Facts LNT'ers Just HATE! (#9)
Ben Holmes
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Bigdog
Bill
Brokedad
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
Chu...@amcmn.com
Curious
David Von Pein
Ed Dolan *
Grizzlie Antagonist
Justme1952
Martybaugh...@gmail.com
Miss Rita
much...@hotmail.com
much...@gmail.com
Sam Brown
Spiffy_one
Timst...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
* Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but he's
amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, claiming to
be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Watch for his comments on these
questions.
**********************************************************************
Although Humes makes it quite clear that the X-rays were taken early in the
autopsy, and that no skull fragments were "re-arranged", put into place, or
removed... we have a lateral X-ray that shows no hole where the autopsy report,
and over 40 eyewitnesses, place a hole.
Interestingly enough, lurkers can see an overly white "patch" on the lateral
X-ray exactly where such a hole *should* be.
Scientific analysis (optical density measurements) of this "patch" reveals that
it's an impossible feature if the X-ray were authentic.
(LNT'ers Just HATE this evidence!!)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
aeffects
In the spirit of Easter, I thought nutter-trolls wouldn't want to pass
up an opportunity. An opportunity yes, to wow us with their collective
WCR/SBT/LHO did-it-all-by-his-lonesome nonsense....
Have a go at the below nutter kooks....
j leyden
> Top Post
>
> In the spirit of Easter, I thought nutter-trolls wouldn't want to pass
> up an opportunity. An opportunity yes, to wow us with their collective
> WCR/SBT/LHO did-it-all-by-his-lonesome nonsense....
>
> Have a go at the below nutter kooks....
Well, you see, healy/aeffects, it's like this. Sane people just can't
get by that insane Enemies List at the start of every one of Ben's
posts. (I thought I asked you to talk to him about that.) Then there
is that disgusting promo for his "Make Big Bucks" website at the end
of each post, another Turn Off. So Ben pretty much is left talking to
himself and that's never a good sign.
JGL
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gil Jesus
>
>
> Well, you see, healy/aeffects, it's like this. �Sane people just can't
> get by that insane Enemies List at the start of every one of Ben's
> posts. �(I thought I asked you to talk to him about that.) �Then there
> is that disgusting promo for his "Make Big Bucks" website at the end
> of each post, another Turn Off. �So Ben pretty much is left talking to
> himself and that's never a good sign.
>
> JGL
Are you still crying about that list ?
Are you still crying about Ben's signature ?
Is that all you have ??? Tears ??
As long as Ben has you crying, he'll never be talking to himself.
And that's a GREAT sign.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Apr 4, 6:46=EF=BF=BDpm, j leyden <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, you see, healy/aeffects, it's like this. =EF=BF=BDSane people just =
>can't
>> get by that insane Enemies List at the start of every one of Ben's
>=BDThen there
>> is that disgusting promo for his "Make Big Bucks" website at the end
>ng to
>> himself and that's never a good sign.
>>
>> JGL
>
>Are you still crying about that list ?
>
>Are you still crying about Ben's signature ?
>
>Is that all you have ??? Tears ??
>
>As long as Ben has you crying, he'll never be talking to himself.
>
>And that's a GREAT sign.
I'm glad that others have the time to deal with nonsense, Gil... I simply have
too many other things going on to take the time to answer trolls.
Particularly dishonest ones...
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>Although Humes makes it quite clear that the X-rays were taken early in the
>autopsy, and that no skull fragments were "re-arranged", put into place, or
>removed... we have a lateral X-ray that shows no hole where the autopsy report,
>and over 40 eyewitnesses, place a hole.
>
No, you are misrepresenting both the autopsy report and the number of
witnesses who put the wound in occipital bone.
On the witnesses, you are using Aguilar's tendentious tabulation.
I've debunked it here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
>Interestingly enough, lurkers can see an overly white "patch" on the lateral
>X-ray exactly where such a hole *should* be.
>
Actually, no. This is a silly Mantik thing, but anybody can see the
lateral x-ray with no white blob in the HSCA volumes.
I don't know where Mantik got his version with the "blob," but that
wasn't what the HSCA had.
>Scientific analysis (optical density measurements) of this "patch" reveals that
>it's an impossible feature if the X-ray were authentic.
>
More crackpot stuff from Mantik.
His version with the blob looks nothing like the one in the HSCA
volumes.
Perhaps the version in the Archives was not properly fixed in
development, and there really is *now* a blob.
>(LNT'ers Just HATE this evidence!!)
Unfortunately, your notion of "evidence" is wacky.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
j leyden
> I'm glad that others have the time to deal with nonsense, Gil... I simply have
> too many other things going on to take the time to answer trolls.
>
> Particularly dishonest ones...
>
"Too many other things going on." Good Lord, Ben, you put up 1,355
ACJ posts in the Dec.- March period. Maybe if you put in a little
more time on that supposed "Make Big Bucks" website you run, you
wouldn't have to beg for customers here. We'd appreciate it.
JGL
> In article <75ec9a5b-fe9c-4b8e-86f6-0127478d3...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
j leyden
> Are you still crying about that list ?
> Are you still crying about Ben's signature ?
> Is that all you have ??? Tears ??
> As long as Ben has you crying, he'll never be talking to himself.
> And that's a GREAT sign.
Is this another April Fool joke, Gil? With you we just don't know
anymore.
JGL
Ben Holmes
Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored
group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
last word, and that I won't respond.
However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
support his claims.
John can keep snipping, and I'll just keep adding back in the above material.
In article <fhcir5dh93bdo6g59...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>On 3 Apr 2010 10:04:40 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Although Humes makes it quite clear that the X-rays were taken
>> early in the autopsy, and that no skull fragments were "re-arranged",
>> put into place, or removed... we have a lateral X-ray that shows no
>> hole where the autopsy report, and over 40 eyewitnesses, place a hole.
>
>No, you are misrepresenting both the autopsy report and the number of
>witnesses who put the wound in occipital bone.
You're a liar, Johm McAdams.
Occipital-parietal is what many of the medical witnesses stated, and the autopsy
report puts it there as well - stating that it also went into the temporal.
The autopsy report quite clearly states:
1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone
producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
To any English speaking non-moron, Dr. Humes just clearly stated that an area,
with "an actual absence of scalp and bone" involved chiefly the "parietal bone
but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions."
That's fairly clear, and you're a liar to state that I'm "misrepresenting" what
Dr. Humes stated.
Indeed, I'm happy to quote it again for you.
>On the witnesses, you are using Aguilar's tendentious tabulation.
>
>I've debunked it here:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
By all means, Johm, list **AND QUOTE** those who did *NOT* put the wound as an
occipital-parietal wound.
But you can't. You know quite well that such a list would be vanishingly small
next to those who stated occipital-parietal.
As for your pretended "debunkings," do try to stay on topic, and if you can,
DEBUNK IT RIGHT HERE AND NOW!
(But you can't...)
>> Interestingly enough, lurkers can see an overly white "patch" on the
>> lateral X-ray exactly where such a hole *should* be.
>>
>
>Actually, no.
Again, you can lie if you want to Johm... but people have eyes, they can look
for themselves.
You know quite well that I described the "patch" quite accurately.
Indeed, it can be easily seen on X-ray images posted on YOUR website.
> This is a silly Mantik thing, but anybody can see the
> lateral x-ray with no white blob in the HSCA volumes.
Again you simply lie, Johm. Why is that? Can't face the evidence in this case?
>I don't know where Mantik got his version with the "blob," but that
>wasn't what the HSCA had.
Sorry Johm... I'm not Mantik. I've made a point, and you're running away from
it... why is that?
>> Scientific analysis (optical density measurements) of this "patch"
>> reveals that it's an impossible feature if the X-ray were authentic.
>
>More crackpot stuff from Mantik.
Since his background far surpasses yours on this topic, it's amusing that you'd
accuse him of being a "crackpot".
>His version with the blob looks nothing like the one in the HSCA
>volumes.
Feel free to cite it Johm.
Here, for example, is the lateral X-ray as posted on YOUR website:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/reading/orient.gif
Here's another example from your website:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/entrance/13cm.jpg
Tell us Johm... if the white "patch" doesn't exist, why do you show it on your
website?
>Perhaps the version in the Archives was not properly fixed in
>development, and there really is *now* a blob.
So there are now *multiple* lateral X-rays... is that your hypothesis?
How do you explain those who've seen the actual X-rays, and state that they are
the same as those in the public domain? Are they all liars too, Johm?
>>(LNT'ers Just HATE this evidence!!)
>
>Unfortunately, your notion of "evidence" is wacky.
So, X-rays are "wacky evidence?" Testimony is "wacky evidence?"
What is it that you consider "evidence" Johm? What did the Warren Commission use
... after you've removed X-rays and eyewitness testimony from the allowed
evidence?
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Once again, Johm has simply refused to answer the questions raised. Simply
denying that the X-rays & testimony contradict each other isn't going to
convince anyone, Johm... you have to give *REASONABLE* and non-conspiratorial
explanations... and editing and running away.
Sam Brown
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:hpb9r...@drn.newsguy.com...
Girly has plenty of time. When he's not watching day time TV and pretending
his life isn't a shambles.
aeffects
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hpb9r...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > In article
you look wonderful hiding under j leyden's er, JGL er, jleyden er,
jlogan's logans dress there hon.... can't get enpough tuna eh?
5000+ posts to this board and you've still said nothing about the JFK
assssination -- speaks volumes troll, VOLUMES
aeffects
> On Apr 4, 8:11 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm glad that others have the time to deal with nonsense, Gil... I simply have
> > too many other things going on to take the time to answer trolls.
>
> > Particularly dishonest ones...
>
> "Too many other things going on." Good Lord, Ben, you put up 1,355
> ACJ posts in the Dec.- March period. Maybe if you put in a little
> more time on that supposed "Make Big Bucks" website you run, you
> wouldn't have to beg for customers here. We'd appreciate it.
you're running hon...... but we knew that all along, didn't we!
ROTFLMFAO!
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> On Apr 4, 7:00 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you still crying about that list ?
> > Are you still crying about Ben's signature ?
> > Is that all you have ??? Tears ??
> > As long as Ben has you crying, he'll never be talking to himself.
> > And that's a GREAT sign.
>
> Is this another April Fool joke, Gil? With you we just don't know
> anymore.
oh Jer, the**real** April Fool Joke was the WCR surely you agree,
nearly 44 years and you trolls are STILL running around trying to make
SBT sense... unpack Jer, you're gonna be here for a while. .john is
making an attempt, what's YOUR excuse, JGL?
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>In article <fhcir5dh93bdo6g59...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 3 Apr 2010 10:04:40 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Although Humes makes it quite clear that the X-rays were taken
>>> early in the autopsy, and that no skull fragments were "re-arranged",
>>> put into place, or removed... we have a lateral X-ray that shows no
>>> hole where the autopsy report, and over 40 eyewitnesses, place a hole.
>>
>>No, you are misrepresenting both the autopsy report and the number of
>>witnesses who put the wound in occipital bone.
>
>
>
>Occipital-parietal is what many of the medical witnesses stated, and the autopsy
>report puts it there as well - stating that it also went into the temporal.
>
>The autopsy report quite clearly states:
>
>1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
>involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
>occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone
>producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.
>
>To any English speaking non-moron, Dr. Humes just clearly stated that an area,
>with "an actual absence of scalp and bone" involved chiefly the "parietal bone
>but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions."
>
The photos and x-rays show the absense of scalp and bone in the
parietal bone.
But note that the "occipital region" is not limited to actual
occipital bone.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/occipital.htm
>
>
>>On the witnesses, you are using Aguilar's tendentious tabulation.
>>
>>I've debunked it here:
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
>
>
>By all means, Johm, list **AND QUOTE** those who did *NOT* put the wound as an
>occipital-parietal wound.
>
See the page cited above.
But "occipital-parietal region" does not necessarily mean "occipital
bone."
>But you can't. You know quite well that such a list would be vanishingly small
>next to those who stated occipital-parietal.
>
>As for your pretended "debunkings," do try to stay on topic, and if you can,
>DEBUNK IT RIGHT HERE AND NOW!
>
>(But you can't...)
>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
>
>>> Interestingly enough, lurkers can see an overly white "patch" on the
>>> lateral X-ray exactly where such a hole *should* be.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, no.
>
>
>
>You know quite well that I described the "patch" quite accurately.
>
>Indeed, it can be easily seen on X-ray images posted on YOUR website.
>
>
Actually, no.
See below.
>
>
>>I don't know where Mantik got his version with the "blob," but that
>>wasn't what the HSCA had.
>
>
>Sorry Johm... I'm not Mantik. I've made a point, and you're running away from
>it... why is that?
>
You're running away from the fact that the x-ray published by the HSCA
had *no* white blob.
>
>
>>> Scientific analysis (optical density measurements) of this "patch"
>>> reveals that it's an impossible feature if the X-ray were authentic.
>>
>>More crackpot stuff from Mantik.
>
>
>Since his background far surpasses yours on this topic, it's amusing that you'd
>accuse him of being a "crackpot".
>
He has no qualifications at all in forensic analysis of x-rays.
>
>>His version with the blob looks nothing like the one in the HSCA
>>volumes.
>
Then he needs to explain why it looks different.
There is no blob in the HSCA version.
>
>Feel free to cite it Johm.
>
>Here, for example, is the lateral X-ray as posted on YOUR website:
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/reading/orient.gif
>
>Here's another example from your website:
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/entrance/13cm.jpg
>
>Tell us Johm... if the white "patch" doesn't exist, why do you show it on your
>website?
>
You are clueless about Mantik, aren't you?
This is not the image he showed at ASK 1993 that had a blob squarely
over occipital bone.
And the images you cite above are *digitally enhanced* versions of the
x-ray.
Of course they don't show the tonality that the unenhanced x-rays
shows. They aren't supposed to.
The contrast is radically increased to make fracture lines more clear.
>
>>Perhaps the version in the Archives was not properly fixed in
>>development, and there really is *now* a blob.
>
>
>So there are now *multiple* lateral X-rays... is that your hypothesis?
>
No, that the right lateral deteriorated over time.
>How do you explain those who've seen the actual X-rays, and state that they are
>the same as those in the public domain? Are they all liars too, Johm?
>
>
If they differ from the NON-DIGITALLY ENHANCED version in the HSCA
volumes, they need to explain how that is.
Mantik is simply a crackpot. He's into Z-film alteration. Do you
believe that too?
Since you believe Lifton's body alteration, why not?
>>>(LNT'ers Just HATE this evidence!!)
>>
>>Unfortunately, your notion of "evidence" is wacky.
>
>
>So, X-rays are "wacky evidence?" Testimony is "wacky evidence?"
>
They are when some buff doesn't know the difference between *digitally
enhanced* x-rays, and the original versions.
They are when some buff just accepts what Mantik says without noticing
that what he's producing is different from the published version from
the HSCA.
Of course you will misinterpret evidence if you are ignorant.
>
>Once again, Johm has simply refused to answer the questions raised. Simply
>denying that the X-rays & testimony contradict each other isn't going to
>convince anyone, Johm... you have to give *REASONABLE* and non-conspiratorial
>explanations... and editing and running away.
>
>
You just huff and puff, but you really don't know what you are talking
about.
You didn't even know that the two images on my site are the *digitally
enhanced* version.
Mantik needs to explain why his version differs some radically from
the version published by the HSCA. There was no white blob in it.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "5000+ posts to this board and you've still said nothing about the JFK assssination." <<<
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce David "Pot/Kettle" Healy.
If somebody could point me toward the last acj post authored by Healy
that says anything at all about the JFK case, I'd appreciate it.
I doubt anybody will be able to find that post, however.
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30258b42-6dc6-49ec...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I'm just following your example Turtle.
Bud
> On Apr 4, 7:20 pm, j leyden <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 8:11 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm glad that others have the time to deal with nonsense, Gil... I simply have
> > > too many other things going on to take the time to answer trolls.
>
> > > Particularly dishonest ones...
>
> > "Too many other things going on." Good Lord, Ben, you put up 1,355
> > ACJ posts in the Dec.- March period. Maybe if you put in a little
> > more time on that supposed "Make Big Bucks" website you run, you
> > wouldn't have to beg for customers here. We'd appreciate it.
>
> you're running hon...... but we knew that all along, didn't we!
> ROTFLMFAO!
Speaking of running, junkie, what do you think the chances that Mark
lane will ever return to the Education Forum to answer questions like
he claimed he would when he was plugging his new book? I`ll bet a
cookie that he never does, he just knew that was a place where his
target audience, the conspiranoids, lurked.
> > > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hidequoted text -
Ben Holmes
Johm's doing quite a bit of snipping... be sure to read the previous post to see
what Johm snipped out without notice.
In article <4bba53dd....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
Sorry Johm... you cannot change what is clearly written.
>>>On the witnesses, you are using Aguilar's tendentious tabulation.
>>>
>>>I've debunked it here:
>>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
>>
>>
>>By all means, Johm, list **AND QUOTE** those who did *NOT* put the wound as an
>>occipital-parietal wound.
>>
>
>See the page cited above.
By all means, Johm, list **AND QUOTE** those who did *NOT* put the wound as an
occipital-parietal wound.
I rather suspected that you'd run from this...
>But "occipital-parietal region" does not necessarily mean "occipital
>bone."
Sorry Johm... medical terminology is specific for a reason.
>>But you can't. You know quite well that such a list would be vanishingly small
>>next to those who stated occipital-parietal.
>>
>>As for your pretended "debunkings," do try to stay on topic, and if you can,
>>DEBUNK IT RIGHT HERE AND NOW!
>>
>>(But you can't...)
>>
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
Still no "debunkings"... why the cowardice, Johm?
>>>> Interestingly enough, lurkers can see an overly white "patch" on the
>>>> lateral X-ray exactly where such a hole *should* be.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, no.
>>
>>
>>
>>You know quite well that I described the "patch" quite accurately.
>>
>>Indeed, it can be easily seen on X-ray images posted on YOUR website.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, no.
Well, there you go folks... bald lies.
>See below.
>
>>
>>
>>>I don't know where Mantik got his version with the "blob," but that
>>>wasn't what the HSCA had.
>>
>>
>>Sorry Johm... I'm not Mantik. I've made a point, and you're running away from
>>it... why is that?
>>
>
>You're running away from the fact that the x-ray published by the HSCA
>had *no* white blob.
Untrue, Johm.
Indeed, Mantik was working WITH THE ORIGINAL... and his optical density
measurements are something you cannot deny.
>>>> Scientific analysis (optical density measurements) of this "patch"
>>>> reveals that it's an impossible feature if the X-ray were authentic.
>>>
>>>More crackpot stuff from Mantik.
>>
>>
>>Since his background far surpasses yours on this topic, it's amusing that you'd
>>accuse him of being a "crackpot".
>>
>
>He has no qualifications at all in forensic analysis of x-rays.
I've often been amused at people who believe "forensic pathology" is the
ultimate answer to everything in this case.
My previous statement still stands, unrefuted.
>>>His version with the blob looks nothing like the one in the HSCA
>>>volumes.
>>
>
>Then he needs to explain why it looks different.
You're responding to yourself.
>There is no blob in the HSCA version.
Lies won't convince anyone, Johm...
>>Feel free to cite it Johm.
>>
>>Here, for example, is the lateral X-ray as posted on YOUR website:
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/reading/orient.gif
>>
>>Here's another example from your website:
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/entrance/13cm.jpg
>>
>>Tell us Johm... if the white "patch" doesn't exist, why do you show it on your
>>website?
>>
>
>You are clueless about Mantik, aren't you?
Tell us Johm... if the white "patch" doesn't exist, why do you show it on your
website?
Ad hominem cannot replace an answer to that question, Johm.
>This is not the image he showed at ASK 1993 that had a blob squarely
>over occipital bone.
Sorry Johm... changing the topic won't do the job either...
>And the images you cite above are *digitally enhanced* versions of the
>x-ray.
Indeed they are, Johm.
>Of course they don't show the tonality that the unenhanced x-rays
>shows. They aren't supposed to.
>
>The contrast is radically increased to make fracture lines more clear.
The problem, of course, is that you STILL have no reasonable and
non-conspiratorial explanation for the facts I've listed...
Simple denial isn't going to work, Johm... Lurkers have their own eyes...
>>>Perhaps the version in the Archives was not properly fixed in
>>>development, and there really is *now* a blob.
>>
>>
>>So there are now *multiple* lateral X-rays... is that your hypothesis?
>>
>
>No, that the right lateral deteriorated over time.
ROTFLMAO!!!
So now, Johm's position is that the evidence, when he cannot explain it, simply
deteriorated...
>>How do you explain those who've seen the actual X-rays, and state
>>that they are the same as those in the public domain? Are they all
>>liars too, Johm?
>>
>>
>
>If they differ from the NON-DIGITALLY ENHANCED version in the HSCA
>volumes, they need to explain how that is.
No Johm... you're taking an assertion of yours, and declaring it a fact.
>Mantik is simply a crackpot. He's into Z-film alteration. Do you
>believe that too?
Take it to another post, Johm. Why do you keep trying to change the topic?
>Since you believe Lifton's body alteration, why not?
Why are you afraid to take it to another post, Johm?
You *know* you can't stand toe to toe against the evidence...
>>>>(LNT'ers Just HATE this evidence!!)
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, your notion of "evidence" is wacky.
>>
>>
>>So, X-rays are "wacky evidence?" Testimony is "wacky evidence?"
>>
>
>They are when some buff doesn't know the difference between *digitally
>enhanced* x-rays, and the original versions.
Sorry Johm... silly ad hominem attacks like this are not going to convince
anyone.
>They are when some buff just accepts what Mantik says without noticing
>that what he's producing is different from the published version from
>the HSCA.
Mantik isn't the topic, Johm. Why can't you stay on topic?
>Of course you will misinterpret evidence if you are ignorant.
Yes... let's discuss "ignorance"... tell us about how the size and area of an
object in an X-ray defines its mass. You *do* recall your ignorance on the 6.5mm
virtually round object, do you not?
I'll be happy to take it to another post and let you actually support your
previous assertions...
>>Once again, Johm has simply refused to answer the questions raised. Simply
>>denying that the X-rays & testimony contradict each other isn't going to
>>convince anyone, Johm... you have to give *REASONABLE* and non-conspiratorial
>>explanations... and editing and running away.
>>
>>
>
>You just huff and puff, but you really don't know what you are talking
>about.
Your constant editing, snipping, and running away isn't going to convince anyone
of that assertion, Johm.
>You didn't even know that the two images on my site are the *digitally
>enhanced* version.
Sorry Johm, I certainly know the difference between the digitally enhanced
X-rays, and the originals.
You're a liar, Johm.
>Mantik needs to explain why his version differs some radically from
>the version published by the HSCA. There was no white blob in it.
Still trying to assert what the facts are, and change the topic... even to the
very end, aren't you Johm?
>.John
aeffects
> >>> "5000+ posts to this board and you've still said nothing about the JFK assssination." <<<
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce David "Pot/Kettle" Healy.
>
> If somebody could point me toward the last acj post authored by Healy
> that says anything at all about the JFK case, I'd appreciate it.
shithead, there's a published article that announces my JFK-Zapruder
film-alteration bonifides (and then some), where are yours (other than
holding up Vinnie daBug Bugliosi shorts?
Only problem with you lone nut morons is this: none of you have an
ounce of Z-film alteration debate in you other than what Gary Mack &
Company want you to profess.... (for damn good reason)
> I doubt anybody will be able to find that post, however.
Its simple troll follow the link provided:
http://jfkresearch.com/page3.html
3rd on from the top, if you can't find that simpleton you can always
buy TGZFH (The Great Zapruder Film Hoax) still available on AMAZON....
feel free to contact me through this board if you want an autograph,
and NO hon, I don't have a secretary named Rosemary.
So when you feel competent and can prove your competence let me know!
So folks let me introduce David Von Pein aka Dave Reitzes whom still
posts from his brothers bedroom, in his mom's house.... yes folks the
lone nut trolls have come a long way.... ROTFLMFAO
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
good gosh now you got your head up Von Pein's skirt! Have you no sense
of good grace, shithead?
Sam Brown
Better than having my head wedged between Bens chubby arse cheeks Turtle.
Now be a good loser and bother someone who's interested in your incoherent
nonsense.
David Von Pein
>>> "There's a published article that announces my JFK-Zapruder film-alteration bonifides (and then some)." <<<
But that's not at all what I was talking about, was it Mr. Crackpipe
(that's a mega-kook named David G. Healy)? No. Here's what I said:
"If somebody could point me toward the last acj post authored by
Healy that says anything at all about the JFK case, I'd appreciate
it." -- DVP
Where's your last ACJ post that contains even one granule of "JFK"
substance? Even half-a-granule would suffice.
>>> "Only problem with you lone nut morons is this: none of you have an ounce of Z-film alteration debate in you other than what Gary Mack & Company want you to profess." <<<
A six-year-old can easily debunk any of the silly Z-Film
alterationists. The only thing that that six-year-old has to do is ask
the conspiracy-loving retards like David Healy and Doug Horne the
following unanswerable question:
IF THE ZAPRUDER FILM HAS BEEN ALTERED IN ORDER TO HIDE ALL SIGNS
OF A FRONTAL GUNSHOT (AND WHAT OTHER CONCEIVABLE REASON UNDER THE MOON
COULD THERE BE FOR ANYONE TO WANT TO FAKE THE Z-FILM, OTHER THAN TO
GET RID OF ALL OF THE VISUAL THINGS IN THE FILM THAT MIGHT LEAD PEOPLE
TO THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS A "CONSPIRACY" INVOLVED IN JFK'S
DEATH?)....THEN WHY DOES THE CURRENTLY-AVAILABLE ZAPRUDER FILM CONTAIN
FOOTAGE OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S HEAD MOVING VIOLENTLY BACKWARD AND TO
THE LEFT AFTER THE FATAL HEAD SHOT?
No loopy conspiracy theorist has ever once come up with even a halfway-
reasonable answer to the question I just asked. And they never will be
able to provide any kind of a reasonable or logical or rational answer
to that question I just now asked--and that's because there is no
reasonable answer to that inquiry from the point-of-view of the silly
alterationists like Douglas P. Horne and James H. Fetzer, et al.
Or do the alterationists like Horne and Fetzer REALLY want people to
believe that the technicians who supposedly altered the Z-Film didn't
think that the "back and to the left" motion of Kennedy's head in the
film was an important enough thing to get rid of completely (even
though, as we all know, that very same "back and to the left" motion
in the film is certainly the NUMBER-ONE thing that causes most people
to shout "He was shot from the front!")?
Or maybe people like Horne and Fetzer want to believe that the idiots
who undertook the evil project of altering Zapruder's home movie did
not have the same mindset concerning the famous "back and to the left"
motion of the President's head that almost all other conspiracy
theorists have when watching the film.
Maybe Horne and Fetzer (et al) think that the film-fakers really
thought that the rear head snap would be a GOOD thing to leave in the
altered version of the film.
Or, alternately, maybe Horne and Fetzer believe that the film-alterers
simply DIDN'T NOTICE the rear head snap at all, and that's why it
wasn't removed from Zapruder's film.
Or, as another alternative (based on Fetzer's theory of the Z-Film
being "wholly fabricated"), perhaps the people who were "wholly
fabricating" the film thought it would be a good idea to ADD IN the
rear head snap, thereby causing millions of Americans to think that
the FABRICATED-FROM-WHOLE-CLOTH film was really revealing the exact
thing that the film-fakers were (supposedly) attempting to cover up --
A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER JOHN F. KENNEDY.
Isn't it time for common sense to take center stage in the debate
concerning "Zapruder Film fakery"?
aeffects
no advertising jfk blogs shithead.... you know the rules....
the management
David Von Pein
>>> "no advertising jfk blogs shithead.... you know the rules.... the management" <<<
Gee, what a powerful and persuasive rebuttal to my last post.
And it keeps Healy's current record intact -- i.e., thousands of days
in a row without posting anything worthwhile.
Excellent job.
aeffects
shithead, you're NOT worthy of my missivesl...
> Excellent job.
I know, aren't ya proud you're on the receiving end...
aeffects
bump
> In article <4bba53dd.4164121...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
> >On 4 Apr 2010 20:20:29 -0700, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>In article <fhcir5dh93bdo6g59p1rtrkd1ikm5it...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/dab8a7c22753b7e3/8d8cb919ae8593c7?#8d8cb919ae8593c7
>>> "Here is a counter argument. If the conspirators wanted to alter the Zapruder film to hide evidence of conspiracy, why did they leave in the last few frames which show their shooter on the grassy knoll? Why didn't they also alter the Moorman photo which shows the same shooter on the grassy knoll. Answer: there was no need to do that because they could hire propaganda assets to explain it all away. Like people in newsgroups who claim there was no person behind the fence." <<<
LOL.
>>> "How about this argument: there was no back and to the left movement until the conspirators altered the Zapruder film. To SHOW OFF that it was a conspiracy. To blame it on Castro." <<<
LOL reprise. (A great-big one here.)
Gee, I knew that I'd hear from Tony Marsh in this thread (he can't
pass up ANY thread, of course; has there been even ONE aaj thread
which is void of any Marsh participation since approximately the year
2002? I'm doubting it).
And, of course, I also knew I could count on Anthony arguing just for
the sake of arguing (as he always does). But I had no idea my weak
urinary bladder would get THIS kind of a workout from Tony's hilarious
commentary regarding Z-Film alteration.
Thank you, W. Anthony. Thank you very much.
aeffects
bump
aeffects
changing the subject won't help .john, troll!
timstter
>
> read more »
LOL! Hey, Holmes, it's PITIFUL the way you keep insisting in padding
out every post with that silly bumpf of an intro you concocted and
keep pasting back in.
It simply shows you have little of substance to say, Ben.
If you're not hiding behind your killfilter you're hiding behind bumpf
and padding.
I remember when you ran from me on the *Yellow Pants* matter and it
was right at the end of a VERY long post that you presumably thought
most people would never bother reading all the way through, LOL!
No wonder you liked Horne's five ponderous volumes so much, Benny!
LOL!
Amused Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
lazu...@webtv.net
altered it is high ranking CIA Photographic Personnel at NPIC who said
so..it wasn't conspiracists who said the X-Rays were altered, it was the
X-Ray Tech, it wasn't the conspiracists who said certain brain
photographs are phony, it was the guy who officially took the
pictures,who said he didn't, it wasn't the conspiracists who said there
were no photographs of a hole in the back of JFK's head-the people who
worked together-high ranking I may add, saw, and developed
them-Spencer-O'Donnell, and Knudsen clearly remembered this-and don't
give us any of that lone nut horseshit about the fallibilities of
memories-some things one would never forget, especially if it was THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!...Laz