Oh speaking of Gerry Ford and the new book about him ..
No sir I didnt shoot anybody and I request a lawyer
aksing..that's all.
Ben Holmes
didnt shoot anybody and I request a lawyer says...
>
>Why didnt the WC take Ruby back to Washington ? Hell I am just
>aksing..that's all.
Probably for the same reason that answers this question:
Carolyn Arnold
F. Mark Bell
Glenn Bennett
Hugh Betzner
T.F. Bowley
Charles Brehm
Adm. Burkley
Richard Carr
James Chaney
Marvin & John Chism
Dr. John Ebersole
John Rene Heindel
Ruby Henderson
SA George W Hickey
Mary Hollies
Pat Hutton
Hurchel Jacks
Dr. Robert Karnei
SA Samuel Kinney
SA Paul E. Landis
Lt. Richard Lipsey
Julia Ann Mercer
A.J. Milican
Mary Ann Moorman
Thomas J. Murphy
William Newman
Jean Newman
Orville Nix
Beverly Oliver
Francis X. O'Neil
J.C. Price
Marvin Robinson
James Sibert
Marilyn Sitzman
Capt John Stover
Malcolm Summers
Carolyn Walther
MajGen Philip Wehle
Mary Woodward
Ralph W. Yarborough
Anyone know what these people have in common?
Burly...@gmail.com
> In article <1194244960.202359.236...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, No sir I
Yes. They are all victims of conspiracy theorists.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194244960.202359.236...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, No sir I
That's a tough one. Perhaps it's your complete list of Tippit murder
witnesses that saw two men?
Robcap:
Hey it is the truth plain and simple. You also told a fib in regards
to this event Dave, you said one witness and one witness only
(Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six witnesses saw two
men, but guess what the Warren Commission did, they only let one of
the six testify, why?
Ben:
Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the rest of us
concluded long
ago.
Ben Holmes
Burly...@gmail.com says...
Sad that LNT'ers can't face facts. Sad too, that their faith forces them to be
dishonest.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
No, it's not... anyone who has even a basic understanding of the testimony in
this case will immediately recognize that all of these eyewitnesses, although
the would ordinarily be called to testify - were not.
I find it hard to believe that you didn't know this - so this must be an attempt
at satire. But since you can't explain why this 'massive' investigation
demonstrates such a pattern of refusing to question eyewitnesses who would upset
their apple-cart, you're left with nothing...
A number of these eyewitnesses had *unique* information that went against the
grain of the WC's theory... as I'm sure you recognize.
>Perhaps it's your complete list of Tippit murder
>witnesses that saw two men?
How silly! Attempted humor is your best answer???
>Robcap:
>
>Hey it is the truth plain and simple. You also told a fib in regards
>to this event Dave, you said one witness and one witness only
>(Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six witnesses saw two
>men, but guess what the Warren Commission did, they only let one of
>the six testify, why?
>
>Ben:
>
>Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the rest of us
>concluded long ago.
Surely you're speaking or thinking of someone else. I long ago killfiled DVP
when he continually refused to respond to the points raised, or support his own
contentions.
mnhay27
> Hey it is the truth plain and simple. You also told a fib in regards
> to this event Dave, you said one witness and one witness only
> (Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six witnesses saw two
> men, but guess what the Warren Commission did, they only let one of
> the six testify, why?
Six witnesses? OK, you're gonna have to provide names and sources for
that one! :-)
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194280713.566644.133...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
Unless you actually agree with Robcap's assertion about the Tippit
witnesses, your response doesn't make sense. Were you just bonding?
Burly...@gmail.com
> In article <1194278682.857311.120...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> BurlyGu...@gmail.com says...
Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Holmes.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
muc...@gmail.com
We're waiting for Robcap to come up with the goods.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Robcap's assertion??? Can you *QUOTE* any comments by Robcap in this post???
>about the Tippit
>witnesses, your response doesn't make sense. Were you just bonding?
Sadly, your literacy skills are quite poor, aren't they?
I responded to comment about the WC not taking Ruby back to Washington. Could
you fail to see that? Then you made some rather nonsensical replies, and I
responded to that. At just what level are your reading skills? Do you have
problems following simple threads?
In fact, can you quote - ANYWHERE IN THIS POST WHATSOEVER - any discussion on
the Tippit witnesses?
And can you quote ANY COMMENT BY ME WHATSOEVER that would make sense out of your
comment that "Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the rest of us
concluded long ago."?
By all means - take your time... use simple words so that I can understand...
aeffects
the crotch pad doesn't help, hon.....
Burly...@gmail.com
Thanks for your (sick) thoughts, Mr. Healy.
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
nor does shaving your back, no need to thank me, hon! It's a public
service, we don't want to scare the kids, eh?
Burly...@gmail.com
Thank you for your incoherent, sick thought, Mr. Healy.
aeffects
okay-okay we don't want to scare the Lone Nut kiddies who inhabit this
USNET board...
Burly...@gmail.com
*You've* already done more than ''scare'' them, Mr. Healy, with your
incoherent postings.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194286238.819339.114...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
How could you miss the quote above? Below "Robcap:". From the
"bonding" thread.
> >about the Tippit
> >witnesses, your response doesn't make sense. Were you just bonding?
>
> Sadly, your literacy skills are quite poor, aren't they?
>
> I responded to comment about the WC not taking Ruby back to Washington. Could
> you fail to see that? Then you made some rather nonsensical replies, and I
> responded to that. At just what level are your reading skills? Do you have
> problems following simple threads?
>
> In fact, can you quote - ANYWHERE IN THIS POST WHATSOEVER - any discussion on
> the Tippit witnesses?
See above.
> And can you quote ANY COMMENT BY ME WHATSOEVER that would make sense out of your
> comment that "Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the rest of us
> concluded long ago."?
My comment? I was quoting you.
> By all means - take your time... use simple words so that I can understand...
You didn't respond in the original thread either...
muc...@gmail.com
USNET? Is that where you think you are?
Ben Holmes
Burly...@gmail.com says...
5 points for getting Burlyguard to say something other than "Thankyou for your
thoughts..."
But the grand prize will only go to the person who can get Burlyguard to
actually debate THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
Don't anyone hold their breath...
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Are you an idiot? Or are you just pretending to be one?
I asked you to QUOTE any comments by Robcap made in this post - and you refer to
YOUR OWN STATEMENT???
Just how dumb do you think people are?
>> >about the Tippit
>> >witnesses, your response doesn't make sense. Were you just bonding?
>>
>> Sadly, your literacy skills are quite poor, aren't they?
>>
>> I responded to comment about the WC not taking Ruby back to Washington.
>> Could you fail to see that? Then you made some rather nonsensical replies,
>> and I responded to that. At just what level are your reading skills? Do
>> you have problems following simple threads?
>>
>> In fact, can you quote - ANYWHERE IN THIS POST WHATSOEVER - any discussion
>> on the Tippit witnesses?
>
>See above.
No Mark... the only comments about Tippit BELONG TO YOU!
There is no discussion of the Tippit witnesses by anyone in this post.
>> And can you quote ANY COMMENT BY ME WHATSOEVER that would make sense out
>> of your comment that "Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the
>> rest of us concluded long ago."?
>
>My comment? I was quoting you.
Quoting me, TO me... how quaint.
>> By all means - take your time... use simple words so that I can understand...
>
>You didn't respond in the original thread either...
No, I wasn't *INTERESTED* in the original thread... I responded to the post that
I felt WARRANTED IT.
You really should be careful about asserting that someone has or has not
responded to particular threads - after all, you're the coward who runs from the
45 questions, the "Provable Lies of the Warren Commission", and other similar
threads...
You can maintain that they aren't of interest to you - as I just stated about
the Tippit witnesses - or you can challenge me, in which case I'm going to call
you on *YOUR* cowardice...
Which will it be?
aeffects
coming from a lone Nut dolt that get's his hat handed to him everytime
he turns around? OOOOOOOOOOkay!
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194298355.523870.175...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
You don't recall a post you responded to yesterday? Are you really
that dense?
> >> >about the Tippit
> >> >witnesses, your response doesn't make sense. Were you just bonding?
>
> >> Sadly, your literacy skills are quite poor, aren't they?
>
> >> I responded to comment about the WC not taking Ruby back to Washington.
> >> Could you fail to see that? Then you made some rather nonsensical replies,
> >> and I responded to that. At just what level are your reading skills? Do
> >> you have problems following simple threads?
>
> >> In fact, can you quote - ANYWHERE IN THIS POST WHATSOEVER - any discussion
> >> on the Tippit witnesses?
>
> >See above.
>
> No Mark... the only comments about Tippit BELONG TO YOU!
>
> There is no discussion of the Tippit witnesses by anyone in this post.
You don't recall a post you responded to yesterday? Are you really
that dense?
> >> And can you quote ANY COMMENT BY ME WHATSOEVER that would make sense out
> >> of your comment that "Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the
> >> rest of us concluded long ago."?
>
> >My comment? I was quoting you.
>
> Quoting me, TO me... how quaint.
You don't recall what you posted yesterday? Are you really that dense?
> >> By all means - take your time... use simple words so that I can understand...
>
> >You didn't respond in the original thread either...
>
> No, I wasn't *INTERESTED* in the original thread... I responded to the post that
> I felt WARRANTED IT.
>
> You really should be careful about asserting that someone has or has not
> responded to particular threads - after all, you're the coward who runs from the
> 45 questions, the "Provable Lies of the Warren Commission", and other similar
> threads...
You're still running scared from my answers to question #1. Remember
the "Final Proof" thread?
> You can maintain that they aren't of interest to you - as I just stated about
> the Tippit witnesses - or you can challenge me, in which case I'm going to call
> you on *YOUR* cowardice...
You were "interested" enough to agree with Robcap.
> Which will it be?
You're still dodging my question.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes rhetoric says NOTHING as usual. Ben? Do us all a favor.
Go play in your dojo and leave the investigation to those who can
rationalize and not speculate.
Burly...@gmail.com
Thank you for confirming what I said about your incoherent postings,
Mr. Healy.
Ben Holmes
Burly...@gmail.com says...
Interesting to note that LNT'ers can't debate the actual facts in this case...
When I provided the list, not a *SINGLE* LNT'er was willing to step up and state
the obvious fact that these were all people who *should* have testified.
They complain that nothing has been discovered in 44 years - yet this list
stands in mute testimony to that lie.
Burlyguard was forced to lie... what a devastating critique of one's character.
Burly...@gmail.com
> In article <1194357159.306857.209...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Thank you for your thoughts, Mr. Holmes.
aeffects
your learning toot's, tuck that cod piece in, LN women are present....
aeffects
GAWD it smells like tuna in here..... YoHavey must be soiling
again......
Burly...@gmail.com
Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Healy.
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Burly...@gmail.com
Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Healy.