>Ben, you have proven for all to see what kind of person you are, I'm
>sure most already knew anyway.  You are NOT worth the time to write,
>and you are a liar yet again as I have responded to your long post.

>> >Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the chase and
>> >ask Ben some simple questions first.

>> I doubt if you will *EVER* answer "the long post" point by point... you've=
> shown
>> that you're a coward...

>> >1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of the
>> >Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
>> >months now?

>> Feel free to *QUOTE* any such "defense" of the WC. =A0(I've asked this rep=
>eatedly,
>> and you STILL refuse to cite)

>> Simply correcting your errors about what Frazier actually testified to can=

>> hardly be called a "defense" of the WC. =A0You lied repeatedly about what =
>Frazier
>> testified to - and I corrected you a number of times. =A0But that can hard=
>ly be
>> labeled a defense of the WC.

>> I also told you that you cannot impugn the WCR based ONLY on the material
>> contained within the WCR... but again, that's merely a fact, and hardly a
>> "defense" of the WC.

>> So go ahead and QUOTE IT! =A0Let everyone see my "defense" of the WC.

>> >2) What is more important to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or his
>> >ego?

>> The truth. =A0As I commented, I agree with Prager, who asserts that clarit=
>y is
>> more important than agreement. =A0I agree.

>> You've been caught in a number of lies about the facts as we know them. =
>=A0Shall I
>> quote a few of them in my next post?

>> >3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are
>> >used? (see below)

>> Sadly, *YOU* have demonstrated that you don't understand the concept. =A0I=
>'ve
>> asked you to look up the word in the dictionary - as you've tried to asser=
>t that
>> I believe a pencil and a bullet are the same thing...

>> >4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
>> >conclusion?

>> Simple... when a "scientific" test cannot test what you believe it can tes=
>t for.

>> Citations already supplied... did you bother to read them?

>> >5) Why was there NO damage to the seats or the carpet when the two
>> >fragments damaged the windshield and the chrome according to the WC?

>> Perhaps because no bullets struck the seats or carpet?
>> Perhaps because the search wasn't performed adequately?
>> Perhaps because the search was not intended to do anything more than suppo=
>rt the
>> lone assassin?

>> This is a topic that hasn't been discussed...

>> >6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of the
>> >head shot?

>> Untrue. =A0An inability to gather enough DNA, not degraded, is not proof t=
>hat the
>> DNA was not of a particular individual.

>> > 7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the
>> >middle section? (see below)

>> Nope... The Earth *IS* round... we *DID* land on the moon... take your sil=
>ly
>> questions and ask someone who believes that someone can fire only the nose=
> or
>> tail of a bullet out of a rifle...

>> >It is time for school little Bennie,

>> Ah, Samantha! =A0I wondered how long it would take before you started misu=
>sing my
>> name again.

>> >sit down as the bell has rung. =A0I
>> >will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how analogies
>> >are meant to be used.

>> >You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof the two
>> >fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet.

>> In order to prove that two fragments ORIGINALLY BELONGING ONLY TO A SINGLE=

>> PENCIL - but with no proof of this - showing that your logic that they mus=
>t
>> therefore be part of *TWO* pencils... can't work at all if you don't *STAR=
>T*
>> with a single pencil.

>> You continue to get confused about what is being demonstrated... but stupi=
>dity
>> *can* be cured... so I keep repeating the same explanation in as many diff=
>erent
>> ways as I can think of, in the hopes that you'll someday realize just how =
>stupid
>> you've been looking...

>> >IOW, your example
>> >breaks a complete pencil into three parts =3D96 nose/point, base, and
>> >middle section =3D96 but this was NOT proven to be true in our case as
>> >they could NOT match the two fragments.

>> Yep... they could not.

>> So now I give you two pencil fragments... both ends of a pencil - AND REFU=
>SE TO
>> TELL YOU WHETHER THEY ARE FROM ONE PENCIL, OR TWO PENCILS.

>> Since you cannot determine by any physical means whether they originally w=
>ere a
>> part of one or two pencils, you must, therefore, claim that they are from =
>two
>> pencils.

>> And you'd be stupid to do so.

>> >Therefore, the nose could
>> >have come from one bullet, the base could have come from another
>> >bullet, and finally the middle section could have been part of either
>> >previous bullet, or part of another (if there was one at all as it
>> >could have been a complete bullet that disintegrated completely).
>> >This is why Bennie=3D92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming something not=

>> >in evidence or proven.

>> How many pencils do I have? =A0You have the two fragments...

>> >Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
>> >circumstances,

>> I've given you two fragments... how many original pencils were there?

>> Remember - IT'S PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THEM TO ONE SINGLE PENCIL=
>.

>> You could easily exclude them from being from the same pencil, say, for ex=
>ample
>> if the 'lead' composition were different.

>> >but his does not follow this pattern. =A0A great analogy
>> >would be this (and I=3D92m not wishing anything bad on you Ben):

>> >Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=3D92s office, and
>> >they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
>> >negative. =A0This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but the
>> >doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could still
>> >have cancer. =A0IOW, they can=3D92t say he does have cancer, but they can=
>=3D92t
>> >say he doesn=3D92t have cancer. =A0Would you accept this Ben?

>> Of course. =A0It's what my original analogy would have led you to believe.=
> =A0IT'S
>> NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE WHETHER THE 'FRAGMENTS' CAME FROM ONE PENCIL OR TWO.=

>> Yet you still can't simply admit so...

>> >Would you
>> >ever go to this doctor again?

>> Depends on the doctor... I might get a second opinion, or I might have use=
>d this
>> same doctor for many years... and trust his opinion.

>> >This is what the WC wants us to accept
>> >with the two fragments. =A0They were covering all there bases but in
>> >medicine and science things don=3D92t work this way.

>> Only in your ignorant world...

>> >They CAN'T be both
>> >NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet.

>> Yes they can. =A0You see, no-one said that they could not be from the same=
> bullet.
>> You lied previously on this same topic.

>> You can't quote ANY expert testimony to that effect.

>> I *HAVE* given citations that apply.

>> You continue to refuse to provide citations for these silly statements.

>> (I really like your confusion of ballistic testing with NAA testing...)

>> >Ben won=3D92t prove there was a middle section that connected the two
>> >fragments, he says this is silly.

>> Yep... it is. =A0The Earth isn't flat, either...

>> >Why I ask when he keeps insisting
>> >the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet. =A0It is
>> >a perfectly valid question to ask =3D96 where is the middle section? Prov=
>e
>> >it existed, as if no proof can be given; the two fragments most
>> >certainly are not of the same origin.

>> I keep telling you that a lack of proof that two fragments belong to a sin=
>gle
>> bullet IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT BULLETS.

>> Such sheer unadulterated stupidity lives on...

>> >In his analogy they are in my
>> >pocket, therefore, he ACCOUNTED for it, but in the real life example
>> >he runs from explaining where it is, why?

>> The "middle" section, whether from one bullet, or 50 bullets, are also
>> "accounted" for.

>> Tell us, Samantha, which bullet manufacturer sells bullet "noses", or bull=
>et
>> "tails"... do they come by the box? =A0What sizes are they available in? =
>=A0Can I
>> get a .45 Nose... or are they only available in 6.5mm?

>> >The big piece that proves they were NOT from the same bullet,

>> Proving no such thing. =A0You can't prove something from an item you don't=
> have,
>> other than the fact that you don't have it.

>> >besides
>> >the failed ballistic tests to prove they were,

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.

>> A ballistics test can only prove ...

>> read more =BB