Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cowards Everywhere...
12 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Jun 21, 2012, 10:12:50 AM6/21/12
to
Found online...
****************************************************************************
When the Internet was in its infancy, a friend of mine introduced me to Internet
newsgroups. I was thrilled at the idea of being able to instantly communicate
with other serious researchers like myself from around the globe. He logged on
to alt.conspiracy.jfk and turned the keyboard and mouse over to me. I eagerly
began browsing the topics and reading a few entries. "Oh my gawd!" I exclaimed,
absolutely horrified. "These people are nuttier than a fruit cake!" My friend
laughed his fool head off.
To say that things have only gotten worse would be an understatement. My early
vision of an Internet utopia where serious research and discussion of the
Kennedy assassination would lead to truth and clarity floundered on the rocks of
reality on day one. It never occurred to me that the Internet might allow
lonely, irrational, and psychotic people to clutter up the chat rooms and
discussion boards. And God knows, the Kennedy assassination is one big magnet.
The worse part about the Internet and the Kennedy assassination is that the
technology has allowed old myths to rise from the ashes and proliferate. Spin
down the subject headings of any newsgroup: The Figure in the Doorway, Two
Rifles on the Sixth Floor, The Sidewalk Scar, Tommy Tilson's Car Chase, James
Files and the Dented Cartridge Case, and on and on. These subjects were not just
debunked decades ago - they were destroyed beyond recognition and don't belong
in any serious discussion, except perhaps as part of a brief and whimsical look
back on what passed for "important" issues. Yet, there they are - hot,
time-wasting topics for a new generation of young, naive minds. Sadly, this
cycle of endless myth-making, destruction, and resurrection will never go away.
It is the heart of the Internet.
Posted by Dale K. Myers
*****************************************************************************
This is the sort of cowardice that's endemic on the net... Myers can't defend
his words in an open forum, he can't support his beliefs.
Lone Nutters run from debate against anyone who's knowledgeable on the evidence
in this case for the simple reason that the evidence really doesn't support the
WCR. And, in this time of so much information available online - they *KNOW* it.
Rather amusing is the assertion about the subject headings - I invite anyone to
look in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, and see the nonsense they
are often engaged in.
Sure would be nice to find an honest Lone Nutter...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Bud
Jun 21, 2012, 10:53:45 AM6/21/12
to
On Jun 21, 10:12 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Found online...
>
> *************************************************************************** *
<snicker> And you can.
> Lone Nutters run from debate against anyone who's knowledgeable on the evidence
> in this case
Jean Davison was doing just that when you purposely drove her away
with ad hominem.
> for the simple reason that the evidence really doesn't support the
> WCR. And, in this time of so much information available online - they *KNOW* it.
Every time I look into something a conspiracy retard brings up I
find they are misrepresenting the information.
> Rather amusing is the assertion about the subject headings - I invite anyone to
> look in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, and see the nonsense they
> are often engaged in.
>
> Sure would be nice to find an honest Lone Nutter...
They are all over. You are just retarded.
> Found online...
>
> *************************************************************************** *
> Lone Nutters run from debate against anyone who's knowledgeable on the evidence
> in this case
with ad hominem.
> for the simple reason that the evidence really doesn't support the
> WCR. And, in this time of so much information available online - they *KNOW* it.
find they are misrepresenting the information.
> Rather amusing is the assertion about the subject headings - I invite anyone to
> look in the censored (alt.assassination.jfk) forum, and see the nonsense they
> are often engaged in.
>
> Sure would be nice to find an honest Lone Nutter...
lazu...@webtv.net
Jun 21, 2012, 1:48:19 PM6/21/12
to
What the lone nutters need to get thru their cement heads is this:
Because Mack, McAdams, Mers, Reitzes etc. say something is debunked does
not mean it is debunked! It is just their opinion!...Laz
Because Mack, McAdams, Mers, Reitzes etc. say something is debunked does
not mean it is debunked! It is just their opinion!...Laz
lazu...@webtv.net
Jun 21, 2012, 2:03:42 PM6/21/12
to
Let me give you one of many examples-Roscoe White, Mack, McAdams inco.
will say this is debunked, when in fact they don't know anymore for
certain than your average teenager if White was on the knoll.
As White lay dying from burns he received in 1971- he told Rev. Jack
Shaw that he had killed on Foreign and Domestic Soil and saw a man with
a briefcase just before he died and thought the CIA was after him.
Matthew Smith in JFK The Second Plot, which I'm now reading talked to
Shaw and the above is what he descibed. He said White did not allude to
killing the President or the officer, but come on he is admitting as he
was dying..that he was a contract killer.
We know there were police officers on the grassy knoll just before the
shooting, as corroborated by Altgens in 1965 to David Lifton in BE...Laz
will say this is debunked, when in fact they don't know anymore for
certain than your average teenager if White was on the knoll.
As White lay dying from burns he received in 1971- he told Rev. Jack
Shaw that he had killed on Foreign and Domestic Soil and saw a man with
a briefcase just before he died and thought the CIA was after him.
Matthew Smith in JFK The Second Plot, which I'm now reading talked to
Shaw and the above is what he descibed. He said White did not allude to
killing the President or the officer, but come on he is admitting as he
was dying..that he was a contract killer.
We know there were police officers on the grassy knoll just before the
shooting, as corroborated by Altgens in 1965 to David Lifton in BE...Laz
Bud
Jun 21, 2012, 2:29:33 PM6/21/12
to
say something is significant doesn`t mean that it is.
Bud
Jun 21, 2012, 2:31:26 PM6/21/12
to
On Jun 21, 2:03 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Let me give you one of many examples-Roscoe White, Mack, McAdams inco.
> will say this is debunked, when in fact they don't know anymore for
> certain than your average teenager if White was on the knoll.
>
> As White lay dying from burns he received in 1971- he told Rev. Jack
> Shaw that he had killed on Foreign and Domestic Soil and saw a man with
> a briefcase just before he died and thought the CIA was after him.
> Matthew Smith in JFK The Second Plot, which I'm now reading talked to
> Shaw and the above is what he descibed. He said White did not allude to
> killing the President or the officer, but come on he is admitting as he
> was dying..that he was a contract killer.
When you can actually bag one of these snipes be sure to let us
> Let me give you one of many examples-Roscoe White, Mack, McAdams inco.
> will say this is debunked, when in fact they don't know anymore for
> certain than your average teenager if White was on the knoll.
>
> As White lay dying from burns he received in 1971- he told Rev. Jack
> Shaw that he had killed on Foreign and Domestic Soil and saw a man with
> a briefcase just before he died and thought the CIA was after him.
> Matthew Smith in JFK The Second Plot, which I'm now reading talked to
> Shaw and the above is what he descibed. He said White did not allude to
> killing the President or the officer, but come on he is admitting as he
> was dying..that he was a contract killer.
know, will you?
Jason Burke
Jun 21, 2012, 3:08:51 PM6/21/12
to
your logic, since White didn't allude to killing JFK, one of the others
must have done it.
Wow, lazboy. That's an incredible stretch, even for you.
Ben Holmes
Jun 21, 2012, 3:32:05 PM6/21/12
to
In article <11555-4F...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>, lazu...@webtv.net
says...
"debunking"... one would think that they could quickly locate such material and
be ready to cite anytime someone asks.
Whenever they want to re-assert their LNT'er factoids, I'm always happy to cite
the relevant debunking.
says...
>
>What the lone nutters need to get thru their cement heads is this:
>Because Mack, McAdams, Mers, Reitzes etc. say something is debunked does
>not mean it is debunked! It is just their opinion!...Laz
And what's most amusing, is that they never seem able to *CITE* that
>What the lone nutters need to get thru their cement heads is this:
>Because Mack, McAdams, Mers, Reitzes etc. say something is debunked does
>not mean it is debunked! It is just their opinion!...Laz
"debunking"... one would think that they could quickly locate such material and
be ready to cite anytime someone asks.
Whenever they want to re-assert their LNT'er factoids, I'm always happy to cite
the relevant debunking.
Sam McClung
Jun 21, 2012, 3:39:20 PM6/21/12
to
laz mentioned in part:
motorcade and men getting out of it, and at least one of the men was in a
dpd uniform, as seen by altgens in the locale he was in during the shooting?
from the back side of the fence, perhaps this is when lee bowers saw a car
pull up, two men dressed as cops get out with rifles, one took a position on
the car they drove up in or on a car, and the other in the vicinity,
presumably what some call the badgeman position, then shoot at jfk, bowers
knowing they both shot at jfk because smoke issued from both rifles
> We know there were police officers on the grassy knoll just before the
> shooting, as corroborated by Altgens in 1965 to David Lifton in BE...Laz
is that the story of an automobile arriving just minutes before the
> shooting, as corroborated by Altgens in 1965 to David Lifton in BE...Laz
motorcade and men getting out of it, and at least one of the men was in a
dpd uniform, as seen by altgens in the locale he was in during the shooting?
from the back side of the fence, perhaps this is when lee bowers saw a car
pull up, two men dressed as cops get out with rifles, one took a position on
the car they drove up in or on a car, and the other in the vicinity,
presumably what some call the badgeman position, then shoot at jfk, bowers
knowing they both shot at jfk because smoke issued from both rifles
timstter
Jun 21, 2012, 4:59:56 PM6/21/12
to
betters you in an argument you make up an excuse to switch on your
killfilter so you don't have to see the replies anymore.
A runner like you should be the LAST person to be accusing other
posters of cowardice, Holmes.
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
Bud
Jun 21, 2012, 5:20:54 PM6/21/12
to
On Jun 21, 3:32 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <11555-4FE35E63...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>, lazuli...@webtv.net
*you* consider not to be debunked?
> In article <11555-4FE35E63...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>, lazuli...@webtv.net
> says...
>
>
>
> >What the lone nutters need to get thru their cement heads is this:
> >Because Mack, McAdams, Mers, Reitzes etc. say something is debunked does
> >not mean it is debunked! It is just their opinion!...Laz
>
> And what's most amusing, is that they never seem able to *CITE* that
> "debunking"... one would think that they could quickly locate such material and
> be ready to cite anytime someone asks.
>
> Whenever they want to re-assert their LNT'er factoids, I'm always happy to cite
> the relevant debunking.
Doesn`t it just come down to what *you* consider debunked and what
>
>
>
> >What the lone nutters need to get thru their cement heads is this:
> >Because Mack, McAdams, Mers, Reitzes etc. say something is debunked does
> >not mean it is debunked! It is just their opinion!...Laz
>
> And what's most amusing, is that they never seem able to *CITE* that
> "debunking"... one would think that they could quickly locate such material and
> be ready to cite anytime someone asks.
>
> Whenever they want to re-assert their LNT'er factoids, I'm always happy to cite
> the relevant debunking.
*you* consider not to be debunked?
lazu...@webtv.net
Jun 23, 2012, 3:35:43 PM6/23/12
to
To follow up on Roscoe White another interesting thing is-the chapter on
him in High Treason 2, has nothing to do with the few very revealing
pages on him in Treachery In Dallas, which is completely different than
the 8-10 pages on him in Oswald Talked, and that is entirely different
than the scenario layed out for him in JFK: The 2nd Plot...bottom
line-Roscoe White was heavily involved in the Assassination and
aftermath...Laz
him in High Treason 2, has nothing to do with the few very revealing
pages on him in Treachery In Dallas, which is completely different than
the 8-10 pages on him in Oswald Talked, and that is entirely different
than the scenario layed out for him in JFK: The 2nd Plot...bottom
line-Roscoe White was heavily involved in the Assassination and
aftermath...Laz
timstter
Jun 23, 2012, 3:46:39 PM6/23/12
to
On Jun 22, 5:32 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <11555-4FE35E63...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>, lazuli...@webtv.net
> In article <11555-4FE35E63...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>, lazuli...@webtv.net
killfilter, as you do, Holmes.
That way you can live in blissful ignorance, pretending your hero Mark
Lane has never been debunked.
aeffects
Jun 23, 2012, 4:16:27 PM6/23/12
to
On Jun 23, 12:46 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip Fat's lunacy>
BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
<snip Fat's lunacy>
BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
tom...@cox.net
Jun 23, 2012, 10:48:39 PM6/23/12
to
timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:
like any druggie, thy don' know the differance between "Debunking and,
"DENIAL">
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
> On Jun 22, 5:32=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> > In article <11555-4FE35E63...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> > lazuli...@we=
> > In article <11555-4FE35E63...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
> btv.net
> > says...
> >
> >
> >
> > >What the lone nutters need to get thru their cement heads is this:
> > >Because Mack, McAdams, Mers, Reitzes etc. say something is debunked
> > >does not mean it is debunked! It is just their opinion!...Laz
> >
> > And what's most amusing, is that they never seem able to *CITE* that
> > "debunking"... one would think that they could quickly locate such
> > materi=
> > says...
> >
> >
> >
> > >What the lone nutters need to get thru their cement heads is this:
> > >Because Mack, McAdams, Mers, Reitzes etc. say something is debunked
> > >does not mean it is debunked! It is just their opinion!...Laz
> >
> > And what's most amusing, is that they never seem able to *CITE* that
> > "debunking"... one would think that they could quickly locate such
> al and
> > be ready to cite anytime someone asks.
> >
> > Whenever they want to re-assert their LNT'er factoids, I'm always happy
> > t=
> > be ready to cite anytime someone asks.
> >
> > Whenever they want to re-assert their LNT'er factoids, I'm always happy
> o cite
> > the relevant debunking.
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - Ben Holmes
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> It's probably hard to see the debunkings when you hide behind a
> killfilter, as you do, Holmes.
>
> That way you can live in blissful ignorance, pretending your hero Mark
> Lane has never been debunked.
>
> 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_0
> 14= 4a.htm
> > the relevant debunking.
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - Ben Holmes
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> It's probably hard to see the debunkings when you hide behind a
> killfilter, as you do, Holmes.
>
> That way you can live in blissful ignorance, pretending your hero Mark
> Lane has never been debunked.
>
> 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_0
like any druggie, thy don' know the differance between "Debunking and,
"DENIAL">
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
timstter
Jun 23, 2012, 11:27:12 PM6/23/12
to
so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
The reality is that Mark Lane is a PROVEN SERIAL LIAR in the matter of
the Kennedy assassination and all the bluster, snipping and hiding
behind killfilters in the world can't change that fact.
Holmes looks the complete FOOL, pretending Lane has never been
debunked.
And you simply look the dishonest clown protecting him.
Sam McClung
Jun 24, 2012, 12:32:19 AM6/24/12
to
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19897-4F...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
I found him in the acoustic position in the zapruder film holding a smoking
suppressed rifle, a 7.65 mauser per him
amazing that was the first frame rifle found? a 7.65 mauser also
news:19897-4F...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
suppressed rifle, a 7.65 mauser per him
amazing that was the first frame rifle found? a 7.65 mauser also
aeffects
Jun 24, 2012, 3:15:27 PM6/24/12
to
On Jun 23, 8:27 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:16 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 12:46 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip Fat's lunacy>
>
> > BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
> > was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
> > have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
>
> If Holmes has me by the nuts, why are you snipping everything I post
> so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
hon, your turning purple... FOCUS!
> On Jun 24, 6:16 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 23, 12:46 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip Fat's lunacy>
>
> > BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
> > was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
> > have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
>
> If Holmes has me by the nuts, why are you snipping everything I post
> so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
...
Ben Holmes
Jun 24, 2012, 4:36:22 PM6/24/12
to
In article <e9868324-bde6-4e41...@po9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 23, 8:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 6:16=A0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
would make sure I'd see it.
But these kooks, desperate as they are for my attention - can have it easily...
all they have to do is start providing credible and non-conspiratorial
explanations for the evidence.
The 45 Questions would be a good start.
Or the new Mark Lane series...
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 23, 8:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 6:16=A0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 23, 12:46=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > <snip Fat's lunacy>
>>
>> > BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
>> > was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
>> > have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
>>
>> If Holmes has me by the nuts, why are you snipping everything I post
>> so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
>
>hon, your turning purple... FOCUS!
>
>...
I'm quite sure that if the kook actually made a point worth making, that someone
>> > On Jun 23, 12:46=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > <snip Fat's lunacy>
>>
>> > BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
>> > was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
>> > have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
>>
>> If Holmes has me by the nuts, why are you snipping everything I post
>> so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
>
>hon, your turning purple... FOCUS!
>
>...
would make sure I'd see it.
But these kooks, desperate as they are for my attention - can have it easily...
all they have to do is start providing credible and non-conspiratorial
explanations for the evidence.
The 45 Questions would be a good start.
Or the new Mark Lane series...
Sam McClung
Jun 24, 2012, 10:29:42 PM6/24/12
to
purple all over
timstter
Jun 25, 2012, 5:55:58 PM6/25/12
to
On Jun 25, 6:36 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <e9868324-bde6-4e41-b95c-17f0f6ced...@po9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
someone called you Benny instead of Ben and that was an *ad hominem*
attack, eh?
> But these kooks, desperate as they are for my attention - can have it easily...
> all they have to do is start providing credible and non-conspiratorial
> explanations for the evidence.
>
We can certainly point out serial lies by your hero, Mark Lane! Is
that a help?
> The 45 Questions would be a good start.
>
Was that the series where you were exposed as a clown over the Officer
Chaney matter?
> Or the new Mark Lane series...
>
Bit hard for you to see any replies, skulking behind your killfilter
as you do, Yellow Pants.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Time you circled the wagon, Holmes.
> In article <e9868324-bde6-4e41-b95c-17f0f6ced...@po9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 23, 8:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 24, 6:16=A0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 23, 12:46=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > <snip Fat's lunacy>
>
> >> > BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
> >> > was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
> >> > have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
>
> >> If Holmes has me by the nuts, why are you snipping everything I post
> >> so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
>
> >hon, your turning purple... FOCUS!
>
> >...
>
> I'm quite sure that if the kook actually made a point worth making, that someone
> would make sure I'd see it.
>
But in the meantime you'll simply skulk behind your killfilter because
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 23, 8:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 24, 6:16=A0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jun 23, 12:46=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > <snip Fat's lunacy>
>
> >> > BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
> >> > was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
> >> > have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
>
> >> If Holmes has me by the nuts, why are you snipping everything I post
> >> so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
>
> >hon, your turning purple... FOCUS!
>
> >...
>
> I'm quite sure that if the kook actually made a point worth making, that someone
> would make sure I'd see it.
>
someone called you Benny instead of Ben and that was an *ad hominem*
attack, eh?
> But these kooks, desperate as they are for my attention - can have it easily...
> all they have to do is start providing credible and non-conspiratorial
> explanations for the evidence.
>
that a help?
> The 45 Questions would be a good start.
>
Chaney matter?
> Or the new Mark Lane series...
>
as you do, Yellow Pants.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
aeffects
Jun 25, 2012, 7:47:11 PM6/25/12
to
On Jun 25, 2:55 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 6:36 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <e9868324-bde6-4e41-b95c-17f0f6ced...@po9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > aeffects says...
>
> > >On Jun 23, 8:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 24, 6:16=A0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Jun 23, 12:46=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > <snip Fat's lunacy>
>
> > >> > BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
> > >> > was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
> > >> > have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
>
> > >> If Holmes has me by the nuts, why are you snipping everything I post
> > >> so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
>
> > >hon, your turning purple... FOCUS!
>
> > >...
>
> > I'm quite sure that if the kook actually made a point worth making, that someone
> > would make sure I'd see it.
>
> But in the meantime you'll simply skulk behind your killfilter because
> someone called you Benny instead of Ben and that was an *ad hominem*
> attack, eh?
shithead read the black on white, you're not making a point worth
> On Jun 25, 6:36 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <e9868324-bde6-4e41-b95c-17f0f6ced...@po9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > aeffects says...
>
> > >On Jun 23, 8:27=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 24, 6:16=A0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Jun 23, 12:46=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > <snip Fat's lunacy>
>
> > >> > BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
> > >> > was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
> > >> > have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
>
> > >> If Holmes has me by the nuts, why are you snipping everything I post
> > >> so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
>
> > >hon, your turning purple... FOCUS!
>
> > >...
>
> > I'm quite sure that if the kook actually made a point worth making, that someone
> > would make sure I'd see it.
>
> But in the meantime you'll simply skulk behind your killfilter because
> someone called you Benny instead of Ben and that was an *ad hominem*
> attack, eh?
making. If you want to run around with a hard-on for .johnites, fine.
You want to discuss the evidence get use to citing.... till then pull
pud on aaj, where you losers belong....
> > But these kooks, desperate as they are for my attention - can have it easily...
> > all they have to do is start providing credible and non-conspiratorial
> > explanations for the evidence.
>
> We can certainly point out serial lies by your hero, Mark Lane! Is
> that a help?
Lanes Rush to Judgement and you sit with your finger in your ear
asking which way is up, you're a loser douche, another moron in a Mel
Ayton dress. Carry on. LMFAO!
> > The 45 Questions would be a good start.
>
> Was that the series where you were exposed as a clown over the Officer
> Chaney matter?
>
> > Or the new Mark Lane series...
>
> Bit hard for you to see any replies, skulking behind your killfilter
> as you do, Yellow Pants.
>
> > --
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ben Holmes
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
>
> Time you circled the wagon, Holmes.
>
> 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.
>
Ben Holmes
Jun 25, 2012, 8:57:29 PM6/25/12
to
In article <9f79aaf0-879d-4bfc...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 25, 2:55=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 6:36=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <e9868324-bde6-4e41-b95c-17f0f6ced...@po9g2000pbb.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On Jun 23, 8:27=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Jun 24, 6:16=3DA0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
By admitting this simple fact, that I *DO* generally get to see posts that make
any evidential point, you've destroyed your own position.
>> you'll simply skulk behind your killfilter because
>> someone called you Benny instead of Ben and that was an *ad hominem*
>> attack, eh?
You see???
Even right here, you can't debate the evidence. All you can do is whine that you
don't feel like you're getting the attention you deserve.
Well guess what? You *don't*.
>shithead read the black on white, you're not making a point worth
>making. If you want to run around with a hard-on for .johnites, fine.
>You want to discuss the evidence get use to citing.... till then pull
>pud on aaj, where you losers belong....
Citing is foreign to the kooks - they don't get very much practice at it.
Mostly, I suspect, because almost anything that they *could* cite - doesn't
support their faith.
>> > But these kooks, desperate as they are for my attention - can have it e=
Indeed, what we're discovering is the lies told by the Warren Commission - not
any by Mark Lane.
The silence is deafening.
>> > The 45 Questions would be a good start.
>>
>> Was that the series where you were exposed as a clown over the Officer
>> Chaney matter?
Never happened.
Could it have been this one:
*********************************************************
6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet away,
and looking directly at JFK during the shooting (according to both his
statements, and the Altgen's photo of him). We *KNOW* that his testimony would
have been devastating to the SBT - since we know that Chaney asserted that the
bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Connally.
Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that
you remember?
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two
shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
Mr. BELIN - Where was he?
Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then
at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and
he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret
Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the
shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped
completely, pulled to the left and stopped.
Mr. BELIN - The President's car?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that,
Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers
said it stopped completely.
Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.
Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a
moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.
Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a
pattern of shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory, can
anyone defend the Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question
James Chaney directly? Why was he never questioned by the FBI or
Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?
His testimony would also go to the point of whether or not the extant
Z-film was accurate - but can *ANY* credible explanation be offered
for why a police officer less than a dozen feet away from the murder
victim be offered?
Or will LNT'ers be silent again...
*********************************************************
Or perhaps this one:
*********************************************************
27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the
extant Z-film?
Simple denial seems to be the most frequent response from the trolls & LNT'er
camp - yet with over 40 years to do so, no LNT'er has ever used a telephoto
lense from Altgen's reported position to duplicate the photo with Chaney in the
same position as Hargis (on the other side of the followup limo)
Nor has any troll or LNT'er explained the shadow from Chaney's motorcycle that
is seen. So many of the photos/X-rays in this case simply don't match up - and
there appears to be deafening silence from the "photos/videos/X-rays are
authentic" crowd.
*********************************************************
Take your pick, and cite away...
>> > Or the new Mark Lane series...
>>
>> Bit hard for you to see any replies, skulking behind your killfilter
>> as you do, Yellow Pants.
Not hard at all, as you've already admitted.
I merely get to skip the majority of the nonsense.
>> Time you circled the wagon, Holmes.
I can make you clowns jump anytime I feel like it.
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 25, 2:55=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 6:36=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <e9868324-bde6-4e41-b95c-17f0f6ced...@po9g2000pbb.googlegrou=
>ps.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On Jun 23, 8:27=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Jun 24, 6:16=3DA0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > On Jun 23, 12:46=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > <snip Fat's lunacy>
>>
>> > >> > BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
>> > >> > was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
>> > >> > have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
>>
>> > >> If Holmes has me by the nuts, why are you snipping everything I post
>> > >> so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
>>
>> > >hon, your turning purple... FOCUS!
>>
>> > >...
>>
>> > I'm quite sure that if the kook actually made a point worth making, that
>> > someone would make sure I'd see it.
>>
>> But in the meantime
So the kook admits that I'm not missing anything.
>> > >> > On Jun 23, 12:46=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > <snip Fat's lunacy>
>>
>> > >> > BHolmes has you by the nuts moron... and to think, ALL you had to do
>> > >> > was cite your lone nut-SBT prostrations and proof, you failed fool. As
>> > >> > have thousands before you. Carry on, nut-less!
>>
>> > >> If Holmes has me by the nuts, why are you snipping everything I post
>> > >> so that Holmes can't see it, Dave?
>>
>> > >hon, your turning purple... FOCUS!
>>
>> > >...
>>
>> > I'm quite sure that if the kook actually made a point worth making, that
>> > someone would make sure I'd see it.
>>
>> But in the meantime
By admitting this simple fact, that I *DO* generally get to see posts that make
any evidential point, you've destroyed your own position.
>> you'll simply skulk behind your killfilter because
>> someone called you Benny instead of Ben and that was an *ad hominem*
>> attack, eh?
Even right here, you can't debate the evidence. All you can do is whine that you
don't feel like you're getting the attention you deserve.
Well guess what? You *don't*.
>shithead read the black on white, you're not making a point worth
>making. If you want to run around with a hard-on for .johnites, fine.
>You want to discuss the evidence get use to citing.... till then pull
>pud on aaj, where you losers belong....
Mostly, I suspect, because almost anything that they *could* cite - doesn't
support their faith.
>> > But these kooks, desperate as they are for my attention - can have it e=
>asily...
>> > all they have to do is start providing credible and non-conspiratorial
>> > explanations for the evidence.
>>
>> We can certainly point out serial lies by your hero, Mark Lane! Is
>> that a help?
>
>you haven't pointed out anything, you've had 30+ points from Mark
>Lanes Rush to Judgement and you sit with your finger in your ear
>asking which way is up, you're a loser douche, another moron in a Mel
>Ayton dress. Carry on. LMFAO!
Yep... I keep giving them chances to point out lies, and they keep running away.
>> > all they have to do is start providing credible and non-conspiratorial
>> > explanations for the evidence.
>>
>> We can certainly point out serial lies by your hero, Mark Lane! Is
>> that a help?
>
>you haven't pointed out anything, you've had 30+ points from Mark
>Lanes Rush to Judgement and you sit with your finger in your ear
>asking which way is up, you're a loser douche, another moron in a Mel
>Ayton dress. Carry on. LMFAO!
Indeed, what we're discovering is the lies told by the Warren Commission - not
any by Mark Lane.
The silence is deafening.
>> > The 45 Questions would be a good start.
>>
>> Was that the series where you were exposed as a clown over the Officer
>> Chaney matter?
Could it have been this one:
*********************************************************
6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet away,
and looking directly at JFK during the shooting (according to both his
statements, and the Altgen's photo of him). We *KNOW* that his testimony would
have been devastating to the SBT - since we know that Chaney asserted that the
bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Connally.
Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that
you remember?
Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two
shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.
Mr. BELIN - Where was he?
Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then
at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and
he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret
Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the
shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped
completely, pulled to the left and stopped.
Mr. BELIN - The President's car?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that,
Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers
said it stopped completely.
Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop.
Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a
moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland.
Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a
pattern of shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory, can
anyone defend the Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question
James Chaney directly? Why was he never questioned by the FBI or
Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?
His testimony would also go to the point of whether or not the extant
Z-film was accurate - but can *ANY* credible explanation be offered
for why a police officer less than a dozen feet away from the murder
victim be offered?
Or will LNT'ers be silent again...
*********************************************************
Or perhaps this one:
*********************************************************
27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the
extant Z-film?
Simple denial seems to be the most frequent response from the trolls & LNT'er
camp - yet with over 40 years to do so, no LNT'er has ever used a telephoto
lense from Altgen's reported position to duplicate the photo with Chaney in the
same position as Hargis (on the other side of the followup limo)
Nor has any troll or LNT'er explained the shadow from Chaney's motorcycle that
is seen. So many of the photos/X-rays in this case simply don't match up - and
there appears to be deafening silence from the "photos/videos/X-rays are
authentic" crowd.
*********************************************************
Take your pick, and cite away...
>> > Or the new Mark Lane series...
>>
>> Bit hard for you to see any replies, skulking behind your killfilter
>> as you do, Yellow Pants.
I merely get to skip the majority of the nonsense.
>> Time you circled the wagon, Holmes.
timstter
Jun 25, 2012, 11:05:58 PM6/25/12
to
TOP POST
Your post is a model of self delusion, Holmes.
The Lapdog hasn't been doing a very good job of bringing things to
your attention, you yellow pantalooned kook.
A swamp post won't save you from further exposure of your blatant
IDIOCY in believing the serially debunked liar, Mark Lane, LOL!
KUTGW, Benny!
LMFAO 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
On Jun 26, 10:57 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <9f79aaf0-879d-4bfc-8b85-4f64d873e...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
Nothing of value is what *aeffects* says...
Your post is a model of self delusion, Holmes.
The Lapdog hasn't been doing a very good job of bringing things to
your attention, you yellow pantalooned kook.
A swamp post won't save you from further exposure of your blatant
IDIOCY in believing the serially debunked liar, Mark Lane, LOL!
KUTGW, Benny!
LMFAO 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...
On Jun 26, 10:57 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <9f79aaf0-879d-4bfc-8b85-4f64d873e...@u1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
Nothing of value is what *aeffects* says...
timstter
Jun 25, 2012, 11:12:55 PM6/25/12
to
You certainly came across as one in that ATROCIOUS presentation you
gave for fellow buffs, LOL!
KUTGW, Dave!
LMFAO 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...
Message has been deleted
mucher1
Jun 26, 2012, 5:09:51 AM6/26/12
to
(snip)
> 27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the
> extant Z-film?
For the umpteenth time, Ben, there *is* no contradiction. Of the four
motorcycle officers, Jackson is too far to the left to be in the
photo, Chaney is immediately behind the limo, and Hargis and Martin
are a few feet farther back.
Altgens photo:
http://oi41.tinypic.com/8wzl14.jpg
Z-film frame 255:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg
Altgens/Z-255 line-of-sight diagram:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2hn5eux.jpg
> Simple denial seems to be the most frequent response from the trolls & LNT'er
> camp
How can putting a concrete scenario on the table be simple denial?
You're the one who keeps refusing to look at the diagram and tell me
what you think is wrong with it.
> - yet with over 40 years to do so, no LNT'er has ever used a telephoto
> lense from Altgen's reported position to duplicate the photo with Chaney in the
> same position as Hargis (on the other side of the followup limo).
Why bother? It's a non-issue. You're the only one who can't seem to
understand that.
> Nor has any troll or LNT'er explained the shadow from Chaney's motorcycle that
> is seen.
The shadow is simply farther back than you imagine it to be.
http://i50.tinypic.com/35k5s85.jpg
(snip)
> 27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the
> extant Z-film?
motorcycle officers, Jackson is too far to the left to be in the
photo, Chaney is immediately behind the limo, and Hargis and Martin
are a few feet farther back.
Altgens photo:
http://oi41.tinypic.com/8wzl14.jpg
Z-film frame 255:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg
Altgens/Z-255 line-of-sight diagram:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2hn5eux.jpg
> Simple denial seems to be the most frequent response from the trolls & LNT'er
> camp
You're the one who keeps refusing to look at the diagram and tell me
what you think is wrong with it.
> - yet with over 40 years to do so, no LNT'er has ever used a telephoto
> lense from Altgen's reported position to duplicate the photo with Chaney in the
Why bother? It's a non-issue. You're the only one who can't seem to
understand that.
> Nor has any troll or LNT'er explained the shadow from Chaney's motorcycle that
> is seen.
http://i50.tinypic.com/35k5s85.jpg
(snip)
mucher1
Jun 27, 2012, 4:10:55 PM6/27/12
to
Ben will keep running from this, of course.
aeffects
Jun 27, 2012, 4:54:17 PM6/27/12
to
On Jun 27, 1:10 pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
that's a good lone nut-troll girl, I knew I could count on you....
what-a-idiot! LMFAO!
that's a good lone nut-troll girl, I knew I could count on you....
what-a-idiot! LMFAO!
Ben Holmes
Jun 27, 2012, 5:01:21 PM6/27/12
to
In article <e4e60ce5-8d49-410f...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>> > > 27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen=
don't...
>> > Altgens photo:http://oi41.tinypic.com/8wzl14.jpg
>>
>> > Z-film frame 255:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg
>>
>> > Altgens/Z-255 line-of-sight diagram:http://i46.tinypic.com/2hn5eux.jpg
>>
>> > > Simple denial seems to be the most frequent response from the trolls =
>> > > Nor has any troll or LNT'er explained the shadow from Chaney's motorc=
a reason.
Unfortunately, the kooks can't provide a credible and *NON* conspiratorial
explanation for that fact.
aeffects says...
>
>On Jun 27, 1:10=A0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>that's a good lone nut-troll girl, I knew I could count on you....
>what-a-idiot! LMFAO!
>
>> Ben will keep running from this, of course.
Since it never happened in the first place, it can't continue to happen...
>On Jun 27, 1:10=A0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>that's a good lone nut-troll girl, I knew I could count on you....
>what-a-idiot! LMFAO!
>
>> Ben will keep running from this, of course.
>> > > 27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen=
> in the
>> > > extant Z-film?
>>
>> > For the umpteenth time, Ben, there *is* no contradiction. Of the four
>> > motorcycle officers, Jackson is too far to the left to be in the
>> > photo, Chaney is immediately behind the limo, and Hargis and Martin
>> > are a few feet farther back.
You can keep whining, but the fact is that Chaney is shown where other films
>> > > extant Z-film?
>>
>> > For the umpteenth time, Ben, there *is* no contradiction. Of the four
>> > motorcycle officers, Jackson is too far to the left to be in the
>> > photo, Chaney is immediately behind the limo, and Hargis and Martin
>> > are a few feet farther back.
don't...
>> > Altgens photo:http://oi41.tinypic.com/8wzl14.jpg
>>
>> > Z-film frame 255:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg
>>
>> > Altgens/Z-255 line-of-sight diagram:http://i46.tinypic.com/2hn5eux.jpg
>>
>& LNT'er
>> > > camp
>>
>> > How can putting a concrete scenario on the table be simple denial?
>> > You're the one who keeps refusing to look at the diagram and tell me
>> > what you think is wrong with it.
>>
>> > > - yet with over 40 years to do so, no LNT'er has ever used a telephoto
>> > > lense from Altgen's reported position to duplicate the photo with Cha=
>> > > camp
>>
>> > How can putting a concrete scenario on the table be simple denial?
>> > You're the one who keeps refusing to look at the diagram and tell me
>> > what you think is wrong with it.
>>
>> > > - yet with over 40 years to do so, no LNT'er has ever used a telephoto
>ney in the
>> > > same position as Hargis (on the other side of the followup limo).
>>
>> > Why bother? It's a non-issue. You're the only one who can't seem to
>> > understand that.
Yep... screw the evidence ... you *know* what you want to believe.
>> > > same position as Hargis (on the other side of the followup limo).
>>
>> > Why bother? It's a non-issue. You're the only one who can't seem to
>> > understand that.
>> > > Nor has any troll or LNT'er explained the shadow from Chaney's motorc=
>ycle that
>> > > is seen.
>>
>> > The shadow is simply farther back than you imagine it to be.
>>
>> >http://i50.tinypic.com/35k5s85.jpg
>>
>> > (snip)
The Warren Commission wasn't stupid, they refused to take Chaney's testimony for
>> > > is seen.
>>
>> > The shadow is simply farther back than you imagine it to be.
>>
>> >http://i50.tinypic.com/35k5s85.jpg
>>
>> > (snip)
a reason.
Unfortunately, the kooks can't provide a credible and *NON* conspiratorial
explanation for that fact.
mucher1
Jun 27, 2012, 7:16:10 PM6/27/12
to
On 27 Jun., 23:01, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <e4e60ce5-8d49-410f-b4ff-e2c848d11...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> >> On 26 Jun., 11:09, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > (snip)
>
> >> > > 27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen=
> > in the
> >> > > extant Z-film?
>
> >> > For the umpteenth time, Ben, there *is* no contradiction. Of the four
> >> > motorcycle officers, Jackson is too far to the left to be in the
> >> > photo, Chaney is immediately behind the limo, and Hargis and Martin
> >> > are a few feet farther back.
>
> You can keep whining, but the fact is that Chaney is shown where other films
> don't...
Your opinion (however firmly stated) hardly qualifies as a scientific
fact, Ben. How are we supposed to verify your claim when you never put
anything concrete on the table? Where's your supporting evidence?
Logical argument? Math? Can you show us on a diagram where you think
Chaney is?
Nah... you'll just keep running...
> >> > Altgens photo:
> >> > http://oi41.tinypic.com/8wzl14.jpg
>
> >> > Z-film frame 255:
> >> > http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg
>
> >> > Altgens/Z-255 line-of-sight diagram:
> >> > http://i46.tinypic.com/2hn5eux.jpg
Yep... dead silence... still running...
> >> > > Simple denial seems to be the most frequent response from the trolls =
> >> > > & LNT'er camp
>
> >> > How can putting a concrete scenario on the table be simple denial?
> >> > You're the one who keeps refusing to look at the diagram and tell me
> >> > what you think is wrong with it.
Yep... dead silence... still running...
> >> > > - yet with over 40 years to do so, no LNT'er has ever used a telephoto
> >> > > lense from Altgen's reported position to duplicate the photo with Cha=
> >ney in the
> >> > > same position as Hargis (on the other side of the followup limo).
>
> >> > Why bother? It's a non-issue. You're the only one who can't seem to
> >> > understand that.
>
> Yep... screw the evidence ... you *know* what you want to believe.
Are you serious? Lots of credible evidence support my interpretation,
including numerous films and photos. Not to mention statements by
Chaney himself. You, on the other hand, *only* have your (highly
subjective) opinion.
> >> > > Nor has any troll or LNT'er explained the shadow from Chaney's motor=
> >> > > cycle that is seen.
> >> > (snip)
>
> The Warren Commission wasn't stupid, they refused to take Chaney's testimony for
> a reason.
>
> Unfortunately, the kooks can't provide a credible and *NON* conspiratorial
> explanation for that fact.
Even Chaney's known statements do not support your claim, Ben.
See? You're still running.
> In article <e4e60ce5-8d49-410f-b4ff-e2c848d11...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
> >On Jun 27, 1:10=A0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >that's a good lone nut-troll girl, I knew I could count on you....
> >what-a-idiot! LMFAO!
>
> >> Ben will keep running from this, of course.
>
> Since it never happened in the first place, it can't continue to happen...
Well, let's read on and see for ourselves...
>
> >On Jun 27, 1:10=A0pm, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >that's a good lone nut-troll girl, I knew I could count on you....
> >what-a-idiot! LMFAO!
>
> >> Ben will keep running from this, of course.
>
> Since it never happened in the first place, it can't continue to happen...
> >> On 26 Jun., 11:09, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > (snip)
>
> >> > > 27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen=
> > in the
> >> > > extant Z-film?
>
> >> > For the umpteenth time, Ben, there *is* no contradiction. Of the four
> >> > motorcycle officers, Jackson is too far to the left to be in the
> >> > photo, Chaney is immediately behind the limo, and Hargis and Martin
> >> > are a few feet farther back.
>
> You can keep whining, but the fact is that Chaney is shown where other films
> don't...
fact, Ben. How are we supposed to verify your claim when you never put
anything concrete on the table? Where's your supporting evidence?
Logical argument? Math? Can you show us on a diagram where you think
Chaney is?
Nah... you'll just keep running...
> >> > Altgens photo:
> >> > http://oi41.tinypic.com/8wzl14.jpg
>
> >> > Z-film frame 255:
> >> > http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg
>
> >> > Altgens/Z-255 line-of-sight diagram:
> >> > http://i46.tinypic.com/2hn5eux.jpg
> >> > > Simple denial seems to be the most frequent response from the trolls =
> >> > > & LNT'er camp
>
> >> > How can putting a concrete scenario on the table be simple denial?
> >> > You're the one who keeps refusing to look at the diagram and tell me
> >> > what you think is wrong with it.
> >> > > - yet with over 40 years to do so, no LNT'er has ever used a telephoto
> >> > > lense from Altgen's reported position to duplicate the photo with Cha=
> >ney in the
> >> > > same position as Hargis (on the other side of the followup limo).
>
> >> > Why bother? It's a non-issue. You're the only one who can't seem to
> >> > understand that.
>
> Yep... screw the evidence ... you *know* what you want to believe.
including numerous films and photos. Not to mention statements by
Chaney himself. You, on the other hand, *only* have your (highly
subjective) opinion.
> >> > > Nor has any troll or LNT'er explained the shadow from Chaney's motor=
> >> > > cycle that is seen.
>
> >> > The shadow is simply farther back than you imagine it to be.
>
> >> > http://i50.tinypic.com/35k5s85.jpg
Yep... dead silence... still running...
> >> > The shadow is simply farther back than you imagine it to be.
>
> >> > http://i50.tinypic.com/35k5s85.jpg
> >> > (snip)
>
> The Warren Commission wasn't stupid, they refused to take Chaney's testimony for
> a reason.
>
> Unfortunately, the kooks can't provide a credible and *NON* conspiratorial
> explanation for that fact.
See? You're still running.
timstter
Jun 27, 2012, 5:29:00 PM6/27/12
to
Chaney's motorcycle is seen in the Zapruder film, just seconds before
Altgen's [sic] snapped his photo.
For all his lofty pronouncements, most of Holmes's conclusions are
based on kindergarten-standard research.
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...
mucher1
Jun 28, 2012, 4:24:36 AM6/28/12
to
> For all his lofty pronouncements, most of Holmes's conclusions are
> based on kindergarten-standard research.
overtaking the limo at Z-255, then why are all four motorcycle
officers seen trailing it only three seconds later (Nix film)? Holmes:
"Zapruder was the only film that certainly required extensive work
[i.e. alteration] - the others probably simply had frames excised."
I wonder what could possibly be the rationale behind going to such
extreme lengths (not to mention the risk of exposure) simply to create
the impression that Chaney stayed behind the limo. Has Ben ever
attempted to explain this? Nope. Do any of the eyewitnesses mention a
cop pulling up to (or overtaking) the car during the shooting? Nope.
> 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.
>
aeffects
Jun 28, 2012, 12:26:14 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 1:24 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Jun., 23:29, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> On 27 Jun., 23:29, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
off your knees troll! And remember, stick to this mornings email list/
chatroom directions! ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! We know!
timstter
Jun 28, 2012, 5:54:23 PM6/28/12
to
ever exposed him in a lie.
He DEMONSTRABLY lied about the Lady In Yellow Pants matter, claiming
that she WASN'T too far back on the grass in Dealey Plaza to EVER
appear in the Zapruder film.
This was after we'd both shown him the frames from Zapruder and Nix
that demonstrated this to be a false assertion.
Holmes's reply was a simple *Nope.*
He'll obviously tell ANY lie to support Zapruder film alteration, even
easily disproved ones.
Must have taken a leaf out of his hero Mark Lane's book in the lying
stakes, LOL!
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...
aeffects
Jun 28, 2012, 6:11:53 PM6/28/12
to
On Jun 28, 2:54 pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip the idiocy>
come to papa fatboy.... thats'a good little girl!
<snip the idiocy>
come to papa fatboy.... thats'a good little girl!
timstter
Jun 28, 2012, 6:17:26 PM6/28/12
to
And thanks for bouncing the thread and further insulting Holmes!
Is there a PATHETIC valedictory out there from January 2010, Dave, or
did the family decide to keep you away from the keyboard once the New
Year bender had reached a coupla days?
KUTGW, Dave!
LMFAO Regards,
Mark Ulrik
Jun 29, 2012, 2:24:58 AM6/29/12
to
so that the firing pin had to be replaced before the "WC shooters"
could test the Carcano. When asked to support his claim, he came up
with a bogus citation:
Me: Can you cite for [your claim that the firing pin was replaced]?
Ben: Certainly. The Edgewood report.
Me: Who says the firing pin was defective?
Ben: Edgewood Arsenal.
Whan an unappealing option it must be for Ben to admit his mistakes,
since he prefers to look like a lying kook.
mucher1
Jul 1, 2012, 9:36:24 PM7/1/12
to
Jason Burke
Jul 1, 2012, 10:10:09 PM7/1/12
to
0 new messages