Re: Enduring Mystery - Tony Marsh Schooled On The Evidence Again...

[Ben Holmes]

Posted in the censored forum... where Claviger has still not admitted that he
was "mistaken" about residue on bullet fragments, and Tony refusing to admit he
was wrong not only on that count, but also on his claim that the fragments were
"washed".



In article <502fa2ab$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
>On 8/18/2012 10:08 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> ..
>>
>>>> Depends on the projectile of course. A military FMJ would be less
>>>> susceptible to massive disintegration, but still fail if the jacket splits
>>>> on contact. If the human skull can cause this kind of failure so can
>>>> street pavement or a cement curb. Donahue was convinced the massive
>>>> deformation of the two fragments was caused by a missed shot that
>>>> ricocheted off the street surface into the Limousine. The reason being
>>>> there was no blood or human tissue found on those fragments to indicate
>>>> they passed through a human body.
>>>>
>>>
>>> False assumption. There does not have to be blood or human tissue on the
>>> bullet fragments, especially after they were washed for testing.
>>
>>
>>My guess is that no-one in this censored forum will bother to actually check out
>> the testimony to decide who's correct... as it is, neither.
>>
>>Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier,
>>did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by
>> way of cleaning or otherwise?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other
>>material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped
>>off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been
>> necessary.
>> Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
>> Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
>>
>>So there *was* foreign material which could have been blood, and no; they were
>> *NOT* "washed for testing".
>
>
>You just quoted him saying it was wiped off. There was no attempt to
>preserve it for testing. And he could be tell if it was blood. He did
>not test it.

Sorry Tony... "Washed off" doesn't have the same connotation as "wiped off"...
and I *KNOW* you know the difference.

It would be difficult indeed to "wipe" blood off of a striated surface, but
quite easy to "wash" it off.

Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to had the
facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed that there was no
residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed". That's simply untrue.

Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the evidence... but
now you're trying to claim you were right all along...

But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they had
been "washed".

Wrong on both counts.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[timstter]

On Aug 19, 10:03 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Posted in the censored forum... where Claviger has still not admitted that he
> was "mistaken" about residue on bullet fragments, and Tony refusing to admit he
> was wrong not only on that count, but also on his claim that the fragments were
> "washed".
>

> In article <502fa2a...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Why would anyone be concerned with your silly kook brawl with Tony,
Benny?

The more you kick his ass, and vice versa, the more we laugh.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[mainframetech]

On Aug 19, 3:40 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why would anyone be concerned with your silly kook brawl with Tony,
> Benny?
>
> The more you kick his ass, and vice versa, the more we laugh.
>
> Informative Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
> neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
> Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
>

> And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Poor Timmy...left out in the cold on the subject of washing of
bullets...:)

The testimony of FBI agent Robert Frazier to the Warren Commission
on CE 567 (the 2 fragments found in the limo) was as follows:

"Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned,

Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been
received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some

other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination,
but it actually would not have been necessary.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You also mentioned there was blood or some other
substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination,
or was there a test to determine what the substance was?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was no test made of the materials."

From: http://tinyurl.com/8rhxu4j

Notice that the term washing was not used, but that "blood or some
other material" was wiped off by the FBI. The implication of the text
is that CE399 was also treated that way. Anything that might have
been learned from the 'blood or material' was therefore lost, as with
much evidence that the FBI touched.

Chris

[Ben Holmes]

Tony's still running from his lies... from the censored forum:


In article <50310ba2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>The fragments were washed off before testing.


No Tony... they were "wiped" off, which does not imply anything other than a dry
cloth.

Nor did any wiping [or as you claim, washing] stop any evidence of residue - IT
WAS TESTIFIED TO!

Now tell us Tony - why did you tacitly agree that there wasn't any residue on
the fragments?

On what basis were you agreeing with that?

>> Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
>> had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
>> that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
>> That's simply untrue.
>

>I never said there was no residue. There may well have been residue when
>they were found. There was no residue by the time they were tested.

You're lying, Tony. You claim "There may well have been residue..." - YOU'RE
LYING!!! The only evidence we have shows quite clearly that there *WAS* residue.

You failed to correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found on
the two fragments.

Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?

>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>
>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>> had been "washed".
>>
>> Wrong on both counts.
>
>

>You can't test the evidence with residue on it.


Sorry Tony, this statement of yours has *nothing* to do with anything I've
stated.

Here it is again:

[Ben Holmes]

Posted in the censored forum... Tony has now started his rather funny "who what
where?" routine that he often does. His memory starts to slip when he gets into
trouble.



In article <503413ff$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>Which fragments. There was residue on some fragments when they were found.


Who changed the topic, Tony?

Did you suddenly forget the topic?


Or have you been unsure of which two fragments have been under discussion, EVEN
AS YOU RESPONDED TO THE TOPIC?


Either you never knew which two fragments are under discussion - which makes
your response rather silly... or you suddenly forgot which two fragments are
being discussed, in which case all you have to do is REREAD THIS POST.


But, lest you try accusing someone of not answering you, we are discussing those
same two large bullet fragments found in the limo that we've been discussing all
along.


Now, to get to the second part of your "reply"... you admit that there *WAS*
residue on "some fragments" [Ironically, the very two that we're speaking
about].

So if you actually *KNEW* (before I corrected you) that these two fragments had
residue on them, why did you try to argue that there "does not have to be blood

or human tissue on the bullet fragments, especially after they were washed for

testing."?

Because this is a critical question, I'm going to ask it again:

So if you actually *KNEW* (before I corrected you) that these two fragments had
residue on them, why did you try to argue that there "does not have to be blood

or human tissue on the bullet fragments, especially after they were washed for

testing."?

>> On what basis were you agreeing with that?
>>
>>
>>>> Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
>>>> had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
>>>> that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
>>>> That's simply untrue.
>>>
>>> I never said there was no residue. There may well have been residue when
>>> they were found. There was no residue by the time they were tested.
>>

>> It's too bad that statements like this cannot be accurately labeled in
>> this censored forum. [See the open forum for more information...]

>>
>> You failed to correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found
>> on the two fragments.
>>
>> Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?
>>
>

>Which fragments? I don't read the uncensored newsgroup.


See above.


Then answer the question Tony. This has *NOTHING* to do with the open forum.


And in case you've forgotten, here's the question again: You failed to correct

the poster when he claimed that no residue was found on the two fragments. Why
did you fail to correct the record, Tony?

That was in THIS forum... not the open forum.

>>>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>>>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>>>
>>>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>>>> had been "washed".
>>>>
>>>> Wrong on both counts.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't test the evidence with residue on it.
>>
>>
>> Sorry Tony, this statement of yours has *nothing* to do with anything I've
>> stated.
>>
>> Here it is again:
>>
>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>
>

>Maybe I checked the evidence that you didn't even know about.


Since you were provably incorrect, it seems rather unlikely, doesn't it?

Indeed, you're admitting in this post THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE WHICH
BULLET FRAGMENTS ARE BEING DISCUSSED!

How can you have superior knowledge on a topic that you can't even define?


Of course, if you *did* have evidence that I didn't cite, you provably HAVE NOT
CITED IT, nor, I suspect, will you ever do anything other than imply that you
might have it.

Your next response will either prove me correct, or prove me wrong. Anyone care
to make a bet on what the result will be?

>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>> had been "washed".
>>
>

>When?

This is *YOUR* claim, Tony. *YOU* are claiming that the bullet fragments that
you cannot name were "washed".

So tell us Tony, WHEN WERE THEY WASHED, AND BY WHOM?

And why was I able to cite for the fact that you argued against, that they did
indeed have residue on them?

[Ben Holmes]

Posted in the censored forum... Tony is twisting in the wind after I pointed out
his deceptions.

He's made a few claims in this post that are real keepers...



In article <5035...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>You did.


Of course I didn't. I'm *STILL* speaking of the two fragments found in the limo.

Can you support your claim, Tony?

Can you QUOTE any change of the topic?

>> Did you suddenly forget the topic?
>>
>

>No, you did.


Feel free to point out why you think that the topic has changed... QUOTE the
relevant section.

>> Or have you been unsure of which two fragments have been under discussion,
>> EVEN AS YOU RESPONDED TO THE TOPIC?
>>
>

>I wanted to make sure YOU knew which two fragments were being discussed.


Sorry Tony, you just got through claiming that I've changed the topic.

Now you imply that you were just checking to make sure.

So tell everyone something that you can SUPPORT with quotes, Tony...

>> Either you never knew which two fragments are under discussion - which
>> makes your response rather silly... or you suddenly forgot which two
>> fragments are being discussed, in which case all you have to do is REREAD
>> THIS POST.
>>
>

>Your posts have been confusing because you are not sure which two
>fragments we have been discussing.


No Tony... no-one is confused. You're *pretending* to be confused, but the
*same* two fragments found in the limo are *STILL* the ones being talked about.

Now, tell us ... no, QUOTE us, what statement of mine led you to believe that
the topic had been changed...

But you won't.

>> But, lest you try accusing someone of not answering you, we are discussing
>> those same two large bullet fragments found in the limo that we've been
>> discussing all along.
>>
>>
>> Now, to get to the second part of your "reply"... you admit that there
>> *WAS* residue on "some fragments" [Ironically, the very two that we're
>> speaking about].
>>
>
>

>I did not limit it to only those two.


Then you should have said so, right?

Why did you imply that there was *NO* residue on those two, and when
contradicted by the testimony I quoted, then go on to claim that you don't know
what two fragments I'm speaking of?



>And again the salient question is


The one you were provably wrong on.

Indeed, that's why I quoted the testimony that contradicted what you claimed.


>WHEN they ere contamination, how much, when they were cleaned and how
>well. You need to remember that the FBI search team did not find the two
>large fragments in the front seat area. They were recovered by the Secret
>Service. We simply don't know how carefully they were handled and
>processed by the Secret Service.


None of this matters if you don't know which fragments we are speaking about,
and cannot admit that the evidence shows that they *DID* have residue on them.

Contrary to your statement... where you agreed with the poster, and asserted
that "There does not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments,

especially after they were washed for testing."

BUT THERE *WAS* RESIDUE ON THESE TWO BULLET FRAGMENTS.


So why didn't you point this out?


Why are you trying to confuse everyone about which bullet fragments are under
discussion?

>> So if you actually *KNEW* (before I corrected you) that these two
>> fragments had residue on them, why did you try to argue that there "does
>> not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments, especially
>> after they were washed for testing."?
>>
>

>Your only weapon is to claim that I said things which I never did.

"There does not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments,
especially after they were washed for testing."

No Tony... I merely QUOTE YOUR EXACT WORDS, and ask you why they are contrary to
the known evidence...


Now, tell us what I've "claimed that you said" that you've not said, Tony. That
way, I can quote your exact words to illustrate that you're incorrect.



>I was
>quoting these same documents some 30-40 years which you just stumbled
>upon recently.


Another silly claim that you can't cite for. If you've been quoting this
particular testimony for 30-40 years, why did you make a claim that contradicts
it in this thread?

>> Because this is a critical question, I'm going to ask it again:
>>
>> So if you actually *KNEW* (before I corrected you) that these two
>> fragments had residue on them, why did you try to argue that there "does
>> not have to be blood or human tissue on the bullet fragments, especially
>> after they were washed for testing."?
>>
>

>Because the why you phrased your argument suggested that you believe
>there MUST always be residue on any bullet that went through a body. But
>that is not true.


No Tony, no such statement was ever made, nor implied. You CANNOT quote anything
that I said that would even imply what you're now claiming.

Nor will you even try.



Why do you think you can get away with such clearly incorrect statements?
Perhaps because this is the censored forum, and you know that you won't be
called to task for such claims?

Quote my statements, Tony... and show your claim with argument.


But you won't.

Nor will you even try.

>>>> On what basis were you agreeing with that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Nor were you willing to point out that the poster you were responding to
>>>>>> had the facts wrong... just as *YOU* had the facts wrong. You presumed
>>>>>> that there was no residue because the bullet fragments had been "washed".
>>>>>> That's simply untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said there was no residue. There may well have been residue when
>>>>> they were found. There was no residue by the time they were tested.
>>>>
>>>> It's too bad that statements like this cannot be accurately labeled in
>>>> this censored forum. [See the open forum for more information...]
>>>>
>>>> You failed to correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found
>>>> on the two fragments.
>>>>
>>>> Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which fragments? I don't read the uncensored newsgroup.
>>
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>
>> Then answer the question Tony. This has *NOTHING* to do with the open
>> forum.
>>
>
>

>Yes it did. Instead of explaining yourself you said, "See the open forum
>for more information..." and you know that I do not post in the "open
>forum." So your remark was evasive and facetious.


The question had *NOTHING* to do with any information contained in the open
forum... I merely point out there, what would be censored here.


What *WAS* in the open forum was precisely what I stated would be found there...
an accurate *label* for the statement that I was replying to. You can probably
very quickly guess which three letter word I used to refer to your statement.

>> And in case you've forgotten, here's the question again: You failed to
>> correct the poster when he claimed that no residue was found on the two
>> fragments. Why did you fail to correct the record, Tony?
>>
>

>I don't have to correct every nutty thing you say.


But you *DO* have to correct every nutty thing *YOU* say, or else stand the
chance that people like me will be happy to point it out.

Can you admit in this censored forum that the two bullet fragments THAT WERE
BEING DISCUSSED IN THE BEGINNING, ALL ALONG, AND RIGHT NOW, actually had residue
on them, and that this is what the evidence shows?

Probably not... because then you'd have to explain why you implied otherwise.


>There are only so
>many hours in the day. After I correct you 100 times, I may get bored
>and not bother correcting you another 100 times.


You've not corrected me even *once* in this thread.

Tell us Tony, can you admit that the evidence shows that there was residue found
on the two bullet fragments found in the limo that are under discussion here?


And if you can bring yourself to admit the truth, do you have *any explanation
whatsoever* for your failure to point this out in the beginning?

>> That was in THIS forum... not the open forum.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>>>>>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>>>>>> had been "washed".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong on both counts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't test the evidence with residue on it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Tony, this statement of yours has *nothing* to do with anything I've
>>>> stated.
>>>>
>>>> Here it is again:
>>>>
>>>> Now, most likely your error was because you failed to check the
>>>> evidence... but now you're trying to claim you were right all along...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I checked the evidence that you didn't even know about.
>>
>>
>> Since you were provably incorrect, it seems rather unlikely, doesn't it?
>>
>

>Since you don't even know the evidence in this case you are in no
>position to determine that.



As I suspected, you've been unable to cite anything...


And since you've been shown to be incorrect on your presumption, and that of the
original poster you were responding to - the chances that you *EVER* had
evidence that you could cite is vanishingly small, isn't it?

>> Indeed, you're admitting in this post THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE
>> WHICH BULLET FRAGMENTS ARE BEING DISCUSSED!
>>
>

>I am not sure which bullet fragments you mean because you have been
>evasive in explaining yourself.

Who changed the topic, Tony?

Did you understand WHEN YOU INITIALLY RESPONDED which two bullet fragments were
being discussed?

Did the topic change at all?

Can you QUOTE any statement of mine that would lead *ANYONE* to be confused
about which two bullet fragments are being talked about?

>> How can you have superior knowledge on a topic that you can't even define?
>>
>

>Because I was studying it long before you even heard of this case.


ROTFLMAO!!!


Okay... you've claimed that you can have superior knowledge on a topic that you
cannot even define.


So let's change the topic. I know what it is, and you can't define it. So tell
everyone something very simple. What did JFK have to say on this topic?

Anyone who *can* define the topic can *EASILY* look it up.

So tell us the answer, Tony.


Demonstrate that what you just claimed you can do, you can actually *do*.

>> Of course, if you *did* have evidence that I didn't cite, you provably
>> HAVE NOT CITED IT, nor, I suspect, will you ever do anything other than
>> imply that you might have it.
>>
>

>I have cited it hundreds of times, but you are too lazy to find those
>instances.


ROTFLMAO!!!


Too bad this is the censored forum... it protects you in instances like this.

>> Your next response will either prove me correct, or prove me wrong. Anyone
>> care to make a bet on what the result will be?
>>
>

>Why do you think you deserve a response at all? Who the Hell do you
>think you are to even try to argue any point with me when you refuse to
>do your homework?


Yep... proved me correct. You can't cite, you're claiming not to even know which
two bullet fragments I was talking about.

>>>> But as is obvious... you *thought* that there was no residue because they
>>>> had been "washed".
>>>>
>>>
>>> When?
>>
>> This is *YOUR* claim, Tony. *YOU* are claiming that the bullet fragments
>> that you cannot name were "washed".
>>
>

>No, that is not my claim. That is your misrepresentation.


I defy you to produce a single instance on my part where I stated that these two

bullet fragments had been "washed".

You won't, of course... you can't.


I repeat, this was *YOUR* claim, Tony. *ONLY* you have been using the term
"wash" with respect to these two bullet fragments.

>> So tell us Tony, WHEN WERE THEY WASHED, AND BY WHOM?

I didn't think I'd get an answer...

>> And why was I able to cite for the fact that you argued against, that they
>> did indeed have residue on them?
>>
>

>When exactly did they have residue on them and do they still have
>exactly the same residue on them?


You're changing the topic, Tony...


Your original claim was that they *DIDN'T* have residue on them, *BECAUSE* they
had been washed.


So tell the truth, Tony... did they have residue on them?


>If not that alone proves that they were cleaned.


No Tony... what "proves" them to have had residue on them IS THE TESTIMONY THAT
I QUOTED.

Testimony that contradicts what you stated.

You've not cited any evidence that they did *NOT* have residue on them.


>So then YOU need to tell me exactly when they were cleaned and by whom.


They were cleaned by Mr. Phelps, a lab assistant, and it was done shortly after
9am on Jan. 23, 1964. He used a dry cloth, and merely wiped them clean.

I've cited for this fact hundreds of times, but you are too lazy to find those
instances.

[Ben Holmes]

Reposted: Tony has run from this one, and is refusing to reply to it. This is a
common tactic of many LNT'ers... they'll respond a few times, but as their
nonsense keeps being pointed out, and they realize that they can't spin their
way out of their actual statements - they cut and run. Amusing!!!

***************************************************************************