >> pointedly remarked originally.
>
> >You're exaggerating,
>
> Not at all. I invite all lurkers to view the evidence for themselves.
>
> >but it would also be foolish to expect a close
> >resemblance. How many skulls were used? How much can you tell us about
> >the test conditions? In the real world, it can be quite satisfactory
> >just to obtain a similar result under similar conditions.
>
> Average people instinctively know that if the back of their head is shot at by
> someone in the 6th floor... by a bullet heavy enough and fast enough to exit,
> that it will exit their face.
No one thinks you're average, Ben.
> You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT SUPPORT
> THEIR THEORY.
Not really.
> This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat skin, and
> the bullets through cadaver wrists...
Please try to focus.
> >> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a person's
> >> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance - with
> >>the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will invariably
> >> exit through the forehead or face.
>
> >I honesty don't know that.
>
> You really expect people to believe that? You have the evidence, WHICH YOU WERE
> ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH, despite your request for me to provide it, which
> demonstrates EXACTLY THAT. To be a LNT'er, you must simply duck and run away
> from any contrary evidence.
I still had to look it up again, thank you. And what am I ducking? I
have a copy of the ballistics report stored away somewhere, but don't
want to spend hours looking for it.
> >> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>
> >Ad hominem.
>
> Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit through the
> face.
"Exit through the face" is a bit misleading.
> >> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
> >> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
>
> >Do you disagree?
>
> By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it really
> doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
I would probably get arrested. There are other uncertainties as well.
> Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all you're
> going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
> KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
Do I seem to be complaining?
> >>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can figure
> >> it out themselves.
>
> >Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
> >to the size of the damage.
>
> Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the post was
> quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the bullet invariably
> exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK's face was
> virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet?"
No lying required. I actually believe that the bullet on impact may
have deflected to some degree, then started to break apart, and that
the larger fragments in any case exited through the upper right part
of the skull.
> >-Mark
>
> Do your best, Mark... when you do your best, and lurkers see that you can't
> supply any answers, then the weakness of the WCR becomes more obvious...
-Mark
muc...@gmail.com
> > much...@gmail.com says...
Ben? Bud is kindly providing you with yet another opportunity to show
off to your imaginary friends: the lurkers.
-Mark
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Sorry Mark... *YOU* are going to have to make your argument. If you want to cut
& paste from Bud, so be it. But I've no interest in answering trolls.
YOU will be forced to act the fool - not distance yourself by saying that
"someone else said it".
Now, do you plan to deal with my statements TO YOU in this thread? or are you
busy ducking and running?
eca...@tx.rr.com
you have no citations for.. Right Ben?
Ed
On Sep 12, 10:05 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@scam-info.com> wrote:
> In article <1189617945.843003.83...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
> >-Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1189717225.915453.196...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
I have dealt with just about all your statements in this thread. Pay
attention.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes is the master of the bait and switch game. He baits you with
his questions (that he himself can't answer) and then when you ask for
his proof he switches the game around and makes it look like you're
the one that has to supply the proof. This is how he gets out of
answering your questions because he can say your avoiding his question
and running.
Apparently Holmes feels he can ask questions and not supply the backup
of his questions, and that everything he says is the truth and we
should all believe his bullshit. If anyone is the running coward on
this newsgroup its Bennie the Dwarf and Gil Chico Jesus. They should
be brothers.
Bud
Ben has the full support of all those anonymous folks who never
post their support of him.
> >-Mark
>
> Sorry Mark... *YOU* are going to have to make your argument. If you want to cut
> & paste from Bud, so be it. But I've no interest in answering trolls.
And particularily have no interest in being trounced on the issues
you raise by one.
> YOU will be forced to act the fool - not distance yourself by saying that
> "someone else said it".
And now YOU have seen my comments, and cowardly refused to address
them. You can`t distance yourself by saying "I never saw them."
> Now, do you plan to deal with my statements TO YOU in this thread? or are you
> busy ducking and running?
He already has.
tomnln
the world.
RUN RUN RUN RUN
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1189722547....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
muc...@gmail.com
Or, as Bud put it, what does honesty have to do with performing
tedious tasks? Providing links to the evidence you are working from
might facilitate discussion.
> > >> > Not all of us
Hint: it's a bit like sowing a seed and figuring out how the tree will
turn out.
Ben, what you see below is a so-called hyperlink (often referred to as
simply a link).
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440b.htm
You asked for an explanation, and I provided one (above). It's amusing
to watch you duck and run, Ben.
-Mark
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Who cares?
You *already knew* what evidence would be presented, and you *ALREADY KNEW THAT
IT SUPPORTED MY POSITION*
This is why these 45 questions don't ever get answers from LNT'ers... there's
simply no evidence on their side.
>> >> > Not all of us
>> >> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
>> >> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
>>
>> >> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are *NEVER*
>> >> interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support their
>>>> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and why it
>> >> was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
>>
>> >Nice diversion attempt. This is about your failure to cite or provide
>> >links to actual evidence.
>>
>>Why bother to lie, Mark? You, as well as every other LNT'er and troll know my
>>record quite well... I'm *ALWAYS* capable of supplying a cite to the evidence.
>
>You admit that you have no excuse?
Why do I *need* an excuse? You've been ducking these evidential questions for a
long time now... what is *your* excuse?
>> You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
>
>It seems you're the liar here.
And yet, nothing I've said can you quote, and produce evidence or citations that
demonstrates such.
Anyone can look at the two exhibits, and see that the damage caused IN NO WAY
DUPLICATED JFK'S HEAD DAMAGE.
Yet you're willing to disagree, and assert that it's quite similar.
Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
JFK?
Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
CE 861 & 862?
Dare you answer these questions?
Probably not...
>I was wondering why you weren't
>providing evidence, not asking for insults. I did explicitly ask you
>to produce Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot. Why
>didn't you do that?
Why haven't you produced the equation for critical mass in U-235?
No doubt for the same reason - IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT.
Feel free to provide any evidence you want - but when you demand that I produce
YOUR evidence, don't hold your breath.
>> Lurkers aren't stupid, Mark.
>
>Great. Perhaps your imaginary friends understand you.
You surely aren't familiar with the Internet, are you?
>> >> >Likely side effects: a
>> >> >more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
>>
>>>>No, actually, I've discovered that the more detailed I lay out the evidence,
>>the
>>>>more citations I *INITIALLY* give, the more silent the LNT'ers are. It's only
>> >> when they think that I can't prove what I assert that I get responses.
>>
>> >Show us how you really would have liked to present Question #1. Would
>> >you have:
>>
>> I presented it the way I wanted to.
>>
>> >a) provided links to Olivier's testimomy and the relevant photographic
>> >exhibits?
>> >b) uploaded scans of the relevant pages from your copy of the
>> >ballistics report?
>> >c) asked us plainly and honestly what we thought the test(s) proved
>> >and didn't prove?
>>
>> It's a complete waste of time to "ask" LNT'ers 'what they think' about the
>> evidence. They will lie almost every time.
>
>So Bud was absolutely correct in his observation that you prefer
>declarations to discussion?
I have no problems with "discussions"... but LNT'ers aren't capable of it. For
example, you *STILL* refuse to admit that CE 861 & 862 don't represent the same
type of damage seen on JFK. You simply assert the contrary, despite what is
plainly visible.
>>Take you, for example... I didn't even ask your opinion, but you were willing to
>> assert that CE 861 & 862 "depict the same type of wound that JFK received."
>
>Indeed.
Yep... willing to lie blatantly to 'preserve the faith'
>>Despite the historical FACT that no frontal bone, and NO PART OF JFK'S FACE WAS
>> INVOLVED in the 13cm wound that the prosectors described.
>>
>>You were willing to lie to support your faith. So why would I ask a LNT'er to
>> lie?
>
>It seems you're the one lying (again).
Quote the "lie", and cite the evidence that proves it so.
>It was the same type of wound,
>only the damage to the test skull was greater.
LOL!!! Perhaps you don't realize how silly that sounded!
It was NOT the same type of wound. Not only the damage was greater - BUT IT WAS
IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
>I suggested below that
>brittleness and absence of scalp and dura were factors that should be
>taken into consideration, in case you didn't notice.
Certainly it can be taken into consideration. Such factors aren't going to
explain the VAST difference in location.
And this was the best that the WC could do to support their theory!!
>> >> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
>> >> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
>> >> >shot,
>>
>>>> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of JFK's
>> >> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
>>
>> >It takes more than that.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
>>
>> I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU*
>> would be too sane to dispute that.
>
>Let me try a slightly different way to approach this. If someone gave
>you two skulls, two bullets, a rifle, and all the time in the world,
>do you think you would be able to produce two identical looking
>wounds?
Identical, how silly! Even the bullets are not identical, let alone the skulls.
But similar? Absolutely! The laws of physics don't change... even for JFK.
>And you wouldn't even have to deal with the uncertainties
>associated with JFK's wounds.
What "uncertainties?" We know *exactly* where the bullet entered, we know
*exactly* where the large 13cm hole was located.
You just don't want to admit that you can't accept the Autopsy Report.
>>>>It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to figure
>>>>out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from the
>>6th
>> >> floor from a known distance.
>>
>> >It takes more than that.
>>
>> You'll be too gutless to actually show this.
>
>Are you man enough to tell us how you would predict precisely how a
>bullet deflects and breaks up when it hits someone's head?
You'll be too gutless to actually show this. Sadly, I was right again...
>>>>But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of hypocrisy be
>>>> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with Dale
>> >> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
>>
>> >Myers doesn't claim to be able to predict the behaviour of bullets
>> >hitting human heads.
>>
>> Nor did I. Myers deals with the SAME TOPIC I DO... a simple trajectory.
>>
>> That you're willing to lie about this speaks volumes.
>>
>>That you're unwilling to admit that Myers is DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING AS I
>> JUST DID is amusing, nothing more...
>
>Not quite. Among other things, Myers is aware of the uncertainties.
Oh? Quote him saying that the SBT trajectory is "uncertain".
He's doing *PRECISELY* the same thing I am - and you refuse to admit it...
>> >That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
>>
>>Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly misunderstands
>> the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
>
>That you're difficult to understand doesn't have to mean that you're
>intelligent.
You couldn't understand that simple sentence? Perhaps this explains why you're
a LNT'er... you simply have problems understanding.
>>>>My crystal ball says your answer would be "no", if you deigned to provide one.
>>
>> And my crystal ball was correct. Yet again...
>>
>> >Why don't you show us his trajectory analysis of the head shot?
>>
>> Tell everyone upon what data he relied upon that I did not, and you can
>> certainly cite or quote it.
>
>Allow me to just quote from his website:
>
>"In conclusion, a headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from the
>available evidence, due to (a) the possibility that the bullet
>fragmented, creating more than one exit wound, and (b) the likelihood
>that the course of the bullet changed after striking the skull. A
>hypothetical trajectory plotted from the Texas School Book Depository
>sniper's nest window - a known firing source - to the entrance wound
>on the back of the president's head shows a number of angles that
>correspond favorably with damage to the interior of the limousine.
>However, the theoretical nature of this trajectory prevents any firm
>conclusion from being drawn from the computer recreation alone."
>
>http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm
This is good spin to avoid the *fact* that recreations of this shot contradict
what the WCR presented as their theory of the case.
Sadly, Myers believes a trajectory cannot be plotted, and then turns right
around and does so on the alleged transit shot. Yet you fail to recognize any
hypocrisy in such a stance.
Willing to argue with me using the SAME DATA AND TYPE OF CONCLUSIONS as Myers
used.
>> >> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
>> >> >disperse.
>>
>> >> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING
>> >> in my post above that even hints at such a discussion.
>>
>> >I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
>> >assumptions about trajectories.
>>
>> I really didn't expect you to be able to support a lie.
>
>Do you deny that you make strong assumptions about trajectories?
What "assumption?" I cite CE 861 & 862, that's hard evidence. You can't get
around it, can you?
And yes, I *do* make assumptions about trajectories... I assume that the normal
laws of physics are in place, and haven't suddenly changed only for the JFK
assassination.
>> >> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
>> >> >be no need for (a).
>>
>>>>A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is
>>melting
>>>>at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to match
>>what
>> >> the WCR claimed.
>>
>> >What I said above was that testing was unneccesary,
>>
>> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show...
>> that the bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
>
>You really should allow me to finish a sentence, before you respond.
I responded to the portion that made it clear where my thoughts were going. How
silly of you to nitpick where I chop a sentence.
>> And you're willing to lie about it.
>>
>> >if arithmetic and
>> >logic could have done the job. Do you disagree?
>>
>> >> >3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
>> >> >to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
>> >> >received.
>>
>>>>Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it. Nor
>> >> do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
>> >> pointedly remarked originally.
>>
>> >You're exaggerating,
>>
>> Not at all. I invite all lurkers to view the evidence for themselves.
>>
>> >but it would also be foolish to expect a close
>> >resemblance. How many skulls were used? How much can you tell us about
>> >the test conditions? In the real world, it can be quite satisfactory
>> >just to obtain a similar result under similar conditions.
>>
>> Average people instinctively know that if the back of their head is shot
>> at by someone in the 6th floor... by a bullet heavy enough and fast enough
>> to exit, that it will exit their face.
>
>No one thinks you're average, Ben.
Ducked that one, didn't you?
>> You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT
>> SUPPORT THEIR THEORY.
>
>Not really.
Willing to lie, aren't you?
Any damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK?
Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 861?
Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 862?
Willing to answer?
Probably not.
>> This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat
>> skin, and the bullets through cadaver wrists...
>
>Please try to focus.
Merely providing other examples where you will undoubtably lie about what the
actual evidence shows. Evidence that the WC gathered that CONTRADICTS their
theory.
Bugs you when I mention the evidence, doesn't it?
>>>> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a person's
>>>> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance - with
>>>>the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will
>>invariably
>> >> exit through the forehead or face.
>>
>> >I honesty don't know that.
>>
>> You really expect people to believe that? You have the evidence, WHICH
>> YOU WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH, despite your request for me to provide it,
>> which demonstrates EXACTLY THAT. To be a LNT'er, you must simply duck and
>> run away from any contrary evidence.
>
>I still had to look it up again, thank you.
Good! Reviewing the evidence is a worthwhile project for anyone, CT'er or
LNT'er.
>And what am I ducking?
The facts. Tell us how the damage on CE 861 & 862 is "similar" to JFK's...
>I have a copy of the ballistics report stored away somewhere, but don't
>want to spend hours looking for it.
If you believe you can refute what I said, you'll have to, won't you?
>> >> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>>
>> >Ad hominem.
>>
>> Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit
>> through the face.
>
>"Exit through the face" is a bit misleading.
ROTFLMAO!!!
>> >> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
>> >> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
>>
>> >Do you disagree?
>>
>> By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it really
>> doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
>
>I would probably get arrested. There are other uncertainties as well.
Oh, don't pay any attention to what *I* say... just go around to 10 of your
friends, describe someone shooting a bolt action 6.5mm military rifle from the
6th floor, what was the distance? 88 yards maybe? And take your pick, EOP or 4
inches higher. Ask your friends where the bullet would exit.
>>Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all you're
>> going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
>> KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
>
>Do I seem to be complaining?
Yep... you have repeatedly gone over the fact that I did't provide citations for
you at the original post.
Most people would term that "complaining".
>>>>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can
>>figure
>> >> it out themselves.
>>
>> >Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
>> >to the size of the damage.
>>
>> Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the
>> post was quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the
>> bullet invariably exited the forehead or face of the target - can you
>> explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no
>> signs of an exiting bullet?"
>
>No lying required. I actually believe that the bullet on impact may
>have deflected to some degree, then started to break apart, and that
>the larger fragments in any case exited through the upper right part
>of the skull.
So you replace evidence with speculation. No problem with that - as long as
you're capable of ADMITTING that this is what you're doing.
The hard EVIDENCE contradicts your theory.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
*Still* complaining???
Better try explaining that to anyone who deals with ballistics... they might be
surprised to know that ballistics is more of an art than a science.
I currently run about a dozen websites, how many do you own?
Teaching me about hyperlinks is quite silly.
You haven't provided ANY explanation of why the hard evidence demonstrates that
the trajectory of a bullet striking the back of a head exits the front of the
head. In contradiction to JFK's situation.
That *is* what this post was about... I know you've forgotten that in the
minutia of providing citations, and Dale Myers... but it's still there.
>-Mark
>
aeffects
> In other words there are parts of your post
> you have no citations for.. Right Ben?
sitdown stump -- you have no idea how to cite JFK assassination
evidence.... go troll your pea brain out at alt.war.vietnam, show-off
your imaginary medals.....
aeffects
wrote:
ahh, hon....you getting all flumoxed? Just answer the the simple
questions, fool!
Bud
The lurkers. They don`t want homework assignments, they want to
see you support your position with hard facts, not by alluding to
references you claim support your position. They hate you Ben, some
even feel you might be retarded.
> You *already knew* what evidence would be presented, and you *ALREADY KNEW THAT
> IT SUPPORTED MY POSITION*
You haven`t supported the evidence you presented. Have you
established the WC performed this re-enactment completely in
accordance with the data and conditions of the actual event?
> This is why these 45 questions don't ever get answers from LNT'ers... there's
> simply no evidence on their side.
Not when you totally disregard the mountian of evidence on our
side, there isn`t.
> >> >> > Not all of us
> >> >> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
> >> >> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
> >>
> >> >> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are *NEVER*
> >> >> interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support their
> >>>> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and why it
> >> >> was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
> >>
> >> >Nice diversion attempt. This is about your failure to cite or provide
> >> >links to actual evidence.
> >>
> >>Why bother to lie, Mark? You, as well as every other LNT'er and troll know my
> >>record quite well... I'm *ALWAYS* capable of supplying a cite to the evidence.
> >
> >You admit that you have no excuse?
>
>
> Why do I *need* an excuse? You've been ducking these evidential questions for a
> long time now... what is *your* excuse?
Your "evidential questions" are largely just gussied up kook
claims. You can`t possibly use this evidence to rule out that this
shot came from the 6th floor of the TSBD. All you can do is just *say*
that it does, as if your claims are meaningful.
> >> You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
> >
> >It seems you're the liar here.
>
> And yet, nothing I've said can you quote, and produce evidence or citations that
> demonstrates such.
>
> Anyone can look at the two exhibits, and see that the damage caused IN NO WAY
> DUPLICATED JFK'S HEAD DAMAGE.
And he mentioned what could have contributd to the difference.
Twice.
> Yet you're willing to disagree, and assert that it's quite similar.
>
> Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
> JFK?
>
> Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
> CE 861 & 862?
Tell us Ben, are there differences between a human skull filled
with gelatin and a human head? And if there are differences, can you
tell us the possible impact those differences could have in ballistic
testing? And, could you address some of the lurker concerns that you
might be retarded?
> Dare you answer these questions?
>
> Probably not...
>
>
> >I was wondering why you weren't
> >providing evidence, not asking for insults. I did explicitly ask you
> >to produce Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot. Why
> >didn't you do that?
>
> Why haven't you produced the equation for critical mass in U-235?
>
> No doubt for the same reason - IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT.
>
> Feel free to provide any evidence you want - but when you demand that I produce
> YOUR evidence, don't hold your breath.
>
>
> >> Lurkers aren't stupid, Mark.
> >
> >Great. Perhaps your imaginary friends understand you.
>
>
> You surely aren't familiar with the Internet, are you?
Ben knows they are there, and he thinks he knows what they think.
He doesn`t know that many of the lurkers feel he is retarded.
> >> >> >Likely side effects: a
> >> >> >more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
> >>
> >>>>No, actually, I've discovered that the more detailed I lay out the evidence,
> >>the
> >>>>more citations I *INITIALLY* give, the more silent the LNT'ers are. It's only
> >> >> when they think that I can't prove what I assert that I get responses.
> >>
> >> >Show us how you really would have liked to present Question #1. Would
> >> >you have:
> >>
> >> I presented it the way I wanted to.
> >>
> >> >a) provided links to Olivier's testimomy and the relevant photographic
> >> >exhibits?
> >> >b) uploaded scans of the relevant pages from your copy of the
> >> >ballistics report?
> >> >c) asked us plainly and honestly what we thought the test(s) proved
> >> >and didn't prove?
> >>
> >> It's a complete waste of time to "ask" LNT'ers 'what they think' about the
> >> evidence. They will lie almost every time.
> >
> >So Bud was absolutely correct in his observation that you prefer
> >declarations to discussion?
>
>
> I have no problems with "discussions"...
Only those using common English words, he has trouble with those
types of discussions.
>? but LNT'ers aren't capable of it. For
> example, you *STILL* refuse to admit that CE 861 & 862 don't represent the same
> type of damage seen on JFK. You simply assert the contrary, despite what is
> plainly visible.
>
>
> >>Take you, for example... I didn't even ask your opinion, but you were willing to
> >> assert that CE 861 & 862 "depict the same type of wound that JFK received."
> >
> >Indeed.
>
>
> Yep... willing to lie blatantly to 'preserve the faith'
And Ben continues to believe his opinions are somehow meaningful.
Ben thinks the wounds are "vastly" different, now the only thing left
to do is determine his expertise in wound ballistics.
> >>Despite the historical FACT that no frontal bone, and NO PART OF JFK'S FACE WAS
> >> INVOLVED in the 13cm wound that the prosectors described.
> >>
> >>You were willing to lie to support your faith. So why would I ask a LNT'er to
> >> lie?
> >
> >It seems you're the one lying (again).
>
>
> Quote the "lie", and cite the evidence that proves it so.
Why? You`ll only deny it anyway.
> >It was the same type of wound,
> >only the damage to the test skull was greater.
>
>
> LOL!!! Perhaps you don't realize how silly that sounded!
Ben tinkled a little in his panties.
> It was NOT the same type of wound. Not only the damage was greater - BUT IT WAS
> IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
Where does Ben feel the bullet exited? He says it came out test
skull`s face, but I don`t see the exit destignated in the exhibit...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139680
It seems this test was performed to determine the effect of the
skull on the bullet, not an attempt to plot a trajectory. Heres the
exhibit of the recovered bullet fragments from the bullet that struck
the gelatin filled skull....
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1134&relPageId=877
> >I suggested below that
> >brittleness and absence of scalp and dura were factors that should be
> >taken into consideration, in case you didn't notice.
>
>
> Certainly it can be taken into consideration. Such factors aren't going to
> explain the VAST difference in location.
Apparently Ben thinks he is looking at a kneecap. The diference in
damage isn`t "vast", the x-rays show JFK`s skull was shattered, and
witnesses said many shards were contained only barely by attached
skin.
> And this was the best that the WC could do to support their theory!!
Show that the WC conducted this test to plot the trajectory of the
bullet.
> >> >> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
> >> >> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
> >> >> >shot,
> >>
> >>>> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of JFK's
> >> >> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
> >>
> >> >It takes more than that.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
> >>
> >> I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU*
> >> would be too sane to dispute that.
> >
> >Let me try a slightly different way to approach this. If someone gave
> >you two skulls, two bullets, a rifle, and all the time in the world,
> >do you think you would be able to produce two identical looking
> >wounds?
>
> Identical, how silly! Even the bullets are not identical, let alone the skulls.
>
> But similar? Absolutely! The laws of physics don't change... even for JFK.
Similarity being in the eye of the beholder. Quote the wound
ballistic expert expressing his opinion that CE861 and 862 are
inconsistant with Kennedy`s wounds. Kook claims were fine for the
first couple decades, but this act is stale.
> >And you wouldn't even have to deal with the uncertainties
> >associated with JFK's wounds.
>
>
> What "uncertainties?" We know *exactly* where the bullet entered, we know
> *exactly* where the large 13cm hole was located.
What 13cm hole?
> You just don't want to admit that you can't accept the Autopsy Report.
Neither did the forensic panel of the HSCA.
> >>>>It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to figure
> >>>>out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from the
> >>6th
> >> >> floor from a known distance.
> >>
> >> >It takes more than that.
> >>
> >> You'll be too gutless to actually show this.
> >
> >Are you man enough to tell us how you would predict precisely how a
> >bullet deflects and breaks up when it hits someone's head?
>
>
> You'll be too gutless to actually show this. Sadly, I was right again...
I provided the link to Seaton`s site. It has all the pertinent
available information about th JFK`s headwound.
> >>>>But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of hypocrisy be
> >>>> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with Dale
> >> >> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
> >>
> >> >Myers doesn't claim to be able to predict the behaviour of bullets
> >> >hitting human heads.
> >>
> >> Nor did I. Myers deals with the SAME TOPIC I DO... a simple trajectory.
> >>
> >> That you're willing to lie about this speaks volumes.
> >>
> >>That you're unwilling to admit that Myers is DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING AS I
> >> JUST DID is amusing, nothing more...
> >
> >Not quite. Among other things, Myers is aware of the uncertainties.
>
>
> Oh? Quote him saying that the SBT trajectory is "uncertain".
>
> He's doing *PRECISELY* the same thing I am - and you refuse to admit it...
He is doing something completely different, he is poltting
trajectories, not trying to provide wound ballistic models.
> >> >That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
> >>
> >>Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly misunderstands
> >> the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
> >
> >That you're difficult to understand doesn't have to mean that you're
> >intelligent.
>
>
> You couldn't understand that simple sentence?
You claim an understanding of the lurker`s intelligence level. What
do you base this on? Faith?
> Perhaps this explains why you're
> a LNT'er... you simply have problems understanding.
Understanding you isn`t that dificult, I`ve tried to provide Mark
with some insight I`ve gathered (as he continues to illuminate flaws
in your character I was previously unaware of).
> >>>>My crystal ball says your answer would be "no", if you deigned to provide one.
> >>
> >> And my crystal ball was correct. Yet again...
> >>
> >> >Why don't you show us his trajectory analysis of the head shot?
> >>
> >> Tell everyone upon what data he relied upon that I did not, and you can
> >> certainly cite or quote it.
> >
> >Allow me to just quote from his website:
> >
> >"In conclusion, a headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from the
> >available evidence, due to (a) the possibility that the bullet
> >fragmented, creating more than one exit wound, and (b) the likelihood
> >that the course of the bullet changed after striking the skull. A
> >hypothetical trajectory plotted from the Texas School Book Depository
> >sniper's nest window - a known firing source - to the entrance wound
> >on the back of the president's head shows a number of angles that
> >correspond favorably with damage to the interior of the limousine.
> >However, the theoretical nature of this trajectory prevents any firm
> >conclusion from being drawn from the computer recreation alone."
> >
> >http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm
>
>
> This is good spin to avoid the *fact* that recreations of this shot contradict
> what the WCR presented as their theory of the case.
Ben has yet to establish that the test the WC conducted was
designed to even address wound ballistics.
> Sadly, Myers believes a trajectory cannot be plotted, and then turns right
> around and does so on the alleged transit shot. Yet you fail to recognize any
> hypocrisy in such a stance.
Ben fails to recognize that Myers explained why the headshot was
unplottable, and that this explaination doesn`t apply to the bullet
that went through JFK`s body (for one thing, that bullets didn`t break
up).
> Willing to argue with me using the SAME DATA AND TYPE OF CONCLUSIONS as Myers
> used.
Vastly different data, and vastly different conclusions.
> >> >> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
> >> >> >disperse.
> >>
> >> >> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING
> >> >> in my post above that even hints at such a discussion.
> >>
> >> >I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
> >> >assumptions about trajectories.
> >>
> >> I really didn't expect you to be able to support a lie.
> >
> >Do you deny that you make strong assumptions about trajectories?
>
>
> What "assumption?" I cite CE 861 & 862, that's hard evidence.
Of what, exactly?
> You can't get
> around it, can you?
You won`t come clear on how this evidence supports your claims.
> And yes, I *do* make assumptions about trajectories... I assume that the normal
> laws of physics are in place, and haven't suddenly changed only for the JFK
> assassination.
But this doesn`t extend to the differences between the test the WC
conducted, and the actual event?
> >> >> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
> >> >> >be no need for (a).
> >>
> >>>>A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is
> >>melting
> >>>>at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to match
> >>what
> >> >> the WCR claimed.
> >>
> >> >What I said above was that testing was unneccesary,
> >>
> >> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show...
> >> that the bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
> >
> >You really should allow me to finish a sentence, before you respond.
>
>
> I responded to the portion that made it clear where my thoughts were going. How
> silly of you to nitpick where I chop a sentence.
You inserted before his point was made, and then neglected to
address his full point. How cowardly of you!
> >> And you're willing to lie about it.
> >>
> >> >if arithmetic and
> >> >logic could have done the job. Do you disagree?
> >>
> >> >> >3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
> >> >> >to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
> >> >> >received.
> >>
> >>>>Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it. Nor
> >> >> do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
> >> >> pointedly remarked originally.
> >>
> >> >You're exaggerating,
> >>
> >> Not at all. I invite all lurkers to view the evidence for themselves.
They can, now that I provided a link. But, exactly why are the
untrained opinions of the lurkers on wound ballistics meaningful? The
can view it, can they interpret what they are looking at?
> >> >but it would also be foolish to expect a close
> >> >resemblance. How many skulls were used? How much can you tell us about
> >> >the test conditions? In the real world, it can be quite satisfactory
> >> >just to obtain a similar result under similar conditions.
> >>
> >> Average people instinctively know that if the back of their head is shot
> >> at by someone in the 6th floor... by a bullet heavy enough and fast enough
> >> to exit, that it will exit their face.
> >
> >No one thinks you're average, Ben.
>
>
> Ducked that one, didn't you?
Ducked what? You cited the insitincts of unknown people. Who the
fuck cares what the "average person" thinks about technical matters
they haven`t a clue about?
> >> You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT
> >> SUPPORT THEIR THEORY.
> >
> >Not really.
>
>
> Willing to lie, aren't you?
>
> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK?
>
> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 861?
>
> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 862?
>
> Willing to answer?
>
> Probably not.
Have you established you are pointing out meaningful differences?
> >> This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat
> >> skin, and the bullets through cadaver wrists...
> >
> >Please try to focus.
>
>
> Merely providing other examples where you will undoubtably lie about what the
> actual evidence shows. Evidence that the WC gathered that CONTRADICTS their
> theory.
Produce the ballistic report on this test, and show how it supports
your claims.
> Bugs you when I mention the evidence, doesn't it?
So far, you`ve offered nothing in support of your claims (other
than lurkers, and the instincts of the average person). Put them cards
on the table, kook.
> >>>> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a person's
> >>>> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance - with
> >>>>the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will
> >>invariably
> >> >> exit through the forehead or face.
> >>
> >> >I honesty don't know that.
> >>
> >> You really expect people to believe that? You have the evidence, WHICH
> >> YOU WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH, despite your request for me to provide it,
> >> which demonstrates EXACTLY THAT. To be a LNT'er, you must simply duck and
> >> run away from any contrary evidence.
> >
> >I still had to look it up again, thank you.
>
>
> Good! Reviewing the evidence is a worthwhile project for anyone, CT'er or
> LNT'er.
It`s a tedious and unrewarding task, a totally wasted effort when
dealing with kooks. Or retards.
> >And what am I ducking?
>
>
> The facts. Tell us how the damage on CE 861 & 862 is "similar" to JFK's...
They both have portions of the skull blown away by the bullet.
> >I have a copy of the ballistics report stored away somewhere, but don't
> >want to spend hours looking for it.
>
>
> If you believe you can refute what I said, you'll have to, won't you?
If you thought that report contained information that supported
your position you`d link to it or quote from it, wouldn`t you?
> >> >> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
> >>
> >> >Ad hominem.
> >>
> >> Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit
> >> through the face.
> >
> >"Exit through the face" is a bit misleading.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
Tinkle time.
> >> >> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
> >> >> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
> >>
> >> >Do you disagree?
> >>
> >> By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it really
> >> doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
> >
> >I would probably get arrested. There are other uncertainties as well.
>
>
> Oh, don't pay any attention to what *I* say... just go around to 10 of your
> friends, describe someone shooting a bolt action 6.5mm military rifle from the
> 6th floor, what was the distance? 88 yards maybe? And take your pick, EOP or 4
> inches higher. Ask your friends where the bullet would exit.
Wouldn`t it be better to ask the opinion of experts?
> >>Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all you're
> >> going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
> >> KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
> >
> >Do I seem to be complaining?
>
>
> Yep... you have repeatedly gone over the fact that I did't provide citations for
> you at the original post.
>
> Most people would term that "complaining".
Those more familiar with the English language would call it a
"critique".
> >>>>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can
> >>figure
> >> >> it out themselves.
> >>
> >> >Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
> >> >to the size of the damage.
> >>
> >> Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the
> >> post was quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the
> >> bullet invariably exited the forehead or face of the target - can you
> >> explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no
> >> signs of an exiting bullet?"
> >
> >No lying required. I actually believe that the bullet on impact may
> >have deflected to some degree, then started to break apart, and that
> >the larger fragments in any case exited through the upper right part
> >of the skull.
>
>
> So you replace evidence with speculation. No problem with that - as long as
> you're capable of ADMITTING that this is what you're doing.
>
> The hard EVIDENCE contradicts your theory.
CE861 and CE862 don`t speak to the possiblity Mark was
considering.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1189716707.572361.168...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Good question. Do you actually want us to waste time on tedious tasks?
Don't you want us to know exactly what you're talking about?
> You *already knew* what evidence would be presented, and you *ALREADY KNEW THAT
> IT SUPPORTED MY POSITION*
Who cares what I know and when? This isn't about me.
> This is why these 45 questions don't ever get answers from LNT'ers... there's
> simply no evidence on their side.
Don't you ever get tired of repeating the party line over and over
again? Please try to focus.
> >> >> > Not all of us
> >> >> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
> >> >> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
>
> >> >> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are *NEVER*
> >> >> interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support their
> >>>> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and why it
> >> >> was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
>
> >> >Nice diversion attempt. This is about your failure to cite or provide
> >> >links to actual evidence.
>
> >>Why bother to lie, Mark? You, as well as every other LNT'er and troll know my
> >>record quite well... I'm *ALWAYS* capable of supplying a cite to the evidence.
>
> >You admit that you have no excuse?
>
> Why do I *need* an excuse? You've been ducking these evidential questions for a
> long time now... what is *your* excuse?
Billions have been "ducking" your questions. So what?
> >> You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
>
> >It seems you're the liar here.
>
> And yet, nothing I've said can you quote, and produce evidence or citations that
> demonstrates such.
Let's have a closer look at what you said.
Lie #1: "You asked..."
Offered sound advice is what I did. Wait. Didn't I specifically ask
you to post Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot?
Lie #2: "I provided..."
You didn't provide as much as a single citation or link.
Lie #3: "then you lied about it."
I clearly did not.
> Anyone can look at the two exhibits, and see that the damage caused IN NO WAY
> DUPLICATED JFK'S HEAD DAMAGE.
>
> Yet you're willing to disagree, and assert that it's quite similar.
Another lie. I haven't "asserted" that the damage was "quite similar".
> Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
> JFK?
Have you ever noticed the size of the defect in F8? As I'm sure you
know, the precise extent of the damage is a matter of contention among
experts, so my opinion doesn't matter much.
> Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
> CE 861 & 862?
>
> Dare you answer these questions?
>
> Probably not...
You're not honesty interested in my opinions.
> >I was wondering why you weren't
> >providing evidence, not asking for insults. I did explicitly ask you
> >to produce Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot. Why
> >didn't you do that?
>
> Why haven't you produced the equation for critical mass in U-235?
>
> No doubt for the same reason - IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT.
>
> Feel free to provide any evidence you want - but when you demand that I produce
> YOUR evidence, don't hold your breath.
Who brought Myers into this discussion? Hint: it wasn't me
> >> Lurkers aren't stupid, Mark.
>
> >Great. Perhaps your imaginary friends understand you.
>
> You surely aren't familiar with the Internet, are you?
Well, I can't see them. Can you?
> >> >> >Likely side effects: a
> >> >> >more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
>
> >>>>No, actually, I've discovered that the more detailed I lay out the evidence,
> >>the
> >>>>more citations I *INITIALLY* give, the more silent the LNT'ers are. It's only
> >> >> when they think that I can't prove what I assert that I get responses.
>
> >> >Show us how you really would have liked to present Question #1. Would
> >> >you have:
>
> >> I presented it the way I wanted to.
>
> >> >a) provided links to Olivier's testimomy and the relevant photographic
> >> >exhibits?
> >> >b) uploaded scans of the relevant pages from your copy of the
> >> >ballistics report?
> >> >c) asked us plainly and honestly what we thought the test(s) proved
> >> >and didn't prove?
>
> >> It's a complete waste of time to "ask" LNT'ers 'what they think' about the
> >> evidence. They will lie almost every time.
>
> >So Bud was absolutely correct in his observation that you prefer
> >declarations to discussion?
>
> I have no problems with "discussions"... but LNT'ers aren't capable of it. For
> example, you *STILL* refuse to admit that CE 861 & 862 don't represent the same
> type of damage seen on JFK. You simply assert the contrary, despite what is
> plainly visible.
Then why don't we discuss the *type* of damage you see in:
a) CE 861 and 862?
b) autopsy photo F8?
> >>Take you, for example... I didn't even ask your opinion, but you were willing to
> >> assert that CE 861 & 862 "depict the same type of wound that JFK received."
>
> >Indeed.
>
> Yep... willing to lie blatantly to 'preserve the faith'
What did you expect? A neat little hole?
> >>Despite the historical FACT that no frontal bone, and NO PART OF JFK'S FACE WAS
> >> INVOLVED in the 13cm wound that the prosectors described.
>
> >>You were willing to lie to support your faith. So why would I ask a LNT'er to
> >> lie?
>
> >It seems you're the one lying (again).
>
> Quote the "lie", and cite the evidence that proves it so.
Shows what a hypocrite you are. What would you accept as "proof" that
I wasn't "willing to lie to support my faith"? I called you a liar
because you made a groundless accusation.
> >It was the same type of wound,
> >only the damage to the test skull was greater.
>
> LOL!!! Perhaps you don't realize how silly that sounded!
>
> It was NOT the same type of wound. Not only the damage was greater - BUT IT WAS
> IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
Then why don't we discuss exactly where you see the damage in:
a) CE 861 and 862?
b) autopsy photo F8?
> >I suggested below that
> >brittleness and absence of scalp and dura were factors that should be
> >taken into consideration, in case you didn't notice.
>
> Certainly it can be taken into consideration. Such factors aren't going to
> explain the VAST difference in location.
Yes, those factors relate to the extent of the damage. Why don't you
pinpoint the locations for us?
> And this was the best that the WC could do to support their theory!!
>
> >> >> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
> >> >> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
> >> >> >shot,
>
> >>>> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of JFK's
> >> >> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
>
> >> >It takes more than that.
>
> >> No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
>
> >> I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU*
> >> would be too sane to dispute that.
>
> >Let me try a slightly different way to approach this. If someone gave
> >you two skulls, two bullets, a rifle, and all the time in the world,
> >do you think you would be able to produce two identical looking
> >wounds?
>
> Identical, how silly! Even the bullets are not identical, let alone the skulls.
>
> But similar? Absolutely! The laws of physics don't change... even for JFK.
Oh, I'd like to see you try...
> >And you wouldn't even have to deal with the uncertainties
> >associated with JFK's wounds.
>
> What "uncertainties?" We know *exactly* where the bullet entered, we know
> *exactly* where the large 13cm hole was located.
Exactly where do *you* think the bullet entered? Exactly where do
*you* think the fragments exited?
> You just don't want to admit that you can't accept the Autopsy Report.
Seems like you're trying to trick me into saying that I reject the
autopsy report :-)
> >>>>It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to figure
> >>>>out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from the
> >>6th
> >> >> floor from a known distance.
>
> >> >It takes more than that.
>
> >> You'll be too gutless to actually show this.
>
> >Are you man enough to tell us how you would predict precisely how a
> >bullet deflects and breaks up when it hits someone's head?
>
> You'll be too gutless to actually show this. Sadly, I was right again...
I knew you wasn't man enough to show us.
> >>>>But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of hypocrisy be
> >>>> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with Dale
> >> >> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
>
> >> >Myers doesn't claim to be able to predict the behaviour of bullets
> >> >hitting human heads.
>
> >> Nor did I. Myers deals with the SAME TOPIC I DO... a simple trajectory.
>
> >> That you're willing to lie about this speaks volumes.
>
> >>That you're unwilling to admit that Myers is DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING AS I
> >> JUST DID is amusing, nothing more...
>
> >Not quite. Among other things, Myers is aware of the uncertainties.
>
> Oh? Quote him saying that the SBT trajectory is "uncertain".
Trying to change the subject, aren't you?
> He's doing *PRECISELY* the same thing I am - and you refuse to admit it...
Because he isn't.
> >> >That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
>
> >>Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly misunderstands
> >> the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
>
> >That you're difficult to understand doesn't have to mean that you're
> >intelligent.
>
> You couldn't understand that simple sentence? Perhaps this explains why you're
> a LNT'er... you simply have problems understanding.
You're sentence didn't make much sense. Blame your English teacher.
> >>>>My crystal ball says your answer would be "no", if you deigned to provide one.
>
> >> And my crystal ball was correct. Yet again...
>
> >> >Why don't you show us his trajectory analysis of the head shot?
>
> >> Tell everyone upon what data he relied upon that I did not, and you can
> >> certainly cite or quote it.
>
> >Allow me to just quote from his website:
>
> >"In conclusion, a headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from the
> >available evidence, due to (a) the possibility that the bullet
> >fragmented, creating more than one exit wound, and (b) the likelihood
> >that the course of the bullet changed after striking the skull. A
> >hypothetical trajectory plotted from the Texas School Book Depository
> >sniper's nest window - a known firing source - to the entrance wound
> >on the back of the president's head shows a number of angles that
> >correspond favorably with damage to the interior of the limousine.
> >However, the theoretical nature of this trajectory prevents any firm
> >conclusion from being drawn from the computer recreation alone."
>
> >http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm
>
> This is good spin to avoid the *fact* that recreations of this shot contradict
> what the WCR presented as their theory of the case.
>
> Sadly, Myers believes a trajectory cannot be plotted, and then turns right
> around and does so on the alleged transit shot. Yet you fail to recognize any
> hypocrisy in such a stance.
>
> Willing to argue with me using the SAME DATA AND TYPE OF CONCLUSIONS as Myers
> used.
OK. Show me your data.
> >> >> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
> >> >> >disperse.
>
> >> >> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING
> >> >> in my post above that even hints at such a discussion.
>
> >> >I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
> >> >assumptions about trajectories.
>
> >> I really didn't expect you to be able to support a lie.
>
> >Do you deny that you make strong assumptions about trajectories?
>
> What "assumption?" I cite CE 861 & 862, that's hard evidence. You can't get
> around it, can you?
What can tell us about the trajectories of the fragments through the
skull?
> And yes, I *do* make assumptions about trajectories... I assume that the normal
> laws of physics are in place, and haven't suddenly changed only for the JFK
> assassination.
According to the law of physics, what happens when a projectile hits a
hard, multi-layered, somewhat curved surface at an angle?
> >> >> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
> >> >> >be no need for (a).
>
> >>>>A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is
> >>melting
> >>>>at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to match
> >>what
> >> >> the WCR claimed.
>
> >> >What I said above was that testing was unneccesary,
>
> >> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show...
> >> that the bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
>
> >You really should allow me to finish a sentence, before you respond.
>
> I responded to the portion that made it clear where my thoughts were going. How
> silly of you to nitpick where I chop a sentence.
I'm a nitpicker? Pot... kettle... black.
> >> And you're willing to lie about it.
>
> >> >if arithmetic and
> >> >logic could have done the job. Do you disagree?
>
> >> >> >3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
> >> >> >to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
> >> >> >received.
>
> >>>>Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it. Nor
> >> >> do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
> >> >> pointedly remarked originally.
>
> >> >You're exaggerating,
>
> >> Not at all. I invite all lurkers to view the evidence for themselves.
>
> >> >but it would also be foolish to expect a close
> >> >resemblance. How many skulls were used? How much can you tell us about
> >> >the test conditions? In the real world, it can be quite satisfactory
> >> >just to obtain a similar result under similar conditions.
>
> >> Average people instinctively know that if the back of their head is shot
> >> at by someone in the 6th floor... by a bullet heavy enough and fast enough
> >> to exit, that it will exit their face.
>
> >No one thinks you're average, Ben.
>
> Ducked that one, didn't you?
I "ducked" your "average people" fallacy?
> >> You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT
> >> SUPPORT THEIR THEORY.
>
> >Not really.
>
> Willing to lie, aren't you?
>
> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK?
>
> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 861?
>
> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 862?
>
> Willing to answer?
>
> Probably not.
Is there an echo? You can read my answers above.
> >> This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat
> >> skin, and the bullets through cadaver wrists...
>
> >Please try to focus.
>
> Merely providing other examples where you will undoubtably lie about what the
> actual evidence shows. Evidence that the WC gathered that CONTRADICTS their
> theory.
You're just spewing ad hominems and opinions. Grow up.
> Bugs you when I mention the evidence, doesn't it?
Always mention, never cite or provide links...
> >>>> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a person's
> >>>> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance - with
> >>>>the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will
> >>invariably
> >> >> exit through the forehead or face.
>
> >> >I honesty don't know that.
>
> >> You really expect people to believe that? You have the evidence, WHICH
> >> YOU WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH, despite your request for me to provide it,
> >> which demonstrates EXACTLY THAT. To be a LNT'er, you must simply duck and
> >> run away from any contrary evidence.
>
> >I still had to look it up again, thank you.
>
> Good! Reviewing the evidence is a worthwhile project for anyone, CT'er or
> LNT'er.
Oh, you missed the sarcasm?
> >And what am I ducking?
>
> The facts. Tell us how the damage on CE 861 & 862 is "similar" to JFK's...
>
> >I have a copy of the ballistics report stored away somewhere, but don't
> >want to spend hours looking for it.
>
> If you believe you can refute what I said, you'll have to, won't you?
I don't care that much. Very few people take your opinions seriously
anyway.
> >> >> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>
> >> >Ad hominem.
>
> >> Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit
> >> through the face.
>
> >"Exit through the face" is a bit misleading.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
Show us where all the exits were.
> >> >> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
> >> >> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
>
> >> >Do you disagree?
>
> >> By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it really
> >> doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
>
> >I would probably get arrested. There are other uncertainties as well.
>
> Oh, don't pay any attention to what *I* say... just go around to 10 of your
> friends, describe someone shooting a bolt action 6.5mm military rifle from the
> 6th floor, what was the distance? 88 yards maybe? And take your pick, EOP or 4
> inches higher. Ask your friends where the bullet would exit.
And what exactly would that prove?
> >>Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all you're
> >> going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
> >> KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
>
> >Do I seem to be complaining?
>
> Yep... you have repeatedly gone over the fact that I did't provide citations for
> you at the original post.
>
> Most people would term that "complaining".
No, you said that I complained about something else. Make up your
mind.
> >>>>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can
> >>figure
> >> >> it out themselves.
>
> >> >Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
> >> >to the size of the damage.
>
> >> Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the
> >> post was quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the
> >> bullet invariably exited the forehead or face of the target - can you
> >> explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no
> >> signs of an exiting bullet?"
>
> >No lying required. I actually believe that the bullet on impact may
> >have deflected to some degree, then started to break apart, and that
> >the larger fragments in any case exited through the upper right part
> >of the skull.
>
> So you replace evidence with speculation. No problem with that - as long as
> you're capable of ADMITTING that this is what you're doing.
You asked... I provided. Can you think of a better explanation?
> The hard EVIDENCE contradicts your theory.
Btw, what's *your* theory, Ben?
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Oh, I'm quite specific enough to draw a fair share of trolls...
Anyone who's willing to quote the evidence will...
>> You *already knew* what evidence would be presented, and you *ALREADY
>> KNEW THAT IT SUPPORTED MY POSITION*
>
>Who cares what I know and when? This isn't about me.
But demonstrating the character of those who support the WCR is valuable
information for lurkers...
When they see that LNT'ers invariably lie, even about simple things... and
CT'ers invariably tell the truth, cite, and provide quotations, lurkers will be
able to make their own judgement...
>> This is why these 45 questions don't ever get answers from LNT'ers...
>> there's simply no evidence on their side.
>
>Don't you ever get tired of repeating the party line over and over
>again? Please try to focus.
You're free to refute any statement I make.
>> >> >> > Not all of us
>> >> >> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
>> >> >> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
>>
>>>> >> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are *NEVER*
>>>> >> interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support their
>>>>>> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and why
>>it
>> >> >> was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
>>
>> >> >Nice diversion attempt. This is about your failure to cite or provide
>> >> >links to actual evidence.
>>
>>>>Why bother to lie, Mark? You, as well as every other LNT'er and troll know my
>>>>record quite well... I'm *ALWAYS* capable of supplying a cite to the evidence.
>>
>> >You admit that you have no excuse?
>>
>> Why do I *need* an excuse? You've been ducking these evidential questions
>> for a long time now... what is *your* excuse?
>
>Billions have been "ducking" your questions. So what?
Sadly, simply untrue.
>> >> You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
>>
>> >It seems you're the liar here.
>>
>> And yet, nothing I've said can you quote, and produce evidence or
>> citations that demonstrates such.
>
>Let's have a closer look at what you said.
>
>Lie #1: "You asked..."
>
>Offered sound advice is what I did. Wait. Didn't I specifically ask
>you to post Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot?
You asked for the citations that supported what I said. I supplied them
>Lie #2: "I provided..."
>
>You didn't provide as much as a single citation or link.
More knowledgeable forum members know exactly what CE 861 or CE 862 are, what
they mean, and can locate them easily.
>Lie #3: "then you lied about it."
>
>I clearly did not.
Oh, I'll let the lurkers make that decision...
Tell us... don't let me wait in suspense ... did you have the balls to answer
the questions *ABOUT* the exhibits?
For if you didn't, then you clearly couldn't even support your lie.
>> Anyone can look at the two exhibits, and see that the damage caused IN
>> NO WAY DUPLICATED JFK'S HEAD DAMAGE.
>>
>> Yet you're willing to disagree, and assert that it's quite similar.
>
>Another lie. I haven't "asserted" that the damage was "quite similar".
Feel free to use your own words. See if you can demonstrate that the meaning is
different.
>>Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
>> JFK?
>
>Have you ever noticed the size of the defect in F8? As I'm sure you
>know, the precise extent of the damage is a matter of contention among
>experts, so my opinion doesn't matter much.
Wow!!! What a fast duck!
You couldn't answer the question, could you???
Gutless, AND a liar!! LOL!
>>Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
>> CE 861 & 862?
>>
>> Dare you answer these questions?
>>
>> Probably not...
>
>You're not honesty interested in my opinions.
Of course not. I know that your a liar and can't be honest about the evidence.
Once again, you ducked a simple question.
For the uninformed - there was NO damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK's
head. The two exhibits, CE 861, 862 - show damage *WAY DOWN INTO THE FACE AREA*
>> >I was wondering why you weren't
>> >providing evidence, not asking for insults. I did explicitly ask you
>> >to produce Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot. Why
>> >didn't you do that?
>>
>> Why haven't you produced the equation for critical mass in U-235?
>>
>> No doubt for the same reason - IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT.
>>
>> Feel free to provide any evidence you want - but when you demand that I
>> produce YOUR evidence, don't hold your breath.
>
>Who brought Myers into this discussion? Hint: it wasn't me
Who's trying to make me give *THEIR* citations... hint, it isn't me.
Myers demonstrates that you're a hypocrite... nothing more.
>> >> Lurkers aren't stupid, Mark.
>>
>> >Great. Perhaps your imaginary friends understand you.
>>
>> You surely aren't familiar with the Internet, are you?
>
>Well, I can't see them. Can you?
Thankyou for demonstrating my point...
First you have to specify if JFK's damage was forward of the coronal suture.
Then you have to do the same with CE 861 & 862.
Quite simple, really - for anyone who's familiar with the evidence.
But as you've already done, you'll duck and run again...
>>>>Take you, for example... I didn't even ask your opinion, but you were willing
>>to
>>>> assert that CE 861 & 862 "depict the same type of wound that JFK received."
>>
>> >Indeed.
>>
>> Yep... willing to lie blatantly to 'preserve the faith'
>
>What did you expect? A neat little hole?
The truth.
>>>>Despite the historical FACT that no frontal bone, and NO PART OF JFK'S FACE
>>WAS
>> >> INVOLVED in the 13cm wound that the prosectors described.
>>
>>>>You were willing to lie to support your faith. So why would I ask a LNT'er to
>> >> lie?
>>
>> >It seems you're the one lying (again).
>>
>> Quote the "lie", and cite the evidence that proves it so.
>
>Shows what a hypocrite you are. What would you accept as "proof" that
>I wasn't "willing to lie to support my faith"? I called you a liar
>because you made a groundless accusation.
It's hardly groundless when you're willing to assert that CE 861 and 862, which
show a DRAMATICALLY different wound pattern than JFK, is similar to JFK's wound.
You *ARE* willing to lie to support your faith.
>> >It was the same type of wound,
>> >only the damage to the test skull was greater.
>>
>> LOL!!! Perhaps you don't realize how silly that sounded!
>>
>>It was NOT the same type of wound. Not only the damage was greater - BUT IT WAS
>> IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
>
>Then why don't we discuss exactly where you see the damage in:
>
>a) CE 861 and 862?
>b) autopsy photo F8?
Ditto, above.
>> >I suggested below that
>> >brittleness and absence of scalp and dura were factors that should be
>> >taken into consideration, in case you didn't notice.
>>
>> Certainly it can be taken into consideration. Such factors aren't going to
>> explain the VAST difference in location.
>
>Yes, those factors relate to the extent of the damage. Why don't you
>pinpoint the locations for us?
You may start with the term "coronal suture". Go from there...
>> And this was the best that the WC could do to support their theory!!
>>
>> >> >> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
>> >> >> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
>> >> >> >shot,
>>
>>>>>> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of
>>JFK's
>> >> >> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
>>
>> >> >It takes more than that.
>>
>> >> No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
>>
>> >> I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU*
>> >> would be too sane to dispute that.
>>
>> >Let me try a slightly different way to approach this. If someone gave
>> >you two skulls, two bullets, a rifle, and all the time in the world,
>> >do you think you would be able to produce two identical looking
>> >wounds?
>>
>>Identical, how silly! Even the bullets are not identical, let alone the skulls.
>>
>> But similar? Absolutely! The laws of physics don't change... even for JFK.
>
>Oh, I'd like to see you try...
What, change the laws of physics just for JFK?
It's the LNT'er camp that's attempted to do that.
Do "melons" ring a bell?
>> >And you wouldn't even have to deal with the uncertainties
>> >associated with JFK's wounds.
>>
>> What "uncertainties?" We know *exactly* where the bullet entered, we know
>> *exactly* where the large 13cm hole was located.
>
>Exactly where do *you* think the bullet entered? Exactly where do
>*you* think the fragments exited?
I *don't* think... I merely cite. Feel free to cite eyewitness testimony
describing either entry or exit. Please be sure to cite the earliest testimony
or statements given.
No speculation allowed...
Let's see how far you can get...
>> You just don't want to admit that you can't accept the Autopsy Report.
>
>Seems like you're trying to trick me into saying that I reject the
>autopsy report :-)
You can't accept them... but you're willing to lie and imply that you do.
>>>>>>It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to
>>figure
>>>>>>out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from the
>> >>6th
>> >> >> floor from a known distance.
>>
>> >> >It takes more than that.
>>
>> >> You'll be too gutless to actually show this.
>>
>> >Are you man enough to tell us how you would predict precisely how a
>> >bullet deflects and breaks up when it hits someone's head?
>>
>> You'll be too gutless to actually show this. Sadly, I was right again...
>
>I knew you wasn't man enough to show us.
:)
>>>>>>But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of hypocrisy
>>be
>>>>>> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with
>>Dale
>> >> >> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
>>
>> >> >Myers doesn't claim to be able to predict the behaviour of bullets
>> >> >hitting human heads.
>>
>> >> Nor did I. Myers deals with the SAME TOPIC I DO... a simple trajectory.
>>
>> >> That you're willing to lie about this speaks volumes.
>>
>>>>That you're unwilling to admit that Myers is DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING AS
>>I
>> >> JUST DID is amusing, nothing more...
>>
>> >Not quite. Among other things, Myers is aware of the uncertainties.
>>
>> Oh? Quote him saying that the SBT trajectory is "uncertain".
>
>Trying to change the subject, aren't you?
The subject is "trajectories" and the data set needed to demonstrate them.
>> He's doing *PRECISELY* the same thing I am - and you refuse to admit it...
>
>Because he isn't.
So you admit that the SBT "trajectory" is uncertain, right?
>> >> >That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
>>
>>>>Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly misunderstands
>> >> the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
>>
>> >That you're difficult to understand doesn't have to mean that you're
>> >intelligent.
>>
>>You couldn't understand that simple sentence? Perhaps this explains why you're
>> a LNT'er... you simply have problems understanding.
>
>You're sentence didn't make much sense. Blame your English teacher.
Hearing an estimate of my intelligence [stop] from someone who clearly
misunderstands the intelligence of lurkers [subordinate clause, if I remember
correctly] doesn't mean a whole lot... [Conclusion based on subordinate clause]
Not different at all from being indifferent to someone in an insane asylum who
presumes an opinion of me... good, bad, or indifferent.
It's in the WCR. It's also in CE 861, 862. Feel free to review.
>> >> >> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
>> >> >> >disperse.
>>
>> >> >> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING
>> >> >> in my post above that even hints at such a discussion.
>>
>> >> >I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
>> >> >assumptions about trajectories.
>>
>> >> I really didn't expect you to be able to support a lie.
>>
>> >Do you deny that you make strong assumptions about trajectories?
>>
>> What "assumption?" I cite CE 861 & 862, that's hard evidence. You can't
>> get around it, can you?
>
>What can tell us about the trajectories of the fragments through the
>skull?
That they don't match up with the proposed entry and exit locations given by the
Autopsy report, Clark Panel, or HSCA.
Of course, the topic is that the trajectory of the bullet doesn't match what we
know from CE 861, 862.
>>And yes, I *do* make assumptions about trajectories... I assume that the normal
>> laws of physics are in place, and haven't suddenly changed only for the JFK
>> assassination.
>
>According to the law of physics, what happens when a projectile hits a
>hard, multi-layered, somewhat curved surface at an angle?
Your question is deficit. Try thinking it through.
(Sad, the state of science education these days...)
Want to put it to a poll?
>> >> You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT
>> >> SUPPORT THEIR THEORY.
>>
>> >Not really.
>>
>> Willing to lie, aren't you?
>>
>> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK?
>>
>> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 861?
>>
>> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 862?
>>
>> Willing to answer?
>>
>> Probably not.
>
>Is there an echo? You can read my answers above.
No, you've *NOT* answered, you've run away and ducked.
It's simply amazing how often LNT'ers run away when there's a specific, citable
answer to a question that is based on the evidence.
>> >> This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat
>> >> skin, and the bullets through cadaver wrists...
>>
>> >Please try to focus.
>>
>> Merely providing other examples where you will undoubtably lie about what
>> the actual evidence shows. Evidence that the WC gathered that CONTRADICTS
>> their theory.
>
>You're just spewing ad hominems and opinions. Grow up.
Examples that you couldn't refute.
Go ahead and tell us, for example... can *YOU* tell the difference between entry
and exit on the goat skin test? (Hint: the traditional LNT'er answer is that
"no, you cannot")
>> Bugs you when I mention the evidence, doesn't it?
>
>Always mention, never cite or provide links...
Still complaining, aren't you?
>>>>>> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a
>>person's
>>>>>> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance -
>>with
>> >>>>the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will
>> >>invariably
>> >> >> exit through the forehead or face.
>>
>> >> >I honesty don't know that.
>>
>> >> You really expect people to believe that? You have the evidence, WHICH
>> >> YOU WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH, despite your request for me to provide it,
>> >> which demonstrates EXACTLY THAT. To be a LNT'er, you must simply duck and
>> >> run away from any contrary evidence.
>>
>> >I still had to look it up again, thank you.
>>
>> Good! Reviewing the evidence is a worthwhile project for anyone, CT'er or
>> LNT'er.
>
>Oh, you missed the sarcasm?
You surely didn't miss mine! :)
>> >And what am I ducking?
>>
>> The facts. Tell us how the damage on CE 861 & 862 is "similar" to JFK's...
>>
>> >I have a copy of the ballistics report stored away somewhere, but don't
>> >want to spend hours looking for it.
>>
>> If you believe you can refute what I said, you'll have to, won't you?
>
>I don't care that much. Very few people take your opinions seriously
>anyway.
Yet strangely enough, the trolls do.
>>>> >> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>>
>> >> >Ad hominem.
>>
>> >> Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit
>> >> through the face.
>>
>> >"Exit through the face" is a bit misleading.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
>Show us where all the exits were.
You can't even tell if there's any damage forward of the coronal suture - so I
can say anything I want, and you'd be unable to contradict me.
Of course, thoughtful people will immediately recognize what a hopeless position
you're in. It's downright silly not to be able to admit that there's damage
WELL PAST the coronal suture in CE 861, 862.
>> >> >> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
>> >> >> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
>>
>> >> >Do you disagree?
>>
>>>> By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it really
>> >> doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
>>
>> >I would probably get arrested. There are other uncertainties as well.
>>
>> Oh, don't pay any attention to what *I* say... just go around to 10 of your
>> friends, describe someone shooting a bolt action 6.5mm military rifle from
>> the 6th floor, what was the distance? 88 yards maybe? And take your pick,
>> EOP or 4 inches higher. Ask your friends where the bullet would exit.
>
>And what exactly would that prove?
Nothing at all... you already *KNOW* what such a poll would show.
>>>>Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all
>>you're
>> >> going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
>> >> KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
>>
>> >Do I seem to be complaining?
>>
>>Yep... you have repeatedly gone over the fact that I did't provide citations for
>> you at the original post.
>>
>> Most people would term that "complaining".
>
>No, you said that I complained about something else. Make up your
>mind.
Confused?
>> >>>>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can
>> >>figure
>> >> >> it out themselves.
>>
>> >> >Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
>> >> >to the size of the damage.
>>
>> >> Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the
>> >> post was quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the
>> >> bullet invariably exited the forehead or face of the target - can you
>> >> explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no
>> >> signs of an exiting bullet?"
>>
>> >No lying required. I actually believe that the bullet on impact may
>> >have deflected to some degree, then started to break apart, and that
>> >the larger fragments in any case exited through the upper right part
>> >of the skull.
>>
>> So you replace evidence with speculation. No problem with that - as long as
>> you're capable of ADMITTING that this is what you're doing.
>
>You asked... I provided. Can you think of a better explanation?
Of course I can. The evidence supports it. That's your sticking point, isn't
it?
>> The hard EVIDENCE contradicts your theory.
>
>Btw, what's *your* theory, Ben?
Tsk tsk tsk... the evidence, Mark... stick to the evidence. No speculation
needed when you follow the evidence.
muc...@gmail.com
Good point.
> > You *already knew* what evidence would be presented, and you *ALREADY KNEW THAT
> > IT SUPPORTED MY POSITION*
>
> You haven`t supported the evidence you presented. Have you
> established the WC performed this re-enactment completely in
> accordance with the data and conditions of the actual event?
Have you, Ben?
> > This is why these 45 questions don't ever get answers from LNT'ers... there's
> > simply no evidence on their side.
>
> Not when you totally disregard the mountian of evidence on our
> side, there isn`t.
Good point.
> > >> >> > Not all of us
> > >> >> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
> > >> >> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
>
> > >> >> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are *NEVER*
> > >> >> interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support their
> > >>>> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and why it
> > >> >> was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
>
> > >> >Nice diversion attempt. This is about your failure to cite or provide
> > >> >links to actual evidence.
>
> > >>Why bother to lie, Mark? You, as well as every other LNT'er and troll know my
> > >>record quite well... I'm *ALWAYS* capable of supplying a cite to the evidence.
>
> > >You admit that you have no excuse?
>
> > Why do I *need* an excuse? You've been ducking these evidential questions for a
> > long time now... what is *your* excuse?
>
> Your "evidential questions" are largely just gussied up kook
> claims. You can`t possibly use this evidence to rule out that this
> shot came from the 6th floor of the TSBD. All you can do is just *say*
> that it does, as if your claims are meaningful.
All gussied up in sequins and feathers.
> > >> You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
>
> > >It seems you're the liar here.
>
> > And yet, nothing I've said can you quote, and produce evidence or citations that
> > demonstrates such.
>
> > Anyone can look at the two exhibits, and see that the damage caused IN NO WAY
> > DUPLICATED JFK'S HEAD DAMAGE.
>
> And he mentioned what could have contributd to the difference.
> Twice.
At least.
> > Yet you're willing to disagree, and assert that it's quite similar.
>
> > Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
> > JFK?
>
> > Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
> > CE 861 & 862?
>
> Tell us Ben, are there differences between a human skull filled
> with gelatin and a human head? And if there are differences, can you
> tell us the possible impact those differences could have in ballistic
> testing? And, could you address some of the lurker concerns that you
> might be retarded?
Good questions.
> > Dare you answer these questions?
>
> > Probably not...
>
> > >I was wondering why you weren't
> > >providing evidence, not asking for insults. I did explicitly ask you
> > >to produce Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot. Why
> > >didn't you do that?
>
> > Why haven't you produced the equation for critical mass in U-235?
>
> > No doubt for the same reason - IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT.
>
> > Feel free to provide any evidence you want - but when you demand that I produce
> > YOUR evidence, don't hold your breath.
>
> > >> Lurkers aren't stupid, Mark.
>
> > >Great. Perhaps your imaginary friends understand you.
>
> > You surely aren't familiar with the Internet, are you?
>
> Ben knows they are there, and he thinks he knows what they think.
> He doesn`t know that many of the lurkers feel he is retarded.
Lurkers are very savvy.
> > >> >> >Likely side effects: a
> > >> >> >more focussed discussion and a higher response rate.
>
> > >>>>No, actually, I've discovered that the more detailed I lay out the evidence,
> > >>the
> > >>>>more citations I *INITIALLY* give, the more silent the LNT'ers are. It's only
> > >> >> when they think that I can't prove what I assert that I get responses.
>
> > >> >Show us how you really would have liked to present Question #1. Would
> > >> >you have:
>
> > >> I presented it the way I wanted to.
>
> > >> >a) provided links to Olivier's testimomy and the relevant photographic
> > >> >exhibits?
> > >> >b) uploaded scans of the relevant pages from your copy of the
> > >> >ballistics report?
> > >> >c) asked us plainly and honestly what we thought the test(s) proved
> > >> >and didn't prove?
>
> > >> It's a complete waste of time to "ask" LNT'ers 'what they think' about the
> > >> evidence. They will lie almost every time.
>
> > >So Bud was absolutely correct in his observation that you prefer
> > >declarations to discussion?
>
> > I have no problems with "discussions"...
>
> Only those using common English words, he has trouble with those
> types of discussions.
With "discussions" also.
> >? but LNT'ers aren't capable of it. For
> > example, you *STILL* refuse to admit that CE 861 & 862 don't represent the same
> > type of damage seen on JFK. You simply assert the contrary, despite what is
> > plainly visible.
>
> > >>Take you, for example... I didn't even ask your opinion, but you were willing to
> > >> assert that CE 861 & 862 "depict the same type of wound that JFK received."
>
> > >Indeed.
>
> > Yep... willing to lie blatantly to 'preserve the faith'
>
> And Ben continues to believe his opinions are somehow meaningful.
> Ben thinks the wounds are "vastly" different, now the only thing left
> to do is determine his expertise in wound ballistics.
Indeed.
> > >>Despite the historical FACT that no frontal bone, and NO PART OF JFK'S FACE WAS
> > >> INVOLVED in the 13cm wound that the prosectors described.
>
> > >>You were willing to lie to support your faith. So why would I ask a LNT'er to
> > >> lie?
>
> > >It seems you're the one lying (again).
>
> > Quote the "lie", and cite the evidence that proves it so.
>
> Why? You`ll only deny it anyway.
>
> > >It was the same type of wound,
> > >only the damage to the test skull was greater.
>
> > LOL!!! Perhaps you don't realize how silly that sounded!
>
> Ben tinkled a little in his panties.
>
> > It was NOT the same type of wound. Not only the damage was greater - BUT IT WAS
> > IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
>
> Where does Ben feel the bullet exited? He says it came out test
> skull`s face, but I don`t see the exit destignated in the exhibit...
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
>
> It seems this test was performed to determine the effect of the
> skull on the bullet, not an attempt to plot a trajectory. Heres the
> exhibit of the recovered bullet fragments from the bullet that struck
> the gelatin filled skull....
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=113...
All good points. The kind Ben will almost certainly duck and evade.
> > >I suggested below that
> > >brittleness and absence of scalp and dura were factors that should be
> > >taken into consideration, in case you didn't notice.
>
> > Certainly it can be taken into consideration. Such factors aren't going to
> > explain the VAST difference in location.
>
> Apparently Ben thinks he is looking at a kneecap. The diference in
> damage isn`t "vast", the x-rays show JFK`s skull was shattered, and
> witnesses said many shards were contained only barely by attached
> skin.
Not to mention F8.
> > And this was the best that the WC could do to support their theory!!
>
> Show that the WC conducted this test to plot the trajectory of the
> bullet.
I predict that Ben will be running for cover when he reads this.
> > >> >> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
> > >> >> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
> > >> >> >shot,
>
> > >>>> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of JFK's
> > >> >> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
>
> > >> >It takes more than that.
>
> > >> No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
>
> > >> I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU*
> > >> would be too sane to dispute that.
>
> > >Let me try a slightly different way to approach this. If someone gave
> > >you two skulls, two bullets, a rifle, and all the time in the world,
> > >do you think you would be able to produce two identical looking
> > >wounds?
>
> > Identical, how silly! Even the bullets are not identical, let alone the skulls.
>
> > But similar? Absolutely! The laws of physics don't change... even for JFK.
>
> Similarity being in the eye of the beholder. Quote the wound
> ballistic expert expressing his opinion that CE861 and 862 are
> inconsistant with Kennedy`s wounds. Kook claims were fine for the
> first couple decades, but this act is stale.
Show us your experts, Ben.
> > >And you wouldn't even have to deal with the uncertainties
> > >associated with JFK's wounds.
>
> > What "uncertainties?" We know *exactly* where the bullet entered, we know
> > *exactly* where the large 13cm hole was located.
>
> What 13cm hole?
>
> > You just don't want to admit that you can't accept the Autopsy Report.
>
> Neither did the forensic panel of the HSCA.
>
> > >>>>It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to figure
> > >>>>out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from the
> > >>6th
> > >> >> floor from a known distance.
>
> > >> >It takes more than that.
>
> > >> You'll be too gutless to actually show this.
>
> > >Are you man enough to tell us how you would predict precisely how a
> > >bullet deflects and breaks up when it hits someone's head?
>
> > You'll be too gutless to actually show this. Sadly, I was right again...
>
> I provided the link to Seaton`s site. It has all the pertinent
> available information about th JFK`s headwound.
Seaton is a bright fellow. Ben should try debating him.
> > >>>>But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of hypocrisy be
> > >>>> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with Dale
> > >> >> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
>
> > >> >Myers doesn't claim to be able to predict the behaviour of bullets
> > >> >hitting human heads.
>
> > >> Nor did I. Myers deals with the SAME TOPIC I DO... a simple trajectory.
>
> > >> That you're willing to lie about this speaks volumes.
>
> > >>That you're unwilling to admit that Myers is DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING AS I
> > >> JUST DID is amusing, nothing more...
>
> > >Not quite. Among other things, Myers is aware of the uncertainties.
>
> > Oh? Quote him saying that the SBT trajectory is "uncertain".
>
> > He's doing *PRECISELY* the same thing I am - and you refuse to admit it...
>
> He is doing something completely different, he is poltting
> trajectories, not trying to provide wound ballistic models.
Ben is trying to confuse the issue by bringing the SBT into the
discussion.
> > >> >That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
>
> > >>Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly misunderstands
> > >> the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
>
> > >That you're difficult to understand doesn't have to mean that you're
> > >intelligent.
>
> > You couldn't understand that simple sentence?
>
> You claim an understanding of the lurker`s intelligence level. What
> do you base this on? Faith?
Good question.
> > Perhaps this explains why you're
> > a LNT'er... you simply have problems understanding.
>
> Understanding you isn`t that dificult, I`ve tried to provide Mark
> with some insight I`ve gathered (as he continues to illuminate flaws
> in your character I was previously unaware of).
I still haven't figured out what Ben's ultimate goal is.
> > >>>>My crystal ball says your answer would be "no", if you deigned to provide one.
>
> > >> And my crystal ball was correct. Yet again...
>
> > >> >Why don't you show us his trajectory analysis of the head shot?
>
> > >> Tell everyone upon what data he relied upon that I did not, and you can
> > >> certainly cite or quote it.
>
> > >Allow me to just quote from his website:
>
> > >"In conclusion, a headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from the
> > >available evidence, due to (a) the possibility that the bullet
> > >fragmented, creating more than one exit wound, and (b) the likelihood
> > >that the course of the bullet changed after striking the skull. A
> > >hypothetical trajectory plotted from the Texas School Book Depository
> > >sniper's nest window - a known firing source - to the entrance wound
> > >on the back of the president's head shows a number of angles that
> > >correspond favorably with damage to the interior of the limousine.
> > >However, the theoretical nature of this trajectory prevents any firm
> > >conclusion from being drawn from the computer recreation alone."
>
> > >http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm
>
> > This is good spin to avoid the *fact* that recreations of this shot contradict
> > what the WCR presented as their theory of the case.
>
> Ben has yet to establish that the test the WC conducted was
> designed to even address wound ballistics.
Ben has only posted opinions and insults so far.
> > Sadly, Myers believes a trajectory cannot be plotted, and then turns right
> > around and does so on the alleged transit shot. Yet you fail to recognize any
> > hypocrisy in such a stance.
>
> Ben fails to recognize that Myers explained why the headshot was
> unplottable, and that this explaination doesn`t apply to the bullet
> that went through JFK`s body (for one thing, that bullets didn`t break
> up).
Indeed.
> > Willing to argue with me using the SAME DATA AND TYPE OF CONCLUSIONS as Myers
> > used.
>
> Vastly different data, and vastly different conclusions.
Ben doesn't seem to understand what "type of" means in relation to
wounds. He also seems unable to grasp what it means in relation to
conclusions.
> > >> >> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
> > >> >> >disperse.
>
> > >> >> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING
> > >> >> in my post above that even hints at such a discussion.
>
> > >> >I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
> > >> >assumptions about trajectories.
>
> > >> I really didn't expect you to be able to support a lie.
>
> > >Do you deny that you make strong assumptions about trajectories?
>
> > What "assumption?" I cite CE 861 & 862, that's hard evidence.
>
> Of what, exactly?
Good question.
> > You can't get
> > around it, can you?
>
> You won`t come clear on how this evidence supports your claims.
>
> > And yes, I *do* make assumptions about trajectories... I assume that the normal
> > laws of physics are in place, and haven't suddenly changed only for the JFK
> > assassination.
>
> But this doesn`t extend to the differences between the test the WC
> conducted, and the actual event?
Good point. Ben seems to have established to his own private
satisfaction that the differences were too small to matter.
> > >> >> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
> > >> >> >be no need for (a).
>
> > >>>>A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is
> > >>melting
> > >>>>at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to match
> > >>what
> > >> >> the WCR claimed.
>
> > >> >What I said above was that testing was unneccesary,
>
> > >> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show...
> > >> that the bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
>
> > >You really should allow me to finish a sentence, before you respond.
>
> > I responded to the portion that made it clear where my thoughts were going. How
> > silly of you to nitpick where I chop a sentence.
>
> You inserted before his point was made, and then neglected to
> address his full point. How cowardly of you!
...not to mention slightly hypocritical to call me a nitpicker.
> > >> And you're willing to lie about it.
>
> > >> >if arithmetic and
> > >> >logic could have done the job. Do you disagree?
>
> > >> >> >3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
> > >> >> >to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
> > >> >> >received.
>
> > >>>>Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it. Nor
> > >> >> do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
> > >> >> pointedly remarked originally.
>
> > >> >You're exaggerating,
>
> > >> Not at all. I invite all lurkers to view the evidence for themselves.
>
> They can, now that I provided a link. But, exactly why are the
> untrained opinions of the lurkers on wound ballistics meaningful? The
> can view it, can they interpret what they are looking at?
Good point. But without the links, we would only have Ben's untrained
opinions.
> > >> >but it would also be foolish to expect a close
> > >> >resemblance. How many skulls were used? How much can you tell us about
> > >> >the test conditions? In the real world, it can be quite satisfactory
> > >> >just to obtain a similar result under similar conditions.
>
> > >> Average people instinctively know that if the back of their head is shot
> > >> at by someone in the 6th floor... by a bullet heavy enough and fast enough
> > >> to exit, that it will exit their face.
>
> > >No one thinks you're average, Ben.
>
> > Ducked that one, didn't you?
>
> Ducked what? You cited the insitincts of unknown people. Who the
> fuck cares what the "average person" thinks about technical matters
> they haven`t a clue about?
Yeah.
> > >> You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT
> > >> SUPPORT THEIR THEORY.
>
> > >Not really.
>
> > Willing to lie, aren't you?
>
> > Any damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK?
>
> > Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 861?
>
> > Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 862?
>
> > Willing to answer?
>
> > Probably not.
>
> Have you established you are pointing out meaningful differences?
Good question.
> > >> This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat
> > >> skin, and the bullets through cadaver wrists...
>
> > >Please try to focus.
>
> > Merely providing other examples where you will undoubtably lie about what the
> > actual evidence shows. Evidence that the WC gathered that CONTRADICTS their
> > theory.
>
> Produce the ballistic report on this test, and show how it supports
> your claims.
Good suggestion.
> > Bugs you when I mention the evidence, doesn't it?
>
> So far, you`ve offered nothing in support of your claims (other
> than lurkers, and the instincts of the average person). Put them cards
> on the table, kook.
Lurkers suspect Ben has a shitty hand.
> > >>>> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a person's
> > >>>> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance - with
> > >>>>the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will
> > >>invariably
> > >> >> exit through the forehead or face.
>
> > >> >I honesty don't know that.
>
> > >> You really expect people to believe that? You have the evidence, WHICH
> > >> YOU WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH, despite your request for me to provide it,
> > >> which demonstrates EXACTLY THAT. To be a LNT'er, you must simply duck and
> > >> run away from any contrary evidence.
>
> > >I still had to look it up again, thank you.
>
> > Good! Reviewing the evidence is a worthwhile project for anyone, CT'er or
> > LNT'er.
>
> It`s a tedious and unrewarding task, a totally wasted effort when
> dealing with kooks. Or retards.
You said it, Bud.
> > >And what am I ducking?
>
> > The facts. Tell us how the damage on CE 861 & 862 is "similar" to JFK's...
>
> They both have portions of the skull blown away by the bullet.
Very good.
> > >I have a copy of the ballistics report stored away somewhere, but don't
> > >want to spend hours looking for it.
>
> > If you believe you can refute what I said, you'll have to, won't you?
>
> If you thought that report contained information that supported
> your position you`d link to it or quote from it, wouldn`t you?
Prediction: he won't.
> > >> >> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>
> > >> >Ad hominem.
>
> > >> Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit
> > >> through the face.
>
> > >"Exit through the face" is a bit misleading.
>
> > ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> Tinkle time.
>
> > >> >> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
> > >> >> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
>
> > >> >Do you disagree?
>
> > >> By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it really
> > >> doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
>
> > >I would probably get arrested. There are other uncertainties as well.
>
> > Oh, don't pay any attention to what *I* say... just go around to 10 of your
> > friends, describe someone shooting a bolt action 6.5mm military rifle from the
> > 6th floor, what was the distance? 88 yards maybe? And take your pick, EOP or 4
> > inches higher. Ask your friends where the bullet would exit.
>
> Wouldn`t it be better to ask the opinion of experts?
Another good point.
> > >>Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all you're
> > >> going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
> > >> KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
>
> > >Do I seem to be complaining?
>
> > Yep... you have repeatedly gone over the fact that I did't provide citations for
> > you at the original post.
>
> > Most people would term that "complaining".
>
> Those more familiar with the English language would call it a
> "critique".
Ben never misses an apportunity to mislead.
> > >>>>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can
> > >>figure
> > >> >> it out themselves.
>
> > >> >Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
> > >> >to the size of the damage.
>
> > >> Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the
> > >> post was quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the
> > >> bullet invariably exited the forehead or face of the target - can you
> > >> explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no
> > >> signs of an exiting bullet?"
>
> > >No lying required. I actually believe that the bullet on impact may
> > >have deflected to some degree, then started to break apart, and that
> > >the larger fragments in any case exited through the upper right part
> > >of the skull.
>
> > So you replace evidence with speculation. No problem with that - as long as
> > you're capable of ADMITTING that this is what you're doing.
>
> > The hard EVIDENCE contradicts your theory.
>
> CE861 and CE862 don`t speak to the possiblity Mark was
> considering.
Excellent post, Bud, thanks. I'm taking a slight break from this
discussion. Can't stomach Ben's blatant dishonesty for extended
periods of time.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
That's strange... While I have, from time to time, gotten an email from a lurker
who wasn't interested in posting, but was seeking clarification of something I'd
said, I've *never* gotten an email from someone who "hates me". Something
Freudian in that statement, no doubt.
>>> You *already knew* what evidence would be presented, and you *ALREADY KNEW
>>THAT
>> > IT SUPPORTED MY POSITION*
>>
>> You haven`t supported the evidence you presented. Have you
>> established the WC performed this re-enactment completely in
>> accordance with the data and conditions of the actual event?
>
>Have you, Ben?
Trying to destroy your own evidence? Feel free to do so.
>>> This is why these 45 questions don't ever get answers from LNT'ers... there's
>> > simply no evidence on their side.
>>
>> Not when you totally disregard the mountian of evidence on our
>> side, there isn`t.
>
>Good point.
These "good points" are nonsense, of course.
As demonstrated when Mark (and all the trolls of course) are forced to lie about
even the simpliest of them.
The evidence is what it is. The *fact* that LNT'ers can't accept the evidence
as is demonstrates the weakness of their argument.
My questions illustrate that fact.
>> > >> You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
>>
>> > >It seems you're the liar here.
>>
>>> And yet, nothing I've said can you quote, and produce evidence or citations
>>that
>> > demonstrates such.
>>
>>> Anyone can look at the two exhibits, and see that the damage caused IN NO WAY
>> > DUPLICATED JFK'S HEAD DAMAGE.
>>
>> And he mentioned what could have contributd to the difference.
>> Twice.
>
>At least.
Oh? Now you're admitting that there's a difference???
How *much* of a difference?
Can you say "coronal suture", Mark?
>> > Yet you're willing to disagree, and assert that it's quite similar.
>>
>>> Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found
>>in
>> > JFK?
>>
>>> Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found
>>in
>> > CE 861 & 862?
>>
>> Tell us Ben, are there differences between a human skull filled
>> with gelatin and a human head? And if there are differences, can you
>> tell us the possible impact those differences could have in ballistic
>> testing? And, could you address some of the lurker concerns that you
>> might be retarded?
>
>Good questions.
Nope... not at all. A *good* question is one that leads people to an
understanding of the facts.
Why not tell us what Olivier would have said....
>> > Dare you answer these questions?
>>
>> > Probably not...
>>
>> > >I was wondering why you weren't
>> > >providing evidence, not asking for insults. I did explicitly ask you
>> > >to produce Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot. Why
>> > >didn't you do that?
>>
>> > Why haven't you produced the equation for critical mass in U-235?
>>
>> > No doubt for the same reason - IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT.
>>
>>> Feel free to provide any evidence you want - but when you demand that I
>>produce
>> > YOUR evidence, don't hold your breath.
>>
>> > >> Lurkers aren't stupid, Mark.
>>
>> > >Great. Perhaps your imaginary friends understand you.
>>
>> > You surely aren't familiar with the Internet, are you?
>>
>> Ben knows they are there, and he thinks he knows what they think.
>> He doesn`t know that many of the lurkers feel he is retarded.
>
>Lurkers are very savvy.
You certainly don't act as if you know that...
Ad hominem...
>> >? but LNT'ers aren't capable of it. For
>>> example, you *STILL* refuse to admit that CE 861 & 862 don't represent the
>>same
>>> type of damage seen on JFK. You simply assert the contrary, despite what is
>> > plainly visible.
>>
>>> >>Take you, for example... I didn't even ask your opinion, but you were
>>willing to
>>> >> assert that CE 861 & 862 "depict the same type of wound that JFK received."
>>
>> > >Indeed.
>>
>> > Yep... willing to lie blatantly to 'preserve the faith'
>>
>> And Ben continues to believe his opinions are somehow meaningful.
>> Ben thinks the wounds are "vastly" different, now the only thing left
>> to do is determine his expertise in wound ballistics.
>
>Indeed.
Ad hominem...
Sadly, neither the troll nor Mark can say the word "coronal suture"...
>> > And this was the best that the WC could do to support their theory!!
>>
>> Show that the WC conducted this test to plot the trajectory of the
>> bullet.
>
>I predict that Ben will be running for cover when he reads this.
Read Olivier's testimony.
I see you *are* trying to excuse your own evidence...
>>> >> >> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
>> > >> >> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
>> > >> >> >shot,
>>
>>> >>>> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of
>>JFK's
>> > >> >> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
>>
>> > >> >It takes more than that.
>>
>> > >> No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
>>
>> > >> I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU*
>> > >> would be too sane to dispute that.
>>
>> > >Let me try a slightly different way to approach this. If someone gave
>> > >you two skulls, two bullets, a rifle, and all the time in the world,
>> > >do you think you would be able to produce two identical looking
>> > >wounds?
>>
>>> Identical, how silly! Even the bullets are not identical, let alone the
>>skulls.
>>
>>> But similar? Absolutely! The laws of physics don't change... even for JFK.
>>
>> Similarity being in the eye of the beholder. Quote the wound
>> ballistic expert expressing his opinion that CE861 and 862 are
>> inconsistant with Kennedy`s wounds. Kook claims were fine for the
>> first couple decades, but this act is stale.
>
>Show us your experts, Ben.
"Coronal Suture".... say it with me...
You can also review Donahue. Unlike Olivier, who was a Veterinarian by
training, Donahue is an actual ballistics expert.
>> > >And you wouldn't even have to deal with the uncertainties
>> > >associated with JFK's wounds.
>>
>> > What "uncertainties?" We know *exactly* where the bullet entered, we know
>> > *exactly* where the large 13cm hole was located.
>>
>> What 13cm hole?
>>
>> > You just don't want to admit that you can't accept the Autopsy Report.
>>
>> Neither did the forensic panel of the HSCA.
>>
>>> >>>>It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to
>>figure
>>> >>>>out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from
>>the
>> > >>6th
>> > >> >> floor from a known distance.
>>
>> > >> >It takes more than that.
>>
>> > >> You'll be too gutless to actually show this.
>>
>> > >Are you man enough to tell us how you would predict precisely how a
>> > >bullet deflects and breaks up when it hits someone's head?
>>
>> > You'll be too gutless to actually show this. Sadly, I was right again...
>>
>> I provided the link to Seaton`s site. It has all the pertinent
>> available information about th JFK`s headwound.
>
>Seaton is a bright fellow. Ben should try debating him.
I'll debate *ANYONE* who shows up on this forum. Send in your white knight.
>>> >>>>But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of
>>hypocrisy be
>>> >>>> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with
>>Dale
>> > >> >> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
>>
>> > >> >Myers doesn't claim to be able to predict the behaviour of bullets
>> > >> >hitting human heads.
>>
>> > >> Nor did I. Myers deals with the SAME TOPIC I DO... a simple trajectory.
>>
>> > >> That you're willing to lie about this speaks volumes.
>>
>>> >>That you're unwilling to admit that Myers is DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING
>>AS I
>> > >> JUST DID is amusing, nothing more...
>>
>> > >Not quite. Among other things, Myers is aware of the uncertainties.
>>
>> > Oh? Quote him saying that the SBT trajectory is "uncertain".
>>
>> > He's doing *PRECISELY* the same thing I am - and you refuse to admit it...
>>
>> He is doing something completely different, he is poltting
>> trajectories, not trying to provide wound ballistic models.
>
>Ben is trying to confuse the issue by bringing the SBT into the
>discussion.
The SBT *IS* trajectory. Without the correct trajectory, you don't have a SBT.
Myers dealt with trajectories. Mark has proven his hypocrisy.
>> > >> >That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
>>
>>> >>Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly
>>misunderstands
>> > >> the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
>>
>> > >That you're difficult to understand doesn't have to mean that you're
>> > >intelligent.
>>
>> > You couldn't understand that simple sentence?
>>
>> You claim an understanding of the lurker`s intelligence level. What
>> do you base this on? Faith?
>
>Good question.
Emails I've received over the years.
The fact that most of American accepts the historical truth that there was a
conspiracy in the death of JFK.
>> > Perhaps this explains why you're
>> > a LNT'er... you simply have problems understanding.
>>
>> Understanding you isn`t that dificult, I`ve tried to provide Mark
>> with some insight I`ve gathered (as he continues to illuminate flaws
>> in your character I was previously unaware of).
>
>I still haven't figured out what Ben's ultimate goal is.
Simple... to provide the evidence that the WCR did not.
>>> >>>>My crystal ball says your answer would be "no", if you deigned to provide
>>one.
>>
>> > >> And my crystal ball was correct. Yet again...
>>
>> > >> >Why don't you show us his trajectory analysis of the head shot?
>>
>> > >> Tell everyone upon what data he relied upon that I did not, and you can
>> > >> certainly cite or quote it.
>>
>> > >Allow me to just quote from his website:
>>
>> > >"In conclusion, a headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from the
>> > >available evidence, due to (a) the possibility that the bullet
>> > >fragmented, creating more than one exit wound, and (b) the likelihood
>> > >that the course of the bullet changed after striking the skull. A
>> > >hypothetical trajectory plotted from the Texas School Book Depository
>> > >sniper's nest window - a known firing source - to the entrance wound
>> > >on the back of the president's head shows a number of angles that
>> > >correspond favorably with damage to the interior of the limousine.
>> > >However, the theoretical nature of this trajectory prevents any firm
>> > >conclusion from being drawn from the computer recreation alone."
>>
>> > >http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm
>>
>>> This is good spin to avoid the *fact* that recreations of this shot contradict
>> > what the WCR presented as their theory of the case.
>>
>> Ben has yet to establish that the test the WC conducted was
>> designed to even address wound ballistics.
>
>Ben has only posted opinions and insults so far.
The truth hurt?
My post still stands, unanswered.
>> > Sadly, Myers believes a trajectory cannot be plotted, and then turns right
>>> around and does so on the alleged transit shot. Yet you fail to recognize any
>> > hypocrisy in such a stance.
>>
>> Ben fails to recognize that Myers explained why the headshot was
>> unplottable, and that this explaination doesn`t apply to the bullet
>> that went through JFK`s body (for one thing, that bullets didn`t break
>> up).
>
>Indeed.
Yep... the laws of physics simply changed that day in Dallas.
>>> Willing to argue with me using the SAME DATA AND TYPE OF CONCLUSIONS as Myers
>> > used.
>>
>> Vastly different data, and vastly different conclusions.
>
>Ben doesn't seem to understand what "type of" means in relation to
>wounds. He also seems unable to grasp what it means in relation to
>conclusions.
You can't even bring yourself to *say* "coronal suture", can you?
>> > >> >> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
>> > >> >> >disperse.
>>
>> > >> >> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING
>> > >> >> in my post above that even hints at such a discussion.
>>
>> > >> >I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
>> > >> >assumptions about trajectories.
>>
>> > >> I really didn't expect you to be able to support a lie.
>>
>> > >Do you deny that you make strong assumptions about trajectories?
>>
>> > What "assumption?" I cite CE 861 & 862, that's hard evidence.
>>
>> Of what, exactly?
>
>Good question.
Sad to say that if evidence supports the WCR, it's rock solid, but if the WC
*SAID* that it supports it, yet actually doesn't, Mark and the trolls want to
run away.
But you're stuck, the WC took evidence, AND DID NOT DISPUTE IT, that CE 861, 862
was similar to JFK's wounds.
>> > You can't get
>> > around it, can you?
>>
>> You won`t come clear on how this evidence supports your claims.
>>
>>> And yes, I *do* make assumptions about trajectories... I assume that the
>>normal
>> > laws of physics are in place, and haven't suddenly changed only for the JFK
>> > assassination.
>>
>> But this doesn`t extend to the differences between the test the WC
>> conducted, and the actual event?
>
>Good point. Ben seems to have established to his own private
>satisfaction that the differences were too small to matter.
Differences?
I'm not the one confused about the coronal suture...
>> > >> >> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
>> > >> >> >be no need for (a).
>>
>> > >>>>A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is
>> > >>melting
>>> >>>>at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to
>>match
>> > >>what
>> > >> >> the WCR claimed.
>>
>> > >> >What I said above was that testing was unneccesary,
>>
>> > >> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show...
>> > >> that the bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
>>
>> > >You really should allow me to finish a sentence, before you respond.
>>
>>> I responded to the portion that made it clear where my thoughts were going.
>>How
>> > silly of you to nitpick where I chop a sentence.
>>
>> You inserted before his point was made, and then neglected to
>> address his full point. How cowardly of you!
>
>...not to mention slightly hypocritical to call me a nitpicker.
Nitpicked, didn't you?
Still *COMPLETELY* unanswered is this: And yet, testing demonstrated what
"arithmetic and logic" also show... that the bullet should have exited JFK's
forehead or face.
>> > >> And you're willing to lie about it.
>>
>> > >> >if arithmetic and
>> > >> >logic could have done the job. Do you disagree?
>>
>>> >> >> >3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
>> > >> >> >to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
>> > >> >> >received.
>>
>>> >>>>Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it.
>>Nor
>>> >> >> do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
>> > >> >> pointedly remarked originally.
>>
>> > >> >You're exaggerating,
>>
>> > >> Not at all. I invite all lurkers to view the evidence for themselves.
>>
>> They can, now that I provided a link. But, exactly why are the
>> untrained opinions of the lurkers on wound ballistics meaningful? The
>> can view it, can they interpret what they are looking at?
>
>Good point. But without the links, we would only have Ben's untrained
>opinions.
"Coronal Suture"... go ahead, you can say it.
>> > >> >but it would also be foolish to expect a close
>> > >> >resemblance. How many skulls were used? How much can you tell us about
>> > >> >the test conditions? In the real world, it can be quite satisfactory
>> > >> >just to obtain a similar result under similar conditions.
>>
>> > >> Average people instinctively know that if the back of their head is shot
>>> >> at by someone in the 6th floor... by a bullet heavy enough and fast enough
>> > >> to exit, that it will exit their face.
>>
>> > >No one thinks you're average, Ben.
>>
>> > Ducked that one, didn't you?
>>
>> Ducked what? You cited the insitincts of unknown people. Who the
>> fuck cares what the "average person" thinks about technical matters
>> they haven`t a clue about?
>
>Yeah.
Simply another way to admit that "common sense & logic" (as one troll puts it),
isn't in your court.
>> > >> You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT
>> > >> SUPPORT THEIR THEORY.
>>
>> > >Not really.
>>
>> > Willing to lie, aren't you?
>>
>> > Any damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK?
>>
>> > Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 861?
>>
>> > Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 862?
>>
>> > Willing to answer?
>>
>> > Probably not.
>>
>> Have you established you are pointing out meaningful differences?
>
>Good question.
When trolls and liars can't even *admit* that there is a difference, why discuss
whether its "meaningful" or not?
Come on, you can say it... "Coronal Suture"...
>> > >> This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat
>> > >> skin, and the bullets through cadaver wrists...
>>
>> > >Please try to focus.
>>
>>> Merely providing other examples where you will undoubtably lie about what the
>>> actual evidence shows. Evidence that the WC gathered that CONTRADICTS their
>> > theory.
>>
>> Produce the ballistic report on this test, and show how it supports
>> your claims.
>
>Good suggestion.
CE 861, CE 862.
>> > Bugs you when I mention the evidence, doesn't it?
>>
>> So far, you`ve offered nothing in support of your claims (other
>> than lurkers, and the instincts of the average person). Put them cards
>> on the table, kook.
>
>Lurkers suspect Ben has a shitty hand.
CE 861, CE 862
>>> >>>> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a
>>person's
>>> >>>> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance -
>>with
>> > >>>>the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will
>> > >>invariably
>> > >> >> exit through the forehead or face.
>>
>> > >> >I honesty don't know that.
>>
>> > >> You really expect people to believe that? You have the evidence, WHICH
>>> >> YOU WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH, despite your request for me to provide it,
>>> >> which demonstrates EXACTLY THAT. To be a LNT'er, you must simply duck and
>> > >> run away from any contrary evidence.
>>
>> > >I still had to look it up again, thank you.
>>
>> > Good! Reviewing the evidence is a worthwhile project for anyone, CT'er or
>> > LNT'er.
>>
>> It`s a tedious and unrewarding task, a totally wasted effort when
>> dealing with kooks. Or retards.
>
>You said it, Bud.
I suspect that both of you are talking to yourselves. You certainly aren't
addressing the evidence.
>> > >And what am I ducking?
>>
>> > The facts. Tell us how the damage on CE 861 & 862 is "similar" to JFK's...
>>
>> They both have portions of the skull blown away by the bullet.
>
>Very good.
Which portion?
Tell us, can you say "coronal suture?"
>> > >I have a copy of the ballistics report stored away somewhere, but don't
>> > >want to spend hours looking for it.
>>
>> > If you believe you can refute what I said, you'll have to, won't you?
>>
>> If you thought that report contained information that supported
>> your position you`d link to it or quote from it, wouldn`t you?
>
>Prediction: he won't.
I'm sure it *does* have information that supports my position. My position is
BASED on the evidence.
Here... let me cite for you: 26 Volmes.
There you go. Feel free to look up my citation.
>>> >> >> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>>
>> > >> >Ad hominem.
>>
>> > >> Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit
>> > >> through the face.
>>
>> > >"Exit through the face" is a bit misleading.
>>
>> > ROTFLMAO!!!
>>
>> Tinkle time.
>>
>> > >> >> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
>> > >> >> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
>>
>> > >> >Do you disagree?
>>
>>> >> By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it
>>really
>> > >> doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
>>
>> > >I would probably get arrested. There are other uncertainties as well.
>>
>> > Oh, don't pay any attention to what *I* say... just go around to 10 of your
>>> friends, describe someone shooting a bolt action 6.5mm military rifle from the
>>> 6th floor, what was the distance? 88 yards maybe? And take your pick, EOP or
>>4
>> > inches higher. Ask your friends where the bullet would exit.
>>
>> Wouldn`t it be better to ask the opinion of experts?
>
>Another good point.
By all means, ask a Veterinarian, or ask a Ballistics expert... take your pick.
>>> >>Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all
>>you're
>>> >> going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
>> > >> KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
>>
>> > >Do I seem to be complaining?
>>
>>> Yep... you have repeatedly gone over the fact that I did't provide citations
>>for
>> > you at the original post.
>>
>> > Most people would term that "complaining".
>>
>> Those more familiar with the English language would call it a
>> "critique".
>
>Ben never misses an apportunity to mislead.
Evidence hurts, doesn't it?
>>> >>>>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can
>> > >>figure
>> > >> >> it out themselves.
>>
>> > >> >Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
>> > >> >to the size of the damage.
>>
>> > >> Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the
>> > >> post was quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the
>> > >> bullet invariably exited the forehead or face of the target - can you
>> > >> explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no
>> > >> signs of an exiting bullet?"
>>
>> > >No lying required. I actually believe that the bullet on impact may
>> > >have deflected to some degree, then started to break apart, and that
>> > >the larger fragments in any case exited through the upper right part
>> > >of the skull.
>>
>>> So you replace evidence with speculation. No problem with that - as long as
>> > you're capable of ADMITTING that this is what you're doing.
>>
>> > The hard EVIDENCE contradicts your theory.
>>
>> CE861 and CE862 don`t speak to the possiblity Mark was
>> considering.
>
>Excellent post, Bud, thanks. I'm taking a slight break from this
>discussion. Can't stomach Ben's blatant dishonesty for extended
>periods of time.
And yet Mark, you STILL haven't been able to admit that CE 861 and 862
demonstrate an exit IN THE FACE.
You still can't admit that there was *NO DAMAGE* forward of the coronal suture.
Feel free to run, I have plenty more...
That I predict you will refuse to answer...
Bud
This would be akin to a call-in poll, a good way to accumulate
worthless data.
> Something
> Freudian in that statement, no doubt.
Something fraudulent in your statement, no doubt.
> >>> You *already knew* what evidence would be presented, and you *ALREADY KNEW
> >>THAT
> >> > IT SUPPORTED MY POSITION*
> >>
> >> You haven`t supported the evidence you presented. Have you
> >> established the WC performed this re-enactment completely in
> >> accordance with the data and conditions of the actual event?
> >
> >Have you, Ben?
>
>
> Trying to destroy your own evidence? Feel free to do so.
I could have sworn it was Ben who presented this evidence, and
claimed it meant a particular thing. Now, it`s "our" evidence.
Please tell me that Ben hasn`t draw conclusions from evidence
without first checking the reliability of that evidence.
> >>> This is why these 45 questions don't ever get answers from LNT'ers... there's
> >> > simply no evidence on their side.
> >>
> >> Not when you totally disregard the mountian of evidence on our
> >> side, there isn`t.
> >
> >Good point.
>
>
> These "good points" are nonsense, of course.
>
> As demonstrated when Mark (and all the trolls of course) are forced to lie about
> even the simpliest of them.
So far, all we have is your claim of "this means this". Your
untrained opinion of this evidence isn`t as persausive as you might
think, except possibly to saps like aeffects.
That you interpret the evidence to mean a certain thing doesn`t
that that certain thing a fact. You`ve never been able to figure out
that your opinions aren`t facts, or even supportable opinions.
> My questions illustrate that fact.
To you. You like your opinions so much, you`d marry them if you
could. Except they think you`re retarded.
> >> > >> You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
> >>
> >> > >It seems you're the liar here.
> >>
> >>> And yet, nothing I've said can you quote, and produce evidence or citations
> >>that
> >> > demonstrates such.
> >>
> >>> Anyone can look at the two exhibits, and see that the damage caused IN NO WAY
> >> > DUPLICATED JFK'S HEAD DAMAGE.
> >>
> >> And he mentioned what could have contributd to the difference.
> >> Twice.
> >
> >At least.
>
>
> Oh? Now you're admitting that there's a difference???
Save the strawman for strawsex, Ben. He never said there wasn`t a
difference.
> How *much* of a difference?
>
> Can you say "coronal suture", Mark?
I can say "mouth breathing moron". Is it Ben`s contention that
damage was somehow limited to this point, and firing at a hundred
gelatin filled skulls would never go past this point?
> >> > Yet you're willing to disagree, and assert that it's quite similar.
> >>
> >>> Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found
> >>in
> >> > JFK?
> >>
> >>> Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found
> >>in
> >> > CE 861 & 862?
> >>
> >> Tell us Ben, are there differences between a human skull filled
> >> with gelatin and a human head? And if there are differences, can you
> >> tell us the possible impact those differences could have in ballistic
> >> testing? And, could you address some of the lurker concerns that you
> >> might be retarded?
> >
> >Good questions.
>
> Nope... not at all. A *good* question is one that leads people to an
> understanding of the facts.
He ducks and runs from pertinent questions about his contentions,
on the grounds that answering the questions won`t lead to an
understanding of the facts. Thats a classic line. An vehicular
accident investigator wouln`t look at the road conditions, because it
couldn`t lead to an understanding of how the accident might have
occurred. Yet another illustration of why the kooks shouldn`t even be
looking into the assasination, their thinking capabilities are
insuficient to the task.
> Why not tell us what Olivier would have said....
He would have agreed you are retarded.
It`s an ad hominen to question Ben`s creditials in the evaluation
of wounds caused by bullets?
Karma Sutra.
> >> > And this was the best that the WC could do to support their theory!!
> >>
> >> Show that the WC conducted this test to plot the trajectory of the
> >> bullet.
> >
> >I predict that Ben will be running for cover when he reads this.
>
>
> Read Olivier's testimony.
Ben once again alludes to information he claims supports his
position, but neglects to include the pertinent information. Does he
think we need to find this person`s testimony, and then try to
determine what this person said that Ben thinks supports his position?
Kooky.
> I see you *are* trying to excuse your own evidence...
You are leaping to conclusions from this evidence, shouldn`t first
be determined the testing was done properly?
> >>> >> >> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
> >> > >> >> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
> >> > >> >> >shot,
> >>
> >>> >>>> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of
> >>JFK's
> >> > >> >> head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
> >>
> >> > >> >It takes more than that.
> >>
> >> > >> No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
> >>
> >> > >> I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU*
> >> > >> would be too sane to dispute that.
> >>
> >> > >Let me try a slightly different way to approach this. If someone gave
> >> > >you two skulls, two bullets, a rifle, and all the time in the world,
> >> > >do you think you would be able to produce two identical looking
> >> > >wounds?
> >>
> >>> Identical, how silly! Even the bullets are not identical, let alone the
> >>skulls.
> >>
> >>> But similar? Absolutely! The laws of physics don't change... even for JFK.
> >>
> >> Similarity being in the eye of the beholder. Quote the wound
> >> ballistic expert expressing his opinion that CE861 and 862 are
> >> inconsistant with Kennedy`s wounds. Kook claims were fine for the
> >> first couple decades, but this act is stale.
> >
> >Show us your experts, Ben.
>
>
> "Coronal Suture".... say it with me...
Is this an expert? Quote him.
> You can also review Donahue. Unlike Olivier, who was a Veterinarian by
> training, Donahue is an actual ballistics expert.
How does this source support your claims, Ben? This is what, your
eighth post in this thread, and you`ve yet to produce a shred of
supporting evidence or expert opinion in support of your conclusions.
Naming people doesn`t cut it, are we supposed to review everyword
these people ever uttered to hunt for those you think support you? The
lurkers are right, you are retarded.
> >> > >And you wouldn't even have to deal with the uncertainties
> >> > >associated with JFK's wounds.
> >>
> >> > What "uncertainties?" We know *exactly* where the bullet entered, we know
> >> > *exactly* where the large 13cm hole was located.
> >>
> >> What 13cm hole?
> >>
> >> > You just don't want to admit that you can't accept the Autopsy Report.
> >>
> >> Neither did the forensic panel of the HSCA.
> >>
> >>> >>>>It really doesn't take specialized cadcam work and computer graphics to
> >>figure
> >>> >>>>out where a bullet would exit if shot in the back of someone's head from
> >>the
> >> > >>6th
> >> > >> >> floor from a known distance.
> >>
> >> > >> >It takes more than that.
> >>
> >> > >> You'll be too gutless to actually show this.
> >>
> >> > >Are you man enough to tell us how you would predict precisely how a
> >> > >bullet deflects and breaks up when it hits someone's head?
> >>
> >> > You'll be too gutless to actually show this. Sadly, I was right again...
> >>
> >> I provided the link to Seaton`s site. It has all the pertinent
> >> available information about th JFK`s headwound.
> >
> >Seaton is a bright fellow. Ben should try debating him.
>
>
> I'll debate *ANYONE* who shows up on this forum.
Seaton has debated Ben on this forum. He realized he couldn`t have
an honest discussion with Ben, and gave up.
> Send in your white knight.
You can`t pitch to major league hitters if you get knocked around
in the minors.
> >>> >>>>But why do you have such a hard time with this? Could a whiff of
> >>hypocrisy be
> >>> >>>> showing through here? Can you *cite* a single complaint you've had with
> >>Dale
> >> > >> >> Myers, who's using the same type of data to draw *his* conclusions?
> >>
> >> > >> >Myers doesn't claim to be able to predict the behaviour of bullets
> >> > >> >hitting human heads.
> >>
> >> > >> Nor did I. Myers deals with the SAME TOPIC I DO... a simple trajectory.
> >>
> >> > >> That you're willing to lie about this speaks volumes.
> >>
> >>> >>That you're unwilling to admit that Myers is DOING PRECISELY THE SAME THING
> >>AS I
> >> > >> JUST DID is amusing, nothing more...
> >>
> >> > >Not quite. Among other things, Myers is aware of the uncertainties.
> >>
> >> > Oh? Quote him saying that the SBT trajectory is "uncertain".
> >>
> >> > He's doing *PRECISELY* the same thing I am - and you refuse to admit it...
> >>
> >> He is doing something completely different, he is poltting
> >> trajectories, not trying to provide wound ballistic models.
> >
> >Ben is trying to confuse the issue by bringing the SBT into the
> >discussion.
>
>
> The SBT *IS* trajectory. Without the correct trajectory, you don't have a SBT.
<snicker> Does Ben ever address a point made? Mark says the SBT is
irrelevant to this discussion, so what does Ben do? Talks more about
the SBT.
> Myers dealt with trajectories. Mark has proven his hypocrisy.
Ben once again offers his opinion. Any takers?
> >> > >> >That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
> >>
> >>> >>Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly
> >>misunderstands
> >> > >> the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
> >>
> >> > >That you're difficult to understand doesn't have to mean that you're
> >> > >intelligent.
> >>
> >> > You couldn't understand that simple sentence?
> >>
> >> You claim an understanding of the lurker`s intelligence level. What
> >> do you base this on? Faith?
> >
> >Good question.
>
>
> Emails I've received over the years.
You`ve deemed the lurkers are intelligent based on the fact that
some know how to use e-mail? Couldn`t those that contacted you be
smarter than lurkers on the whole? Couldn`t all the remaining lurkers
who haven`t contacted you think you are retarded?
> The fact that most of American accepts the historical truth that there was a
> conspiracy in the death of JFK.
Could most Americans answer correctly what day the assassination
occurred? If polled, would 70% correctly answer what day it is today?
> >> > Perhaps this explains why you're
> >> > a LNT'er... you simply have problems understanding.
> >>
> >> Understanding you isn`t that dificult, I`ve tried to provide Mark
> >> with some insight I`ve gathered (as he continues to illuminate flaws
> >> in your character I was previously unaware of).
> >
> >I still haven't figured out what Ben's ultimate goal is.
>
>
> Simple... to provide the evidence that the WCR did not.
Still complaining?
As are all the questions arising from that post. If you can`t
support a position, why bother posting it?
> >> > Sadly, Myers believes a trajectory cannot be plotted, and then turns right
> >>> around and does so on the alleged transit shot. Yet you fail to recognize any
> >> > hypocrisy in such a stance.
> >>
> >> Ben fails to recognize that Myers explained why the headshot was
> >> unplottable, and that this explaination doesn`t apply to the bullet
> >> that went through JFK`s body (for one thing, that bullets didn`t break
> >> up).
> >
> >Indeed.
>
>
> Yep... the laws of physics simply changed that day in Dallas.
It`s now Ben`s contention that all bullets should react the same,
and all wounds look the same. Wound Ballistics for Idiots.
> >>> Willing to argue with me using the SAME DATA AND TYPE OF CONCLUSIONS as Myers
> >> > used.
> >>
> >> Vastly different data, and vastly different conclusions.
> >
> >Ben doesn't seem to understand what "type of" means in relation to
> >wounds. He also seems unable to grasp what it means in relation to
> >conclusions.
>
>
> You can't even bring yourself to *say* "coronal suture", can you?
All you get from Ben is "duck and dodge". And then you hear him
whine how all the LN are afraid to address what he writes. This post
is a good illustration of why LN don`t bother to respond to him, he
refuses to support his own words. He thinks his claims and opinions
are fact.
> >> > >> >> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
> >> > >> >> >disperse.
> >>
> >> > >> >> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING
> >> > >> >> in my post above that even hints at such a discussion.
> >>
> >> > >> >I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
> >> > >> >assumptions about trajectories.
> >>
> >> > >> I really didn't expect you to be able to support a lie.
> >>
> >> > >Do you deny that you make strong assumptions about trajectories?
> >>
> >> > What "assumption?" I cite CE 861 & 862, that's hard evidence.
> >>
> >> Of what, exactly?
> >
> >Good question.
>
>
> Sad to say that if evidence supports the WCR, it's rock solid, but if the WC
> *SAID* that it supports it, yet actually doesn't, Mark and the trolls want to
> run away.
Again, Ben offers ad hominem when his position is questioned. So
far, all we have is Ben`s opinion that this evidence means what he
says it does, with no reasons given why anyone should believe it does.
> But you're stuck, the WC took evidence, AND DID NOT DISPUTE IT, that CE 861, 862
> was similar to JFK's wounds.
You offered this evidence in support of a premise, but refuse to
offer anything about the validity of the testing. We know the WC
conducted it, can you speak to it`s accuracy? Was the skull in the
testing tilted in accordance to the tilt in JFK`s head when struck?
Was the pitch of the road considered? If it`s GIGO, it doesn`t matter
who conducted the testing. And you haven`t established that the WC was
trying to replicate the wounds in this test, they may have been trying
only to determine whether the bullet (which was designed not to break
up) could have been so fragmented from hitting a human head.
> >> > You can't get
> >> > around it, can you?
> >>
> >> You won`t come clear on how this evidence supports your claims.
> >>
> >>> And yes, I *do* make assumptions about trajectories... I assume that the
> >>normal
> >> > laws of physics are in place, and haven't suddenly changed only for the JFK
> >> > assassination.
> >>
> >> But this doesn`t extend to the differences between the test the WC
> >> conducted, and the actual event?
> >
> >Good point. Ben seems to have established to his own private
> >satisfaction that the differences were too small to matter.
>
>
> Differences?
Again, Ben ducks an opportunity to support his premise. How
cowardly!
> I'm not the one confused about the coronal suture...
Don`t recall Mark mentioning it. You want only to attack the
positions you foist on others, never defending your initial
contentions. It this type of misdirection that leads to the low
opinion the lurkers have of you.
> >> > >> >> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
> >> > >> >> >be no need for (a).
> >>
> >> > >>>>A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is
> >> > >>melting
> >>> >>>>at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to
> >>match
> >> > >>what
> >> > >> >> the WCR claimed.
> >>
> >> > >> >What I said above was that testing was unneccesary,
> >>
> >> > >> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show...
> >> > >> that the bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
> >>
> >> > >You really should allow me to finish a sentence, before you respond.
> >>
> >>> I responded to the portion that made it clear where my thoughts were going.
> >>How
> >> > silly of you to nitpick where I chop a sentence.
> >>
> >> You inserted before his point was made, and then neglected to
> >> address his full point. How cowardly of you!
> >
> >...not to mention slightly hypocritical to call me a nitpicker.
>
>
> Nitpicked, didn't you?
>
> Still *COMPLETELY* unanswered is this: And yet, testing demonstrated what
> "arithmetic and logic" also show...
What "arithmetic and logic" has Ben produced in support of his
position? I`ve seen Ben`s opinion offered. The lurker`s opinion
offered by Ben (strangely enough, not by them). I`ve seen the average
person`s instincts offered. When will Ben stop ducking and dodging and
offer actual support for his contentions?
> that the bullet should have exited JFK's
> forehead or face.
Where did the bullet exit in the WC`s test?
> >> > >> And you're willing to lie about it.
> >>
> >> > >> >if arithmetic and
> >> > >> >logic could have done the job. Do you disagree?
> >>
> >>> >> >> >3) The actual test wasn't designed to be quite as accurate as you seem
> >> > >> >> >to think, yet CE 861 and 862 depict the same type of wound that JFK
> >> > >> >> >received.
> >>
> >>> >>>>Seems that there was no need to cite the evidence, you already *knew* it.
> >>Nor
> >>> >> >> do CE 861 and 862 depict ANYTHING AT ALL like what JFK looked like, as I
> >> > >> >> pointedly remarked originally.
> >>
> >> > >> >You're exaggerating,
> >>
> >> > >> Not at all. I invite all lurkers to view the evidence for themselves.
> >>
> >> They can, now that I provided a link. But, exactly why are the
> >> untrained opinions of the lurkers on wound ballistics meaningful? The
> >> can view it, can they interpret what they are looking at?
> >
> >Good point. But without the links, we would only have Ben's untrained
> >opinions.
>
>
> "Coronal Suture"... go ahead, you can say it.
Use it in a sentence that supports your position.
> >> > >> >but it would also be foolish to expect a close
> >> > >> >resemblance. How many skulls were used? How much can you tell us about
> >> > >> >the test conditions? In the real world, it can be quite satisfactory
> >> > >> >just to obtain a similar result under similar conditions.
> >>
> >> > >> Average people instinctively know that if the back of their head is shot
> >>> >> at by someone in the 6th floor... by a bullet heavy enough and fast enough
> >> > >> to exit, that it will exit their face.
> >>
> >> > >No one thinks you're average, Ben.
> >>
> >> > Ducked that one, didn't you?
> >>
> >> Ducked what? You cited the insitincts of unknown people. Who the
> >> fuck cares what the "average person" thinks about technical matters
> >> they haven`t a clue about?
> >
> >Yeah.
>
>
>
> Simply another way to admit that "common sense & logic" (as one troll puts it),
> isn't in your court.
I thought you said the evidence supported you. Now, it`s "common
sense and logic"? Now we need to poll the "average man" to gather
support for your position? Does the "average man" have any idea how
much damage should be produced by a bullet going through a gelatin
filled skull as compared to an actual human head?
> >> > >> You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT
> >> > >> SUPPORT THEIR THEORY.
> >>
> >> > >Not really.
> >>
> >> > Willing to lie, aren't you?
> >>
> >> > Any damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK?
> >>
> >> > Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 861?
> >>
> >> > Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 862?
> >>
> >> > Willing to answer?
> >>
> >> > Probably not.
> >>
> >> Have you established you are pointing out meaningful differences?
> >
> >Good question.
>
>
> When trolls and liars can't even *admit* that there is a difference, why discuss
> whether its "meaningful" or not?
You can duck and dodge on any grounds you desire. But lurkers
notice.
> Come on, you can say it... "Coronal Suture"...
Use it. Support you position.
> >> > >> This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat
> >> > >> skin, and the bullets through cadaver wrists...
> >>
> >> > >Please try to focus.
> >>
> >>> Merely providing other examples where you will undoubtably lie about what the
> >>> actual evidence shows. Evidence that the WC gathered that CONTRADICTS their
> >> > theory.
> >>
> >> Produce the ballistic report on this test, and show how it supports
> >> your claims.
> >
> >Good suggestion.
>
>
> CE 861, CE 862.
Ben thinks these are ballistic reports? Does he think anyone can
view a traffic accident, and determine all the factors, causes and
effects as a traffic investigator could, no training necessary?
> >> > Bugs you when I mention the evidence, doesn't it?
> >>
> >> So far, you`ve offered nothing in support of your claims (other
> >> than lurkers, and the instincts of the average person). Put them cards
> >> on the table, kook.
> >
> >Lurkers suspect Ben has a shitty hand.
>
>
>
> CE 861, CE 862
Was the testing done accurately? Did it completely replicate the
actual event? If they didn`t faithfully replicate each and every
condition, would that have any effect on the results? Are you
retarded?
> >>> >>>> Seems like honesty is a sticking point... you know very well that a
> >>person's
> >>> >>>> head, when struck from behind from the 6th floor, and at that distance -
> >>with
> >> > >>>>the head in the position SEEN in the extant Z-film - the bullet will
> >> > >>invariably
> >> > >> >> exit through the forehead or face.
> >>
> >> > >> >I honesty don't know that.
> >>
> >> > >> You really expect people to believe that? You have the evidence, WHICH
> >>> >> YOU WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH, despite your request for me to provide it,
> >>> >> which demonstrates EXACTLY THAT. To be a LNT'er, you must simply duck and
> >> > >> run away from any contrary evidence.
> >>
> >> > >I still had to look it up again, thank you.
> >>
> >> > Good! Reviewing the evidence is a worthwhile project for anyone, CT'er or
> >> > LNT'er.
> >>
> >> It`s a tedious and unrewarding task, a totally wasted effort when
> >> dealing with kooks. Or retards.
> >
> >You said it, Bud.
>
>
> I suspect that both of you are talking to yourselves. You certainly aren't
> addressing the evidence.
We are trying to determine how this evidence supports your claims.
You aren`t helping, you only offer your opinions, nothing substantial.
> >> > >And what am I ducking?
> >>
> >> > The facts. Tell us how the damage on CE 861 & 862 is "similar" to JFK's...
> >>
> >> They both have portions of the skull blown away by the bullet.
> >
> >Very good.
>
>
> Which portion?
Which experts do you offer to interpret this evidence?
> Tell us, can you say "coronal suture?"
Is this where you think the bullet exited?
> >> > >I have a copy of the ballistics report stored away somewhere, but don't
> >> > >want to spend hours looking for it.
> >>
> >> > If you believe you can refute what I said, you'll have to, won't you?
> >>
> >> If you thought that report contained information that supported
> >> your position you`d link to it or quote from it, wouldn`t you?
> >
> >Prediction: he won't.
>
>
> I'm sure it *does* have information that supports my position. My position is
> BASED on the evidence.
And we are left to guess what that evidence that supports your
position is? You offer your opinion about what CE861-862 shows, but
what weight should the opinion of a kook untrained in wound ballistics
have?
> Here... let me cite for you: 26 Volmes.
If you look hard enough, you can find evidence making it clear who
killed JFK.
> There you go. Feel free to look up my citation.
Yah. Lurkers are invited to wade through the whole work, looking
for support for what a kook claims. Then Ben wonders why no one will
discuss the evidence with him.
> >>> >> >> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
> >>
> >> > >> >Ad hominem.
> >>
> >> > >> Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit
> >> > >> through the face.
> >>
> >> > >"Exit through the face" is a bit misleading.
> >>
> >> > ROTFLMAO!!!
> >>
> >> Tinkle time.
> >>
> >> > >> >> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
> >> > >> >> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
> >>
> >> > >> >Do you disagree?
> >>
> >>> >> By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it
> >>really
> >> > >> doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
> >>
> >> > >I would probably get arrested. There are other uncertainties as well.
> >>
> >> > Oh, don't pay any attention to what *I* say... just go around to 10 of your
> >>> friends, describe someone shooting a bolt action 6.5mm military rifle from the
> >>> 6th floor, what was the distance? 88 yards maybe? And take your pick, EOP or
> >>4
> >> > inches higher. Ask your friends where the bullet would exit.
> >>
> >> Wouldn`t it be better to ask the opinion of experts?
> >
> >Another good point.
>
>
> By all means, ask a Veterinarian, or ask a Ballistics expert... take your pick.
They both think you are retarded. I have an idea, why not produce
something from these sources in support of your position?
> >>> >>Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all
> >>you're
> >>> >> going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
> >> > >> KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
> >>
> >> > >Do I seem to be complaining?
> >>
> >>> Yep... you have repeatedly gone over the fact that I did't provide citations
> >>for
> >> > you at the original post.
> >>
> >> > Most people would term that "complaining".
> >>
> >> Those more familiar with the English language would call it a
> >> "critique".
> >
> >Ben never misses an apportunity to mislead.
>
>
>
> Evidence hurts, doesn't it?
He took that opportunity.
> >>> >>>>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can
> >> > >>figure
> >> > >> >> it out themselves.
> >>
> >> > >> >Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
> >> > >> >to the size of the damage.
> >>
> >> > >> Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the
> >> > >> post was quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the
> >> > >> bullet invariably exited the forehead or face of the target - can you
> >> > >> explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no
> >> > >> signs of an exiting bullet?"
> >>
> >> > >No lying required. I actually believe that the bullet on impact may
> >> > >have deflected to some degree, then started to break apart, and that
> >> > >the larger fragments in any case exited through the upper right part
> >> > >of the skull.
> >>
> >>> So you replace evidence with speculation. No problem with that - as long as
> >> > you're capable of ADMITTING that this is what you're doing.
> >>
> >> > The hard EVIDENCE contradicts your theory.
> >>
> >> CE861 and CE862 don`t speak to the possiblity Mark was
> >> considering.
> >
> >Excellent post, Bud, thanks. I'm taking a slight break from this
> >discussion. Can't stomach Ben's blatant dishonesty for extended
> >periods of time.
I understand. I answer Ben when the mood strikes me, for my own
reasons/amusement. I hope you feel no obligation to respond so Ben can
see what I write.
> And yet Mark, you STILL haven't been able to admit that CE 861 and 862
> demonstrate an exit IN THE FACE.
Have you shown it did? Point out the exit in those exhibits.
> You still can't admit that there was *NO DAMAGE* forward of the coronal suture.
You haven`t established this to be significant.
> Feel free to run, I have plenty more...
More positions you will support by saying "look in the 26 volumes"?
Why should anyone bother to challenge positions you are too cowardly
to support??
> That I predict you will refuse to answer...
You refuse to support your claims. How cowardly!
justm...@gmail.com
> > much...@gmail.com says...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bait and switch Bennie does it again...too many kicks to the head
Dwarf! You have still to produce anything supporting your idiotic
questions. I'm guessing because you can't. You go ahead and keep
thinking your questions are facts though...even though everyone here
knows better. You just keep making a bigger fool of yourself with each
post.
As for you Healy, put your money where your stupid ass mouth
is...other then your cheerleading you do for the dwarf and Chico, you
have nothing more to offer. John FRANCIS Kennedy...that was your
contribution to this board (Healy moment) ROFLMAO.
Bud
Apparently that is what the source Ben referred to thought. The
wound ballistic expert Ben mentioned (but never quoted in defense of
his position) had this to say...
Specter: What did this examination, or test, rather, disclose?
Oliver: It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the
President received could be done by this type of bullet. This surpised
me very much, because this type of a stable bullet I didn`t think
would cause such a massive head wound, I thought it would go through
making a small enterance and exit, but the bones of the skull are
enough to deform the end of the bullet causing it to expend a lot of
energy and blowing out the side of the skull or blowing out fragments
of the skull.
Lurkers can read the whole of Oliver`s testimony here...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
Perhaps they can find something that Oliver said that supports
Ben`s claims, I couldn`t.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1189809025.154936.154...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
Back in town, and what do I find? More idiocy from Ben. Imagine my
surprise.
> >> You *already knew* what evidence would be presented, and you *ALREADY
> >> KNEW THAT IT SUPPORTED MY POSITION*
>
> >Who cares what I know and when? This isn't about me.
>
> But demonstrating the character of those who support the WCR is valuable
> information for lurkers...
>
> When they see that LNT'ers invariably lie, even about simple things... and
> CT'ers invariably tell the truth, cite, and provide quotations, lurkers will be
> able to make their own judgement...
You haven't provided anything that was even remotely useful or
insightful. Just uninformed opinions and insults. Go figure.
> >> This is why these 45 questions don't ever get answers from LNT'ers...
> >> there's simply no evidence on their side.
>
> >Don't you ever get tired of repeating the party line over and over
> >again? Please try to focus.
>
> You're free to refute any statement I make.
You make stupid claims, you back them up.
> >> >> >> >Not all of us
> >> >> >> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
> >> >> >> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
>
> >> >> >> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are *NEVER*
> >> >> >> interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support their
> >> >> >> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and why
> >> >> >> it was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons" post.
>
> >> >> >Nice diversion attempt. This is about your failure to cite or provide
> >> >> >links to actual evidence.
>
> >>>>Why bother to lie, Mark? You, as well as every other LNT'er and troll know my
> >>>>record quite well... I'm *ALWAYS* capable of supplying a cite to the evidence.
>
> >> >You admit that you have no excuse?
>
> >> Why do I *need* an excuse? You've been ducking these evidential questions
> >> for a long time now... what is *your* excuse?
>
> >Billions have been "ducking" your questions. So what?
>
> Sadly, simply untrue.
Sadly? You'd wish billions were ducking your questions?
> >> >> You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
>
> >> >It seems you're the liar here.
>
> >> And yet, nothing I've said can you quote, and produce evidence or
> >> citations that demonstrates such.
>
> >Let's have a closer look at what you said.
>
> >Lie #1: "You asked..."
>
> >Offered sound advice is what I did. Wait. Didn't I specifically ask
> >you to post Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot?
>
> You asked for the citations that supported what I said. I supplied them
I offered advice - and you haven't supplied anything beyond what I had
obviously dug up myself.
> >Lie #2: "I provided..."
>
> >You didn't provide as much as a single citation or link.
>
> More knowledgeable forum members know exactly what CE 861 or CE 862 are, what
> they mean, and can locate them easily.
I referred to CE 861 and 862 in my first post, stupid, so why would I
ask you to help me locate them?
> >Lie #3: "then you lied about it."
>
> >I clearly did not.
>
> Oh, I'll let the lurkers make that decision...
Oh, it's a real brain teaser.
> Tell us... don't let me wait in suspense ... did you have the balls to answer
> the questions *ABOUT* the exhibits?
>
> For if you didn't, then you clearly couldn't even support your lie.
What "lie" are you mumbling about now?
> >> Anyone can look at the two exhibits, and see that the damage caused IN
> >> NO WAY DUPLICATED JFK'S HEAD DAMAGE.
>
> >> Yet you're willing to disagree, and assert that it's quite similar.
>
> >Another lie. I haven't "asserted" that the damage was "quite similar".
>
> Feel free to use your own words. See if you can demonstrate that the meaning is
> different.
You accuse my of lying, so you cite. The liar is you, or perhaps you
don't understand the difference between being quite similar and of the
same type?
> >>Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
> >> JFK?
>
> >Have you ever noticed the size of the defect in F8? As I'm sure you
> >know, the precise extent of the damage is a matter of contention among
> >experts, so my opinion doesn't matter much.
>
> Wow!!! What a fast duck!
>
> You couldn't answer the question, could you???
>
> Gutless, AND a liar!! LOL!
See below.
> >>Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found in
> >> CE 861 & 862?
>
> >> Dare you answer these questions?
>
> >> Probably not...
>
> >You're not honesty interested in my opinions.
>
> Of course not. I know that your a liar and can't be honest about the evidence.
>
> Once again, you ducked a simple question.
>
> For the uninformed - there was NO damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK's
> head.
For the uninformed - Ben doesn't know that. Check out, for example,
the link below and tell me if you don't find Dr. Angel's report
somewhat compelling:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/hsca_exit/fpp.htm
> The two exhibits, CE 861, 862 - show damage *WAY DOWN INTO THE FACE AREA*
Strawman. No one disputes that.
> >> >I was wondering why you weren't
> >> >providing evidence, not asking for insults. I did explicitly ask you
> >> >to produce Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot. Why
> >> >didn't you do that?
>
> >> Why haven't you produced the equation for critical mass in U-235?
>
> >> No doubt for the same reason - IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT.
>
> >> Feel free to provide any evidence you want - but when you demand that I
> >> produce YOUR evidence, don't hold your breath.
>
> >Who brought Myers into this discussion? Hint: it wasn't me
>
> Who's trying to make me give *THEIR* citations... hint, it isn't me.
>
> Myers demonstrates that you're a hypocrite... nothing more.
Who're you trying to fool?
> >> >> Lurkers aren't stupid, Mark.
>
> >> >Great. Perhaps your imaginary friends understand you.
>
> >> You surely aren't familiar with the Internet, are you?
>
> >Well, I can't see them. Can you?
>
> Thankyou for demonstrating my point...
Oh, you can't...
I tend to side with Dr. Angel against the FPP on this one. Now it's
your turn to tell us what *type* of damage it is that you see in JFK
and CE 861 & 862, respectively.
> >> >> Take you, for example... I didn't even ask your opinion, but you were willing
> >> >> to assert that CE 861 & 862 "depict the same type of wound that JFK received."
>
> >> >Indeed.
>
> >> Yep... willing to lie blatantly to 'preserve the faith'
>
> >What did you expect? A neat little hole?
>
> The truth.
Quit ducking. What *types* of damage do you see?
> >>>>Despite the historical FACT that no frontal bone, and NO PART OF JFK'S FACE
> >>WAS
> >> >> INVOLVED in the 13cm wound that the prosectors described.
>
> >>>>You were willing to lie to support your faith. So why would I ask a LNT'er to
> >> >> lie?
>
> >> >It seems you're the one lying (again).
>
> >> Quote the "lie", and cite the evidence that proves it so.
>
> >Shows what a hypocrite you are. What would you accept as "proof" that
> >I wasn't "willing to lie to support my faith"? I called you a liar
> >because you made a groundless accusation.
>
> It's hardly groundless when you're willing to assert that CE 861 and 862, which
> show a DRAMATICALLY different wound pattern than JFK, is similar to JFK's wound.
>
> You *ARE* willing to lie to support your faith.
I stated that it was the same *type* of wound. Surely, you realize
this, yet keep distorting what I said.
> >> >It was the same type of wound,
> >> >only the damage to the test skull was greater.
>
> >> LOL!!! Perhaps you don't realize how silly that sounded!
>
> >>It was NOT the same type of wound. Not only the damage was greater - BUT IT WAS
> >> IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
>
> >Then why don't we discuss exactly where you see the damage in:
>
> >a) CE 861 and 862?
> >b) autopsy photo F8?
>
> Ditto, above.
Answered. Now: what was *the* exit location in JFK's head, and what
was *the* exit location in the test skull?
> >> >I suggested below that
> >> >brittleness and absence of scalp and dura were factors that should be
> >> >taken into consideration, in case you didn't notice.
>
> >> Certainly it can be taken into consideration. Such factors aren't going to
> >> explain the VAST difference in location.
>
> >Yes, those factors relate to the extent of the damage. Why don't you
> >pinpoint the locations for us?
>
> You may start with the term "coronal suture". Go from there...
Are you talking about the FPP's "outshoot" (the semicircular defect
seen in F8)? Please explain in what you disagree with Dr. Angel who
placed it well into frontal bone? See link to Seaton's site above.
Also please tell us where the other bullet fragments went. And exactly
where you see exit locations in CE 861 & 862. No ducking this time,
please.
> >> And this was the best that the WC could do to support their theory!!
>
> >> >> >> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
> >> >> >> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
> >> >> >> >shot,
>
> >> >> >> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of
> >> >> >> JFK's head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
>
> >> >> >It takes more than that.
>
> >> >> No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
>
> >> >> I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU*
> >> >> would be too sane to dispute that.
>
> >> >Let me try a slightly different way to approach this. If someone gave
> >> >you two skulls, two bullets, a rifle, and all the time in the world,
> >> >do you think you would be able to produce two identical looking
> >> >wounds?
>
> >>Identical, how silly! Even the bullets are not identical, let alone the skulls.
>
> >> But similar? Absolutely! The laws of physics don't change... even for JFK.
>
> >Oh, I'd like to see you try...
>
> What, change the laws of physics just for JFK?
No, I'd like to see your experiment.
> It's the LNT'er camp that's attempted to do that.
>
> Do "melons" ring a bell?
>
> >> >And you wouldn't even have to deal with the uncertainties
> >> >associated with JFK's wounds.
>
> >> What "uncertainties?" We know *exactly* where the bullet entered, we know
> >> *exactly* where the large 13cm hole was located.
>
> >Exactly where do *you* think the bullet entered? Exactly where do
> >*you* think the fragments exited?
>
> I *don't* think... I merely cite. Feel free to cite eyewitness testimony
> describing either entry or exit. Please be sure to cite the earliest testimony
> or statements given.
>
> No speculation allowed...
>
> Let's see how far you can get...
We already knew that you *don't* think, stupid. You claimed to know
*exactly*, so why not give a straightforward answer for once? Quit
ducking.
> >> You just don't want to admit that you can't accept the Autopsy Report.
>
> >Seems like you're trying to trick me into saying that I reject the
> >autopsy report :-)
>
> You can't accept them... but you're willing to lie and imply that you do.
Don't tell me what I can or cannot accept.
The subject is bullets hitting human heads/skulls.
> >> He's doing *PRECISELY* the same thing I am - and you refuse to admit it...
>
> >Because he isn't.
>
> So you admit that the SBT "trajectory" is uncertain, right?
This isn't a discussion about the SBT, but there are uncertainties in
both cases. Don't you understand anything?
> >> >> >That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
>
> >>>>Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly misunderstands
> >> >> the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
>
> >> >That you're difficult to understand doesn't have to mean that you're
> >> >intelligent.
>
> >>You couldn't understand that simple sentence? Perhaps this explains why you're
> >> a LNT'er... you simply have problems understanding.
>
> >You're sentence didn't make much sense. Blame your English teacher.
>
> Hearing an estimate of my intelligence [stop] from someone who clearly
> misunderstands the intelligence of lurkers [subordinate clause, if I remember
> correctly] doesn't mean a whole lot... [Conclusion based on subordinate clause]
>
> Not different at all from being indifferent to someone in an insane asylum who
> presumes an opinion of me... good, bad, or indifferent.
Your claim that I misunderstand the "intelligence" of lurkers is just
another empty declaration of yours, based on nothing, proving nothing.
My estimate of your intelligence stands.
Feel free to show me what Myers used CE 861 & 862 for.
> >> >> >> >(b) predict how the bullet will break up and the fragments
> >> >> >> >disperse.
>
> >> >> >> Sorry, nothing was said about this at all. Nor can you cite ANYTHING
> >> >> >> in my post above that even hints at such a discussion.
>
> >> >> >I would have to cite almost your entire post. You make a lot of
> >> >> >assumptions about trajectories.
>
> >> >> I really didn't expect you to be able to support a lie.
>
> >> >Do you deny that you make strong assumptions about trajectories?
>
> >> What "assumption?" I cite CE 861 & 862, that's hard evidence. You can't
> >> get around it, can you?
>
> >What can tell us about the trajectories of the fragments through the
> >skull?
>
> That they don't match up with the proposed entry and exit locations given by the
> Autopsy report, Clark Panel, or HSCA.
>
> Of course, the topic is that the trajectory of the bullet doesn't match what we
> know from CE 861, 862.
Is that all you can tell us about the trajectories of the bullet
fragments through the skull?
> >>And yes, I *do* make assumptions about trajectories... I assume that the normal
> >> laws of physics are in place, and haven't suddenly changed only for the JFK
> >> assassination.
>
> >According to the law of physics, what happens when a projectile hits a
> >hard, multi-layered, somewhat curved surface at an angle?
>
> Your question is deficit. Try thinking it through.
According to the laws of physics, what happens when a bullet hits a
human head? Please feel free to add constraints.
> (Sad, the state of science education these days...)
Quit ducking. Show the lurkers your education.
> >> >> >> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
> >> >> >> >be no need for (a).
>
> >> >>>>A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is
> >> >>melting
> >>>>>>at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to match
> >> >>what
> >> >> >> the WCR claimed.
>
> >> >> >What I said above was that testing was unneccesary,
>
> >> >> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show...
> >> >> that the bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
>
> >> >You really should allow me to finish a sentence, before you respond.
>
> >> I responded to the portion that made it clear where my thoughts were
> >> going. How silly of you to nitpick where I chop a sentence.
>
> >I'm a nitpicker? Pot... kettle... black.
>
> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show... that the
> bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
Not really.
Want to quit wasting my time?
> >> >> You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT
> >> >> SUPPORT THEIR THEORY.
>
> >> >Not really.
>
> >> Willing to lie, aren't you?
>
> >> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK?
>
> >> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 861?
>
> >> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 862?
>
> >> Willing to answer?
>
> >> Probably not.
>
> >Is there an echo? You can read my answers above.
>
> No, you've *NOT* answered, you've run away and ducked.
>
> It's simply amazing how often LNT'ers run away when there's a specific, citable
> answer to a question that is based on the evidence.
Don't you ever run out of smoke?
> >> >> This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat
> >> >> skin, and the bullets through cadaver wrists...
>
> >> >Please try to focus.
>
> >> Merely providing other examples where you will undoubtably lie about what
> >> the actual evidence shows. Evidence that the WC gathered that CONTRADICTS
> >> their theory.
>
> >You're just spewing ad hominems and opinions. Grow up.
>
> Examples that you couldn't refute.
>
> Go ahead and tell us, for example... can *YOU* tell the difference between entry
> and exit on the goat skin test? (Hint: the traditional LNT'er answer is that
> "no, you cannot")
That's dealt with in question #347. Try to focus.
> >> Bugs you when I mention the evidence, doesn't it?
>
> >Always mention, never cite or provide links...
>
> Still complaining, aren't you?
Critizising.
At least you admit that the lurkers don't.
> >>>> >> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>
> >> >> >Ad hominem.
>
> >> >> Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit
> >> >> through the face.
>
> >> >"Exit through the face" is a bit misleading.
>
> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> >Show us where all the exits were.
>
> You can't even tell if there's any damage forward of the coronal suture - so I
> can say anything I want, and you'd be unable to contradict me.
How convenient. Some of us prefer honesty and truth, though.
> Of course, thoughtful people will immediately recognize what a hopeless position
> you're in. It's downright silly not to be able to admit that there's damage
> WELL PAST the coronal suture in CE 861, 862.
I never said there wasn't, stupid. I have simply been *ignoring* that
purely rhetorical question of yours until now.
> >> >> >> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
> >> >> >> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
>
> >> >> >Do you disagree?
>
> >>>> By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it really
> >> >> doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
>
> >> >I would probably get arrested. There are other uncertainties as well.
>
> >> Oh, don't pay any attention to what *I* say... just go around to 10 of your
> >> friends, describe someone shooting a bolt action 6.5mm military rifle from
> >> the 6th floor, what was the distance? 88 yards maybe? And take your pick,
> >> EOP or 4 inches higher. Ask your friends where the bullet would exit.
>
> >And what exactly would that prove?
>
> Nothing at all... you already *KNOW* what such a poll would show.
That you're a dishonest jerk.
> >>>>Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all
> >>you're
> >> >> going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
> >> >> KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
>
> >> >Do I seem to be complaining?
>
> >>Yep... you have repeatedly gone over the fact that I did't provide citations for
> >> you at the original post.
>
> >> Most people would term that "complaining".
>
> >No, you said that I complained about something else. Make up your
> >mind.
>
> Confused?
No, but you seem to be. You can't make up your mind about that it is
that I'm supposed to be complaining about.
> >> >>>>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can
> >> >>figure
> >> >> >> it out themselves.
>
> >> >> >Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
> >> >> >to the size of the damage.
>
> >> >> Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the
> >> >> post was quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the
> >> >> bullet invariably exited the forehead or face of the target - can you
> >> >> explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no
> >> >> signs of an exiting bullet?"
>
> >> >No lying required. I actually believe that the bullet on impact may
> >> >have deflected to some degree, then started to break apart, and that
> >> >the larger fragments in any case exited through the upper right part
> >> >of the skull.
>
> >> So you replace evidence with speculation. No problem with that - as long as
> >> you're capable of ADMITTING that this is what you're doing.
>
> >You asked... I provided. Can you think of a better explanation?
>
> Of course I can. The evidence supports it. That's your sticking point, isn't
> it?
You basically have CE 861 & 862 and your uninformed opinion.
> >> The hard EVIDENCE contradicts your theory.
>
> >Btw, what's *your* theory, Ben?
>
> Tsk tsk tsk... the evidence, Mark... stick to the evidence. No speculation
> needed when you follow the evidence.
You basically have CE 861 & 862 and your uninformed opinion.
Can you find a ballistics expert that agrees with you?
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
You find it "idiocy" to rely on the evidence???
Looks like you're moving rapidly into troll territory...
>> >> You *already knew* what evidence would be presented, and you *ALREADY
>> >> KNEW THAT IT SUPPORTED MY POSITION*
>>
>> >Who cares what I know and when? This isn't about me.
>>
>> But demonstrating the character of those who support the WCR is valuable
>> information for lurkers...
>>
>> When they see that LNT'ers invariably lie, even about simple things... and
>>CT'ers invariably tell the truth, cite, and provide quotations, lurkers will be
>> able to make their own judgement...
>
>You haven't provided anything that was even remotely useful or
>insightful. Just uninformed opinions and insults. Go figure.
And yet, you can't seem to provide the most simple definition of the injury seen
on JFK and seen on the commission exhibits...
For if you had the honesty to answer those points, your silly assertion that
they are similar, and *my* statement that they are contradictory, would be
obvious.
But duck and run is your only real defense... stay tuned, plenty more evidence
coming...
>> >> This is why these 45 questions don't ever get answers from LNT'ers...
>> >> there's simply no evidence on their side.
>>
>> >Don't you ever get tired of repeating the party line over and over
>> >again? Please try to focus.
>>
>> You're free to refute any statement I make.
>
>You make stupid claims, you back them up.
I have... that's why your ducking and running...
>> >> >> >> >Not all of us
>>>> >> >> >have the ballistics report at hand, and it does take a few moments to
>> >> >> >> >look up the relevant WC testimony and exhibits.
>>
>>>> >> >> This, of course, is the problem - you don't want to. LNT'ers are
>>*NEVER*
>>>> >> >> interested in the actual evidence, because it simply doesn't support
>>their
>>>> >> >> theory. This is why LNT'ers refuse to respond to my 45 questions, and
>>why
>>>> >> >> it was so incredibly easy for me to respond to Eddie's "35 Reasons"
>>post.
>>
>> >> >> >Nice diversion attempt. This is about your failure to cite or provide
>> >> >> >links to actual evidence.
>>
>>>>>>Why bother to lie, Mark? You, as well as every other LNT'er and troll know
>>my
>>>>>>record quite well... I'm *ALWAYS* capable of supplying a cite to the
>>evidence.
>>
>> >> >You admit that you have no excuse?
>>
>>>> Why do I *need* an excuse? You've been ducking these evidential questions
>> >> for a long time now... what is *your* excuse?
>>
>> >Billions have been "ducking" your questions. So what?
>>
>> Sadly, simply untrue.
>
>Sadly? You'd wish billions were ducking your questions?
No, 'sadly' for your honesty.
People who demonstrate a lack of character are never occasions for joy.
>> >> >> You asked... I provided... then you lied about it.
>>
>> >> >It seems you're the liar here.
>>
>> >> And yet, nothing I've said can you quote, and produce evidence or
>> >> citations that demonstrates such.
>>
>> >Let's have a closer look at what you said.
>>
>> >Lie #1: "You asked..."
>>
>> >Offered sound advice is what I did. Wait. Didn't I specifically ask
>> >you to post Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot?
>>
>> You asked for the citations that supported what I said. I supplied them
>
>I offered advice - and you haven't supplied anything beyond what I had
>obviously dug up myself.
What else is needed beyond the evidence that proves my point???
That, and the fact that no LNT'er can answer it?
>> >Lie #2: "I provided..."
>>
>> >You didn't provide as much as a single citation or link.
>>
>>More knowledgeable forum members know exactly what CE 861 or CE 862 are, what
>> they mean, and can locate them easily.
>
>I referred to CE 861 and 862 in my first post, stupid, so why would I
>ask you to help me locate them?
Actually, you did. "1) It might save some of us lurkers valuable time, if you
were in the habit of citing or providing links to actual evidence."
You returned to the same point several more times...
>> >Lie #3: "then you lied about it."
>>
>> >I clearly did not.
>>
>> Oh, I'll let the lurkers make that decision...
>
>Oh, it's a real brain teaser.
>
>> Tell us... don't let me wait in suspense ... did you have the balls to answer
>> the questions *ABOUT* the exhibits?
>>
>> For if you didn't, then you clearly couldn't even support your lie.
>
>What "lie" are you mumbling about now?
Answer my questions about the location and extent of damage on JFK vs CE861, 862
- and your lie will become most apparent.
This is why you won't.
>> >> Anyone can look at the two exhibits, and see that the damage caused IN
>> >> NO WAY DUPLICATED JFK'S HEAD DAMAGE.
>>
>> >> Yet you're willing to disagree, and assert that it's quite similar.
>>
>> >Another lie. I haven't "asserted" that the damage was "quite similar".
>>
>>Feel free to use your own words. See if you can demonstrate that the meaning is
>> different.
>
>You accuse my of lying, so you cite. The liar is you, or perhaps you
>don't understand the difference between being quite similar and of the
>same type?
Feel free anytime to illustrate your point.
You won't, however. Since all it would do is illustrate how you're willing to
lie to support your faith.
>>>>Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found
>>in
>> >> JFK?
>>
>> >Have you ever noticed the size of the defect in F8? As I'm sure you
>> >know, the precise extent of the damage is a matter of contention among
>> >experts, so my opinion doesn't matter much.
>>
>> Wow!!! What a fast duck!
>>
>> You couldn't answer the question, could you???
>>
>> Gutless, AND a liar!! LOL!
>
>See below.
Why? Are you actually going to define the damage and compare it?
>>>>Tell us, Mark - just how much damage FORWARD of the coronal suture was found
>>in
>> >> CE 861 & 862?
>>
>> >> Dare you answer these questions?
>>
>> >> Probably not...
>>
>> >You're not honesty interested in my opinions.
>>
>>Of course not. I know that your a liar and can't be honest about the evidence.
>>
>> Once again, you ducked a simple question.
>>
>>For the uninformed - there was NO damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK's
>> head.
>
>For the uninformed - Ben doesn't know that.
Of course I do. Why not provide a citation from any of the prosectors - WHO
WERE THERE?
>Check out, for example,
>the link below and tell me if you don't find Dr. Angel's report
>somewhat compelling:
>
>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/hsca_exit/fpp.htm
What you have, of course, is an argument that the entry wound was large, and the
exit wound in the right temple (which you don't believe in anyway) was small.
Silly on the face of it. Far more logical to believe that the right temple
wound was the entry for the large exit wound on the back of JFK's head.
This 'analysis' of Dr. Angel is contradicted by the WCR, Clark Panel, and HSCA.
Tell us, Mark; who do you believe?
>> The two exhibits, CE 861, 862 - show damage *WAY DOWN INTO THE FACE AREA*
>
>Strawman. No one disputes that.
It's *PRECISELY* my point - and you *DID* previously dispute it.
>> >> >I was wondering why you weren't
>> >> >providing evidence, not asking for insults. I did explicitly ask you
>> >> >to produce Dale Myers' trajectory analysis of the head shot. Why
>> >> >didn't you do that?
>>
>> >> Why haven't you produced the equation for critical mass in U-235?
>>
>> >> No doubt for the same reason - IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT.
>>
>> >> Feel free to provide any evidence you want - but when you demand that I
>> >> produce YOUR evidence, don't hold your breath.
>>
>> >Who brought Myers into this discussion? Hint: it wasn't me
>>
>> Who's trying to make me give *THEIR* citations... hint, it isn't me.
>>
>> Myers demonstrates that you're a hypocrite... nothing more.
>
>Who're you trying to fool?
Feel free to demonstrate that my point is not valid.
Don't try to get away with merely implying that it is.
I'm still waiting for YOUR response. I'm a firm believer in the Socratic method
of teaching.
If you continue to duck describing the damage in relation to location and
extent, then lurkers will naturally presume that you can't.
>>>> >> Take you, for example... I didn't even ask your opinion, but you were
>>willing
>>>> >> to assert that CE 861 & 862 "depict the same type of wound that JFK
>>received."
>>
>> >> >Indeed.
>>
>> >> Yep... willing to lie blatantly to 'preserve the faith'
>>
>> >What did you expect? A neat little hole?
>>
>> The truth.
>
>Quit ducking. What *types* of damage do you see?
Still waiting for your response to my question that was asked repeatedly.
And you're *STILL* ducking and running. Dr. Angel isn't going to help you.
>>>>>>Despite the historical FACT that no frontal bone, and NO PART OF JFK'S FACE
>> >>WAS
>> >> >> INVOLVED in the 13cm wound that the prosectors described.
>>
>>>>>>You were willing to lie to support your faith. So why would I ask a LNT'er
>>to
>> >> >> lie?
>>
>> >> >It seems you're the one lying (again).
>>
>> >> Quote the "lie", and cite the evidence that proves it so.
>>
>> >Shows what a hypocrite you are. What would you accept as "proof" that
>> >I wasn't "willing to lie to support my faith"? I called you a liar
>> >because you made a groundless accusation.
>>
>>It's hardly groundless when you're willing to assert that CE 861 and 862, which
>>show a DRAMATICALLY different wound pattern than JFK, is similar to JFK's wound.
>>
>> You *ARE* willing to lie to support your faith.
>
>I stated that it was the same *type* of wound. Surely, you realize
>this, yet keep distorting what I said.
Yet, when pressed for an actual *description* and comparison of the wounds, you
just keep right on ducking and running.
You *know* that CE 861, 862 contradict the pattern of wounding that JFK
received, which explains why you keep ducking and running away.
How embarrassing...
>> >> >It was the same type of wound,
>> >> >only the damage to the test skull was greater.
>>
>> >> LOL!!! Perhaps you don't realize how silly that sounded!
>>
>>>>It was NOT the same type of wound. Not only the damage was greater - BUT IT
>>WAS
>> >> IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
>>
>> >Then why don't we discuss exactly where you see the damage in:
>>
>> >a) CE 861 and 862?
>> >b) autopsy photo F8?
>>
>> Ditto, above.
>
>Answered.
No, you haven't. You accept the wound in the right temple - THAT WAS NOT
DESCRIBED IN THE AUTOPSY REPORT - yet refuse to admit that you can't accept the
autopsy report. You pretend that CE 861 and 862 don't show damage FAR INTO THE
FACIAL AREA, contradicting EVERYTHING known about JFK's damage.
You will *continue* to run away...
>Now: what was *the* exit location in JFK's head, and what
>was *the* exit location in the test skull?
I'm still waiting for you to describe the actual damage and compare it.
Why do you think that I'd let you get away from such questions?
You STILL refuse to address my ORIGINAL POST!!
>> >> >I suggested below that
>> >> >brittleness and absence of scalp and dura were factors that should be
>> >> >taken into consideration, in case you didn't notice.
>>
>>>> Certainly it can be taken into consideration. Such factors aren't going to
>> >> explain the VAST difference in location.
>>
>> >Yes, those factors relate to the extent of the damage. Why don't you
>> >pinpoint the locations for us?
>>
>> You may start with the term "coronal suture". Go from there...
>
>Are you talking about the FPP's "outshoot" (the semicircular defect
>seen in F8)? Please explain in what you disagree with Dr. Angel who
>placed it well into frontal bone?
Simple... the autopsy report disagrees. Ditto with the WCR, the Clark Panel,
and the HSCA.
Tell us, upon what basis do you accept one doctor's opinion that is contradicted
by dozens of others?
>See link to Seaton's site above.
>Also please tell us where the other bullet fragments went. And exactly
>where you see exit locations in CE 861 & 862. No ducking this time,
>please.
ROTFLMAO!!!
You STILL haven't answered!!
Yet you're pretending that *I* can't answer!!
Brilliant debating technique... but thoroughly dishonest.
>> >> And this was the best that the WC could do to support their theory!!
>>
>>>> >> >> >2) You seem to start with the questionable premises that you can with
>> >> >> >> >high degrees of accuracy (a) replicate the conditions of the head
>> >> >> >> >shot,
>>
>>>> >> >> Absolutely! We know the angle of the street, we know the placement of
>> >> >> >> JFK's head, and we know the presumed starting point of the bullet.
>>
>> >> >> >It takes more than that.
>>
>> >> >> No, it doesn't. Nor can you demonstrate it.
>>
>>>> >> I *am* of course, pre-supposing the bullet and velocity - but even *YOU*
>> >> >> would be too sane to dispute that.
>>
>> >> >Let me try a slightly different way to approach this. If someone gave
>> >> >you two skulls, two bullets, a rifle, and all the time in the world,
>> >> >do you think you would be able to produce two identical looking
>> >> >wounds?
>>
>>>>Identical, how silly! Even the bullets are not identical, let alone the
>>skulls.
>>
>>>> But similar? Absolutely! The laws of physics don't change... even for JFK.
>>
>> >Oh, I'd like to see you try...
>>
>> What, change the laws of physics just for JFK?
>
>No, I'd like to see your experiment.
Come on by... I'll be happy to be in the 6th floor of a local building. We'll
examine what's left of your face from such a shot.
>> It's the LNT'er camp that's attempted to do that.
>>
>> Do "melons" ring a bell?
>>
>> >> >And you wouldn't even have to deal with the uncertainties
>> >> >associated with JFK's wounds.
>>
>> >> What "uncertainties?" We know *exactly* where the bullet entered, we know
>> >> *exactly* where the large 13cm hole was located.
>>
>> >Exactly where do *you* think the bullet entered? Exactly where do
>> >*you* think the fragments exited?
>>
>> I *don't* think... I merely cite. Feel free to cite eyewitness testimony
>>describing either entry or exit. Please be sure to cite the earliest testimony
>> or statements given.
>>
>> No speculation allowed...
>>
>> Let's see how far you can get...
>
>We already knew that you *don't* think, stupid. You claimed to know
>*exactly*, so why not give a straightforward answer for once? Quit
>ducking.
Didn't get very far at all, did you? Ducked and ran again...
Of course, you *can't* cite eyewitness testimony ... very little of it supports
your position.
>> >> You just don't want to admit that you can't accept the Autopsy Report.
>>
>> >Seems like you're trying to trick me into saying that I reject the
>> >autopsy report :-)
>>
>> You can't accept them... but you're willing to lie and imply that you do.
>
>Don't tell me what I can or cannot accept.
For example, you've demonstrated that you discount the fact that the autopsy
report makes *NO* mention of the right temple entry wound.
In fact, accepting the existence of a right temple wound is putting you
dangerously into CT territory.
For *now* you'll have to explain why this wound wasn't admitted by the
prosectors... despite persuasive eyewitness testimony to it.
But you won't...
Funny that you would tell the originating poster what the topic is.
The *TOPIC* is how the evidence demonstrates that the WCR's trajectory is
contradicted by its own evidence.
Evidence that you *STILL* refuse to describe.
>> >> He's doing *PRECISELY* the same thing I am - and you refuse to admit it...
>>
>> >Because he isn't.
>>
>> So you admit that the SBT "trajectory" is uncertain, right?
>
>This isn't a discussion about the SBT, but there are uncertainties in
>both cases. Don't you understand anything?
So you *DO* admit that the SBT "trajectory" is uncertain!!!
AMAZING!!!
You're quite definitely getting into dangerous territory... for once you admit
that there's even the *possibility* that the SBT is not true, then you
automatically *ALSO* admit the possibility of a conspiracy...
>> >> >> >That alone makes him a lot smarter than you.
>>
>>>>>>Hearing an estimate of my intelligence from someone who clearly
>>misunderstands
>> >> >> the intelligence of lurkers doesn't mean a whole lot...
>>
>> >> >That you're difficult to understand doesn't have to mean that you're
>> >> >intelligent.
>>
>>>>You couldn't understand that simple sentence? Perhaps this explains why
>>you're
>> >> a LNT'er... you simply have problems understanding.
>>
>> >You're sentence didn't make much sense. Blame your English teacher.
>>
>> Hearing an estimate of my intelligence [stop] from someone who clearly
>> misunderstands the intelligence of lurkers [subordinate clause, if I remember
>>correctly] doesn't mean a whole lot... [Conclusion based on subordinate clause]
>>
>>Not different at all from being indifferent to someone in an insane asylum who
>> presumes an opinion of me... good, bad, or indifferent.
>
>Your claim that I misunderstand the "intelligence" of lurkers is just
>another empty declaration of yours, based on nothing, proving nothing.
>My estimate of your intelligence stands.
Once again, your opinion means as much to me as that of an inmate of an insane
asylum.
I'd have to have some respect for your character before I accepted any argument
or statement of yours based exclusively on your thoughts.
Of course not. There's quite a bit more I can discuss on this topic.
But when you can't even admit that the WC's own experiments demonstrated that
the trajectory would exit the face, then you can't go further than that.
You have to start with the basics.
Ducking and running simply helps me demontrate my point - that the EVIDENCE
fails to support your theory.
>>>>And yes, I *do* make assumptions about trajectories... I assume that the
>>normal
>>>> laws of physics are in place, and haven't suddenly changed only for the JFK
>> >> assassination.
>>
>> >According to the law of physics, what happens when a projectile hits a
>> >hard, multi-layered, somewhat curved surface at an angle?
>>
>> Your question is deficit. Try thinking it through.
>
>According to the laws of physics, what happens when a bullet hits a
>human head? Please feel free to add constraints.
It stops, then falls to the ground.
Whenever you stop and think through your question, you might get an appropriate
answer. But when you make numerous unstated presumptions - you can't assume
that all lurkers will share them.
>> (Sad, the state of science education these days...)
>
>Quit ducking. Show the lurkers your education.
Just did. Made you look silly, didn't I?
My answer can be demonstrated by anyone. Simply toss a bullet at someone's
head, and judge for yourself.
When you get around to Newton, let me know...
>> >> >> >> >It could also be noted that, if (b) were true, there would
>> >> >> >> >be no need for (a).
>>
>>>> >>>>A nonsensical argument. You might as well decide that since the ice is
>> >> >>melting
>>>>>>>>at the South Pole, JFK's head must have been tilted forward enough to
>>match
>> >> >>what
>> >> >> >> the WCR claimed.
>>
>> >> >> >What I said above was that testing was unneccesary,
>>
>> >> >> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show...
>> >> >> that the bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
>>
>> >> >You really should allow me to finish a sentence, before you respond.
>>
>> >> I responded to the portion that made it clear where my thoughts were
>> >> going. How silly of you to nitpick where I chop a sentence.
>>
>> >I'm a nitpicker? Pot... kettle... black.
>>
>> And yet, testing demonstrated what "arithmetic and logic" also show...
>> that the bullet should have exited JFK's forehead or face.
>
>Not really.
Another *excellent* example of your honesty.
Its not *your* time that's being wasted... you can stop ducking and running
anytime you feel like it.
My time is being spent quite constructivly... lurkers will see that LNT'ers
simply can't explain the evidence.
Lurkers will see that the Warren Commission simply lied - not in just specifics
such as Tice's testimony, or Oswald's passport, or other specific examples - but
broadly in how they tried to force their theory into the framework of the actual
evidence.
>>>> >> You're simply admitting that the evidence that the WC paid for DOES NOT
>> >> >> SUPPORT THEIR THEORY.
>>
>> >> >Not really.
>>
>> >> Willing to lie, aren't you?
>>
>> >> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on JFK?
Mark has finally answered this - by reference to the *ONLY* doctor to contradict
the WC, Clark Panel, and HSCA on this issue.
Which, of course, puts Mark in the undefendable position of needing to explain
why this right temple wound was *NOT* described by the prosectors.
>> >> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 861?
Still no answer...
>> >> Any damage forward of the coronal suture on CE 862?
Still no answer...
>> >> Willing to answer?
>>
>> >> Probably not.
And still correct... Mark has *CONTINUED* to duck such simple questions.
>> >Is there an echo? You can read my answers above.
>>
>> No, you've *NOT* answered, you've run away and ducked.
>>
>> It's simply amazing how often LNT'ers run away when there's a specific,
>> citable answer to a question that is based on the evidence.
>
>Don't you ever run out of smoke?
The fire is the evidence, you can't put it out, so of *course* there's plenty of
smoke.
So tell us, Mark... why do you KEEP DUCKING AND RUNNING AWAY FROM THE SIMPLE
COMPARISON OF THE WARREN COMMISSION'S ATTEMPTED DUPLICATION OF THE HEAD SHOT
WITH JFK'S ACTUAL WOUNDS??
That is, after all, the topic of the original post.
>> >> >> This is also the same situation with the 'entry & exit' holes in goat
>> >> >> skin, and the bullets through cadaver wrists...
>>
>> >> >Please try to focus.
>>
>> >> Merely providing other examples where you will undoubtably lie about what
>> >> the actual evidence shows. Evidence that the WC gathered that CONTRADICTS
>> >> their theory.
>>
>> >You're just spewing ad hominems and opinions. Grow up.
>>
>> Examples that you couldn't refute.
>>
>> Go ahead and tell us, for example... can *YOU* tell the difference
>> between entry and exit on the goat skin test? (Hint: the traditional
>> LNT'er answer is that "no, you cannot")
>
>That's dealt with in question #347. Try to focus.
Ducked and ran again...
Once again, the evidence frightens LNT'ers...
>> >> Bugs you when I mention the evidence, doesn't it?
>>
>> >Always mention, never cite or provide links...
>>
>> Still complaining, aren't you?
>
>Critizising.
Who cares? You know where to find photos of the goat skin. You already *KNOW*
that it's easy to tell the difference between entry and exit.
How silly! Another example, if we needed one, of your inability to create
logical structures.
>>>>>> >> You *know* this, yet you're willing to simply lie to protect your faith.
>>
>> >> >> >Ad hominem.
>>
>> >> >> Tell me that you didn't already know that CE 861 & 862 show an exit
>> >> >> through the face.
>>
>> >> >"Exit through the face" is a bit misleading.
>>
>> >> ROTFLMAO!!!
>>
>> >Show us where all the exits were.
>>
>> You can't even tell if there's any damage forward of the coronal suture
>> - so I can say anything I want, and you'd be unable to contradict me.
>
>How convenient. Some of us prefer honesty and truth, though.
Then by all means - TELL US WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DAMAGE FORWARD OF THE CORONAL
SUTURE SEEN IN CE 861, 862!
Or continue to duck and run. You merely aid my case.
You see, I can't lose... if you're honest, you have to admit that the damage
illustrates that bullets exit the face when shot through a person's head at the
angles involved.
If you're dishonest, you simply run from the question (as you've been doing), or
lie about where the bullet exits.
Either way, the evidence is what it is... the attempted duplication by the WC
ended up contradicting their theory.
>>Of course, thoughtful people will immediately recognize what a hopeless position
>> you're in. It's downright silly not to be able to admit that there's damage
>> WELL PAST the coronal suture in CE 861, 862.
>
>I never said there wasn't, stupid. I have simply been *ignoring* that
>purely rhetorical question of yours until now.
You're *STILL* ignoring it.
For once you admit that the location of the exit wound on the duplication
conducted by the WC is contradicted by the autopsy report - you've admitted my
original thesis of this post.
Then there's nothing more you can say.
>> >> >> >> >The damage is greater, obviously, but "live" skulls are less
>> >> >> >> >brittle, and scalp and dura also have a limiting effect.
>>
>> >> >> >Do you disagree?
>>
>>>>>> By all means, duplicate the shooting with recently dead cadavers... it
>>really
>> >> >> doesn't matter - since you are certainly aware of what will happen.
>>
>> >> >I would probably get arrested. There are other uncertainties as well.
>>
>>>> Oh, don't pay any attention to what *I* say... just go around to 10 of your
>> >> friends, describe someone shooting a bolt action 6.5mm military rifle from
>>>> the 6th floor, what was the distance? 88 yards maybe? And take your pick,
>> >> EOP or 4 inches higher. Ask your friends where the bullet would exit.
>>
>> >And what exactly would that prove?
>>
>> Nothing at all... you already *KNOW* what such a poll would show.
>
>That you're a dishonest jerk.
LOL!!! Resorting to ad hominem merely illustrates that I'm right.
You know, I know, and everyone reading this knows quite well that when a person
is shot near the EOP from the 6th floor, given the assumption of the WC's
distance, bullet type and velocity, and head position relative to the shooter -
that it will exit the face.
>> >>>>Complaining that you don't have evidence to support your viewpoint is all
>> >>you're
>>>> >> going to be able to do - as over and over again I show that the *CURRENTLY
>> >> >> KNOWN* evidence fails to support your theory.
>>
>> >> >Do I seem to be complaining?
>>
>>>>Yep... you have repeatedly gone over the fact that I did't provide citations
>>for
>> >> you at the original post.
>>
>> >> Most people would term that "complaining".
>>
>> >No, you said that I complained about something else. Make up your
>> >mind.
>>
>> Confused?
>
>No, but you seem to be. You can't make up your mind about that it is
>that I'm supposed to be complaining about.
Feel free to provide any quote that illustrates your point.
>>>> >>>>This is really simple math. Plot any trajectory you want... lurkers can
>> >> >>figure
>> >> >> >> it out themselves.
>>
>> >> >> >Then perhaps lurkers can also figure out that my above comment relates
>> >> >> >to the size of the damage.
>>
>> >> >> Who cares what your excuse is for your lie? My question leading the
>> >> >> post was quite explicit, and you STILL haven't answered it: "...the
>> >> >> bullet invariably exited the forehead or face of the target - can you
>> >> >> explain why JFK's face was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no
>> >> >> signs of an exiting bullet?"
>>
>> >> >No lying required. I actually believe that the bullet on impact may
>> >> >have deflected to some degree, then started to break apart, and that
>> >> >the larger fragments in any case exited through the upper right part
>> >> >of the skull.
>>
>>>> So you replace evidence with speculation. No problem with that - as long as
>> >> you're capable of ADMITTING that this is what you're doing.
>>
>> >You asked... I provided. Can you think of a better explanation?
>>
>>Of course I can. The evidence supports it. That's your sticking point, isn't
>> it?
>
>You basically have CE 861 & 862 and your uninformed opinion.
My "uninformed" opinion is supported by a ballistics expert.
And, of course, as DVP would put it, "common sense & logic"
This explains why you keep running away from the evidence.
>> >> The hard EVIDENCE contradicts your theory.
>>
>> >Btw, what's *your* theory, Ben?
>>
>> Tsk tsk tsk... the evidence, Mark... stick to the evidence. No speculation
>> needed when you follow the evidence.
>
>You basically have CE 861 & 862 and your uninformed opinion.
>
>Can you find a ballistics expert that agrees with you?
Of course... I've previously cited him. Are you now illiterate as well?
Donahue is his name... I'm quite sure you're familiar with him.
But it doesn't take a ballistics expert to see that the exit of the bullet in
the *best* recreation that Olivier presented went out the face.
This is why you keep running away from simply answering the question...
For once you do - the post is over - you've lost, and I've demonstrated EXACTLY
what I said in the original post.
It's amusing that this question of yours is much like the "forensic pathologist"
type of question that LNT'ers frequently use. Yet *YOU YOURSELF* are willing to
ignore the overwhelming numbers of experts in favor of the sole dissenter, Dr.
Angel.
Amusing!
aeffects
Why do you continually run from the WCR (you need so desperatly
defend), the ONLY document that fully supports the LN ridiculous
assertion of the SBT/LHO-lone nut scenario-theory? Gird those loins,
hon. Give us your best shot!
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> Top Post
>
> Why do you continually run from the WCR
You don`t understand this discussion at all, do you, addict? Ben
mades some claims. Mark and I have been trying to get Ben to support
what he claimed (so far without success). "Ben says" might carry
weight with his number one fan, but is not so persausive to those able
to think for themselves.
>(you need so desperatly
> defend), the ONLY document that fully supports the LN ridiculous
> assertion of the SBT/LHO-lone nut scenario-theory? Gird those loins,
> hon. Give us your best shot!
If this is the best shot the kooks can take at the WC, it`s
conclusions are safe.