A Disturbing Trend-Critics
lazu...@webtv.net
everybody's a critic, everybody's opinion is better than the next guy.
Human nature-but, what I'm driving at is a good example is the recent
review by Martin Hay of Orlando' Martin's JFK: Analysis Of A Shooting-
now, the reviewer is very knowledgeable, makes some very good points,
and was well written, so what's the problem?
Well....it's just this too cynical for our own good mentality, and
throwing the baby out with the bathwater-I agree there's no evidence a
bullet exited the front of JFK's shoulder and Martin should be taken to
task for that, but Martin makes so many good ballistics points- he
doesn't buy the SBT, the Grassy knoll shot, was a frangible bullet,
which most researchers agree with-why basically trash the work-when we
have the Harris-Thomas-Groden-Speer-Horne-Martin etc versions of the
shooting..going around in circles, authors naturally getting defensive
when their criticized, whether justly or unjustly which is
often..closing ranks, and dealing only with those who are lockstep in
agreement. I mean none of this pettiness matters...the only thing that
matters at this late date is getting media attention..the rest once you
don't accept the official nonsense is just personal opinion more or
less.why turn off so many potential allies?..laz
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
I do for the simple reason that the truth matters.
I'm not familiar with the issue you raise above, but if you don't correct other
people who are CT'ers, or who knows, simply pretend to be CT'ers, then the truth
suffers.
An excellent recent example was someone claiming that the Death Certificate
listed the cause of death as a "high-velocity bullet".
That's simply untrue. To make *ANY* argument based on a lie isn't going to do
your cause any good.
Another example from further back is Tony Marsh - who tried to shut down a very
possible scenario - the idea that the REASON that the autopsy report was changed
was that Oswald had been killed. Since Oswald was dead, there'd be no court
case, no opposing counsel examining the autopsy report - so it could *safely* be
changed to reflect the official story.
This is *still* a very valid and reasonable hypothesis... I've seen nothing yet
to discount it.
Tony Marsh tried to kill that very reasonable hypothesis by claiming that the
paperwork was burned by Humes on *SATURDAY* morning - when there is zero
evidence for any such actions on Saturday. All the evidence we have points to a
change in the autopsy paperwork AFTER the killing of Oswald.
Back then - everyone thought Tony was firmly in the CT camp... I rather doubt if
you'd find very many people who truly think so today...
Of course... opinion and evidential fact are two different things. I've no
problem with those who have opinions that differ from mine on the
assassination... most people do. I can't be critical of people who put shooters
where I wouldn't... simply a difference in opinion. I can't be critical of those
who argue that a 45 pistol was involved in the murder... it's merely another
opinion... Where I draw the line is people lying about the evidence in order to
further their opinion.
Just another two cents into the pot...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
David Von Pein
Anybody who would support Orlando Martin and his new JFK book is only
proving that he doesn't give a damn about the truth.
I've demonstrated that Martin is so full of shit about so many things,
that even if he stumbled across one or two things that other
conspiracy retards agree with, Martin's book should still be rejected
by even those other retards--because Martin just flat-out lies and
invents crap to support his theories. Simple as that.
Here's the proof:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/orlando-martin.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/orlando-martin-part-2.html
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <4560-4C3E42FB-1...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>,
> lazuli...@webtv.net says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >I've noticed something that is getting annoying on the ct side-
> >everybody's a critic, everybody's opinion is better than the next guy.
>
> >Human nature-but, what I'm driving at is a good example is the recent
> >review by Martin Hay of Orlando' Martin's JFK: Analysis Of A Shooting-
> >now, the reviewer is very knowledgeable, makes some very good points,
> >and was well written, so what's the problem?
>
> >Well....it's just this too cynical for our own good mentality, and
> >throwing the baby out with the bathwater-I agree there's no evidence a
> >bullet exited the front of JFK's shoulder and Martin should be taken to
> >task for that, but Martin makes so many good ballistics points- he
> >doesn't buy the SBT, the Grassy knoll shot, was a frangible bullet,
> >which most researchers agree with-why basically trash the work-when we
> >have the Harris-Thomas-Groden-Speer-Horne-Martin etc versions of the
> >shooting..going around in circles, authors naturally getting defensive
> >when their criticized, whether justly or unjustly which is
> >often..closing ranks, and dealing only with those who are lockstep in
> >agreement. I mean none of this pettiness matters...the only thing that
> >matters at this late date is getting media attention..the rest once you
> >don't accept the official nonsense is just personal opinion more or
> >less.why turn off so many potential allies?..laz
>
> I do for the simple reason that the truth matters.
>
> I'm not familiar with the issue you raise above, but if you don't correct other
> people who are CT'ers, or who knows, simply pretend to be CT'ers, then the truth
> suffers.
How come you got so upset when I corrected your faulty understanding
then?
> An excellent recent example was someone claiming that the Death Certificate
> listed the cause of death as a "high-velocity bullet".
IF it is faulty why did YOU agree with me then?
“Does the death certificate NOT say death is "due to a high-velocity"
bullet to the head?” (Robert)
“Yep.” (Ben Holmes – 5/25/09)
Rather hypocritical of you Ben. I would be happy to discuss this
issue, or any other, with you if you remain civil. We have traded the
"liar and coward" stuff for years, so why can't we just discuss the
issue like grown-ups?
I'm for it, but you have NO interests from what I can see, so who is
telling the truth again?
> That's simply untrue. To make *ANY* argument based on a lie isn't going to do
> your cause any good.
IT is a lie Ben as you could NOT show us listing the velocity speed
was REQUIRED in 1963. The OFFICIAL CAUSE OF DEATH was a high velocity
bullet to the head. So where is the lie again? IF you insist on
claiming I lied then you had to lie too as you said this!
“Does the death certificate NOT say death is "due to a high-velocity"
bullet to the head?” (Robert)
“Yep.” (Ben Holmes – 5/25/09)
> Another example from further back is Tony Marsh - who tried to shut down a very
> possible scenario - the idea that the REASON that the autopsy report was changed
> was that Oswald had been killed. Since Oswald was dead, there'd be no court
> case, no opposing counsel examining the autopsy report - so it could *safely* be
> changed to reflect the official story.
>
> This is *still* a very valid and reasonable hypothesis... I've seen nothing yet
> to discount it.
There is NO reason to hide the truth unless you are doing so to
protect your own interests. The folks who ordered Humes to do this
were worried about themselves, not the truth.
If we were not discussing the death of the 35th president this might
hold a little believability, but come on, we were talking about the
murder of the sitting president.
> Tony Marsh tried to kill that very reasonable hypothesis by claiming that the
> paperwork was burned by Humes on *SATURDAY* morning - when there is zero
> evidence for any such actions on Saturday. All the evidence we have points to a
> change in the autopsy paperwork AFTER the killing of Oswald.
Why would LHO dying matter if the report reflected the truth?
> Back then - everyone thought Tony was firmly in the CT camp... I rather doubt if
> you'd find very many people who truly think so today...
With over 28,000 posts I doubt it. But Ben, let's be honest, you have
made many claims that can viewed as "LNer claims" and instead of
explaining for us why you feel that way you chose to fib and run. Why
not set the record straight? Tell us why you feel the way you do.
> Of course... opinion and evidential fact are two different things. I've no
> problem with those who have opinions that differ from mine on the
> assassination... most people do.
YOU could fool me. From the time I started here (save a month as that
was my "honeymoon phase" I guess) you attacked me for differing with
YOUR view. IN fact, like Walt, you insisted YOUR view was FACT!
YOUR view may be correct Ben in some cases so why not approach someone
in a civil tone? Even if you are correct who is going to listen to
someone who is calling them a "liar, coward and child molester?"
>Just another two cents into the pot...
They are valid points, but the problem is you are one of the worst
offenders of YOUR points.
j leyden
> I've noticed something that is getting annoying on the ct side-
> everybody's a critic, everybody's opinion is better than the next guy.
>
> Human nature-but, what I'm driving at is a good example is the recent
> review by Martin Hay of Orlando' Martin's JFK: Analysis Of A Shooting-
> now, the reviewer is very knowledgeable, makes some very good points,
> and was well written, so what's the problem?
I don't know, Vern, I guess self-published books just don't get no
respect. If no one in the publishing industry takes this guy
seriously, why should we? Answer: We don't.
JGL