Kooks on this forum...
Ben Holmes
time to examine just what it *means*.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded as strange,
eccentric, or crazy."
Wordnet has the following definition: "Someone regarded as eccentric or crazy
and standing out from a group"
Lurkers may wonder why people belonging to the roughly 10% of America that
believes the Warren Commission Report continue to call *others* "kooks".
Perhaps to avoid the evidence that they cannot handle... ?
tomnln
It appears that Everything is Backwards for WCR Supporters.
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e83qj...@drn.newsguy.com...
David VP
Yep. That'd be it alright. Glad that Ben finally looked up what he is.
Actually, though, Ben, I really like Merriam-Webster's official
definition a little better:
"KOOK --- Etymology: by shortening & alteration from cuckoo.
:one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.
:SCREWBALL."
http://webster.com/dictionary/kook
No, Ben's picture isn't on the above page. But they've been
contemplating adding that in.
tomnln
"Satanic"???
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151694240.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
David VP
mug is on there too.
tomnln
(good reason to have an abortion)
Wouldn't you rather discuss evidence/testimony?
WHY did the authorities destroy the Walker back yard photo?
(that's a Felony)
WHY do you Support Felons?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151694831.5...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded as
>> strange, eccentric, or crazy."
>
>Yep. That'd be it alright. Glad that Ben finally looked up what he is.
Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support my
viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
>Actually, though, Ben, I really like Merriam-Webster's official
>definition a little better:
>
>"KOOK --- Etymology: by shortening & alteration from cuckoo.
>:one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.
>:SCREWBALL."
Yep... your ideas *are* eccentric... less than 10% of America subscribes to
them.
David VP
The vast majority of those "Americans" who believe in conspiracy (which
is closer to 70%-75% in actuality; Ben-kook's inflated figures
notwithstanding) haven't studied the "evidence" in any great detail at
all, and you know it.
A goodly-sized pct. of that "70%-75%" has gotten nearly 100% of its
CT-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books, and pro-CT movies
like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize that fact as well.
Don't you?
It's important for you to keep mouthing off about your "up to 90%",
isn't it Ben? As long as you're in "the majority" you feel safe talking
your silly pro-CT, anti-Oswald spiel...don't you?
Well, Vince is coming.....and he'll have plenty to say (in style) re.
that "90%" of yours. Bank on it. ......
"{Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy
theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Mr. Bugliosi's
irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh
light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At last we know what
really happened; at last it all makes sense." -- W.W. Norton; ca.1998
~~~~~~~
"My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
alone." (Emphasis his.) -- Vincent Bugliosi; 2001
~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vincent Bugliosi; 1998
Ben Holmes
As usual... Davey-boy snips and runs...
Coward to the very end.
In article <1151700441....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support my
>> viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
>
>The vast majority of those "Americans" who believe in conspiracy (which
>is closer to 70%-75% in actuality; Ben-kook's inflated figures
>notwithstanding)
You may live in La-La land, who cares?
>haven't studied the "evidence" in any great detail at
>all, and you know it.
But those who *have*, don't change their views.
Indeed, the poll numbers have *NEVER* favored the WC, and have been only going
up...
>A goodly-sized pct. of that "70%-75%" has gotten nearly 100% of its
>CT-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books, and pro-CT movies
>like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize that fact as well.
>
>Don't you?
Actually, the educational system and mass media greatly favor the WCR. People
must go *out of their way* to find the truth in this case.
As well YOU know.
It's in *spite of*, not due to, the cultural education people have received.
>It's important for you to keep mouthing off about your "up to 90%",
>isn't it Ben? As long as you're in "the majority" you feel safe talking
>your silly pro-CT, anti-Oswald spiel...don't you?
Facts bugging you?
Just hold on to the thought that at one time, 90% of the world thought that the
earth was flat.
Perhaps that will comfort you.
>Well, Vince is coming.....and he'll have plenty to say (in style) re.
>that "90%" of yours. Bank on it. ......
Only by lying... who cares?
You won't be able or willing to defend him.
>"{Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
>evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
>sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy
>theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Mr. Bugliosi's
>irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh
>light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At last we know what
>really happened; at last it all makes sense." -- W.W. Norton; ca.1998
And yet, it's *STILL* not published. Bugliosi getting embarrassed already?
tomnln
"TJ-BF" <r...@att.net> wrote in message
news:_ihpg.719$PE1...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> news:e843n...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>> As usual... Davey-boy snips and runs...
>>
>> Coward to the very end.
>>
>>
>> In article <1151700441....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David
>> VP
>> says...
>>>
>>>> Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support
>>>> my
>>>> viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
>>>
>>>The vast majority of those "Americans" who believe in conspiracy (which
>>>is closer to 70%-75% in actuality; Ben-kook's inflated figures
>>>notwithstanding)
>>
>> You may live in La-La land, who cares?
>>
>>
>>>haven't studied the "evidence" in any great detail at
>>>all, and you know it.
>>
>>
>> But those who *have*, don't change their views.
>>
>> Indeed, the poll numbers have *NEVER* favored the WC, and have been only
>> going up...
>
> In 1964, only 20-25% really believed the WCR conclusions.
> By 1967 under numerous books assaulting the basic premises and
> conclusion on LHO, it had already dropped to less than 15%, and probably
> remains in that area of support today from the entire population.
>>
>>>A goodly-sized pct. of that "70%-75%" has gotten nearly 100% of its
>>>CT-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books, and pro-CT movies
>>>like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize that fact as well.
>>>
>>>Don't you?
>>
>>
>> Actually, the educational system and mass media greatly favor the WCR.
>> People
>> must go *out of their way* to find the truth in this case.
>
> That's a great point with all the political propaganda in the
> "educational" system and mass media heavily on the other side!
> Even after *all* the indisputable and numerous lies the U.S.
> Government has been caught in since 1963 (Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra,
> Gulf War 1, Iraq War, etc., etc., etc.), they still persist in believing
> the Government doesn't lie and especially not in explaining 100% the
> murder of a president!
>
>> As well YOU know.
>>
>> It's in *spite of*, not due to, the cultural education people have
>> received.
>>
>>
>>>It's important for you to keep mouthing off about your "up to 90%",
>>>isn't it Ben? As long as you're in "the majority" you feel safe talking
>>>your silly pro-CT, anti-Oswald spiel...don't you?
>>
>> Facts bugging you?
>>
>> Just hold on to the thought that at one time, 90% of the world thought
>> that the
>> earth was flat.
>>
>> Perhaps that will comfort you.
>>
>>
>>>Well, Vince is coming.....and he'll have plenty to say (in style) re.
>>>that "90%" of yours. Bank on it. ......
>>
>> Only by lying... who cares?
>>
>> You won't be able or willing to defend him.
>>
>>
>>>"{Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
>>>evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
>>>sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy
>>>theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Mr. Bugliosi's
>>>irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh
>>>light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At last we know what
>>>really happened; at last it all makes sense." -- W.W. Norton; ca.1998
>>
>>
>> And yet, it's *STILL* not published. Bugliosi getting embarrassed
>> already?
>
> His book is not published?
> Then where do all those quotes of his come from?
> Did he say it on a tv program?
> Why is he afraid to publish his book?
>
>>
>>>~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>"My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
>>>Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
>>>alone." (Emphasis his.) -- Vincent Bugliosi; 2001
>>>
>>>~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
>>>charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
>>>invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
>>>Vincent Bugliosi; 1998
>
> But you won't publish your book!
> Even what's-his-face published his 1993 WCR-laughably-defending book,
> to many hoots on his many errors and omissions.
>
>
David VP
And out of that %, how many people have really "studied" the case in
ANY depth whatsoever? Got that figure?
>>> "His {VB's} book is not published? Then where do all those quotes of his come from?" <<<
Well, Ben and Tom probably think I've just made them up from whole
cloth. (I imagine that silly idea crossed their minds once or twice at
any rate.)
But, actually, the VB quotes I use were said by Vince over a period of
several years, in other books he's written, or in interviews when the
subject of the JFK case would crop up, or in newspaper articles...like
this one from 1988:
>>> "Why is he {VB} afraid to publish his book?" <<<
Why do you think he's "afraid" to publish? That's certainly not correct
at all. He just wants to dot every "i", and thoroughly counter every
CT-kook before the book gets to the public...that's all. More.....
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1fb1e67721e35822
David VP
You obviously haven't the slightest idea who you are talking about
here. Let me remind you again.....
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vince Bugliosi
He's right too.
David VP
And give up being a CT-Kook??
Surely you.....jest???
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> In 1964, only 20-25% really believed the WCR conclusions. By 1967 under
>> numerous books assaulting the basic premises and conclusion on LHO, it had
>> already dropped to less than 15%, and probably remains in that area of
>> support today from the entire population.
>
>
>And out of that %, how many people have really "studied" the case in
>ANY depth whatsoever? Got that figure?
Matters not at all. People believe that there was a conspiracy *IN SPITE OF*
the mass media and the educational system.
And those that *do* study the topic don't change their views, and suddenly
become LNT'ers... despite that particular factoid.
David VP
And Ben, of course, knows this for a fact. He's talked to every person
who's ever studied the case "in depth".
Must have been a daunting task for you.
You must have bypassed Dale Myers though.
Ben Holmes
says...
He can offer all the support he wants... *IF* his book is ever published, you
will be unable to defend it against those who point out the omissions,
misrepresentations, and almost certain lies that will in his tome.
Ben Holmes
says...
What the jest is - is that you will *refuse* to defend Posner's book.
Gutless coward and liar... how you look at yourself in the mirror each morning
is a true mystery.
David VP
But you'll STILL disregard ALL of this "support" produced by VB....no
matter how much of it he provides and no matter how much CS&L it will
inevitably contain.
Right, Bennut?
David VP
This is one of my favorite CT-Ben-Kook pieces of dialogue that
means......
....well...what exactly DOES this mean???
Who the hell knows. Perhaps Ben-kook does...but I doubt it.
Evidently I've failed to (and "refuse" to) "defend" Posner's book...and
VB's pro-LN position....and the autopsy report....and the WCR....and
Sparky Anderson's decision to move Joe Morgan down to the #3 spot
during the 1975 World Series, too.
Why Ben-kook keeps saying this is anyone's guess.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2468ba452baf99c0
(I did like the "gutless coward" thing resurfacing though. It's been
DAYS since I've heard it. I was suffering from Coward Withdrawal due to
its absence. Thanks.)
Anthony Marsh
>>> "Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support my viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?"
>
> The vast majority of those "Americans" who believe in conspiracy (which
> is closer to 70%-75% in actuality; Ben-kook's inflated figures
> notwithstanding) haven't studied the "evidence" in any great detail at
> all, and you know it.
>
> A goodly-sized pct. of that "70%-75%" has gotten nearly 100% of its
> CT-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books, and pro-CT movies
> like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize that fact as well.
>
> Don't you?
>
> It's important for you to keep mouthing off about your "up to 90%",
> isn't it Ben? As long as you're in "the majority" you feel safe talking
> your silly pro-CT, anti-Oswald spiel...don't you?
>
> Well, Vince is coming.....and he'll have plenty to say (in style) re.
> that "90%" of yours. Bank on it. ......
>
Not really. He'll stipulate to the 90%, but claim that 90% of the public
is ignorant of the facts and that his book will educate them.
David VP
But, of course. I thought that was quite obvious. ;)
>>> "A zig-zagging 'magic bullet'..." <<<
Hard to believe that anyone still can possibly believe the bullet was
"magic", or that it had to "zig-zag" all over Dallas to strike both men
in the appropriate places.
TJ -- Do you truly believe the bullet HAD to have zig-zagged to strike
the victims? If so, why?
The SBT is obviously the "best evidence" re. the wounding of JFK/JBC.
Have you ever seriously contemplated what the "alternative" truly is,
TJ, if the SBT is NOT the correct scenario?
If I were a CTer, I'd seriously begin pondering which is more ludicrous
-- the SBT or what I'd have to believe if the SBT isn't true. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e06a29392572c072
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
David VP
Well....in such a VB scenario, that'd be quite accurate and acceptable
as well. But he won't be stipulating to the ridiculously-high "90%"
figure. He's used percentiles in his quotes in past years, and they've
never been as high as 90%.
David VP
OK. OK. I'll stop you right there. This is more than enough to fully
establish your status as another CT-Kook. Save the rest of your
long-winded tripe for tomorrow's matinee performance if you please.
Congrats...you made the kook club....spouting the nearly-verbatim
pro-conspiracy crap as thousands before you.....it's the "I don't
believe LHO even was a shooter" line that cemented your kook status, as
you no doubt
realized before uttering such a hunk of nonsense.
Then there's the.......
Zig-zag path....
Oswald was a shitty shooter....
That crappy POS rifle!....
Milteer said this....
Ford's a crook too (right?)....
The SBT's a ruse....
I don't even believe Kennedy was killed.
Neither was Malcolm X.
Barbara Eden has got them both in her bottle right now.
And Khrushchev is cute as a button.
Fantasies.....it's hard to live without them.
tomnln
>>>> "In 1964, only 20-25% really believed the WCR conclusions. By 1967
>>>> under numerous books assaulting the basic premises and conclusion on
>>>> LHO, it had already dropped to less than 15%, and probably remains in
>>>> that area of support today from the entire population." <<<
>
>
> And out of that %, how many people have really "studied" the case in
> ANY depth whatsoever? Got that figure?
>
>
>>>> "His {VB's} book is not published? Then where do all those quotes of
>>>> his come from?" <<<
>
> Well, Ben and Tom probably think I've just made them up from whole
> cloth. (I imagine that silly idea crossed their minds once or twice at
> any rate.)
WOW;
David VP ASS-U-MEs he can read Ben & tom's minds in advance. (he's good)
David ASS-U-MEs that Ben & tom can read VB's mind. (he's REALLY good)
ORRRRRRRRRRRR, he's a Complete AIDS infected Whacko.
Either way he's still a Felon Supporter.
==============================================================================
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151710568.3...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
cdddraftsman
change anytime soon . Which only indicates that belief has triumphed
over the truth , with the truth having no requirement that anyone has
to believe in it . So you can kick it up to 99.9% and it wouldn't have
anymore meaning than 75% . We've seen this many times in history ,
something you conveniently ignor . Ignor and ignorance are your allies
in this dicussion , it must make you feel tremendously important and
impowering to others , who have let traitors , like yourself , think
for themselves . You keep ranting about how it is impossible for 90% of
Americans to be fooled , when 5% of American scientists make up 50% of
Americas GDP . Ben , please stay in the uninformed , unwashed ,
ignorant 90% of Americans who don't believe , you deserve it . It fits
you perfectly . Big , Dumb and a Fool . All your facts and thinking
processes are backwards and upside down , your usual form . Tom Lowry
Ben Holmes wrote:
> The word "kook" keeps being tossed around on this newsgroup, and perhaps it's
> time to examine just what it *means*.
>
> The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded as strange,
> eccentric, or crazy."
>
> Wordnet has the following definition: "Someone regarded as eccentric or crazy
> and standing out from a group"
>
> Lurkers may wonder why people belonging to the roughly 10% of America that
> believes the Warren Commission Report continue to call *others* "kooks".
>
> Perhaps to avoid the evidence that they cannot handle... ?
cdddraftsman
he see's stars ! Tom Lowry
tomnln wrote:
> TOUCHE'
>
> It appears that Everything is Backwards for WCR Supporters.
>
>
> "Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> news:e83qj...@drn.newsguy.com...
cdddraftsman
Assassins that disappear , leaving no visable trace , no guns , no
shell casings , nothing ! Which sums up their position , that can be
quantified as the following : Nothing + ignorance + lies = Belief .
With people like Ben , the lier , contributing to this equation . Bravo
Ben . Keep lying to yourself and the 90 % . Please remain an ignoramous
, your blimp on the radar screen , is a irresistable target for people
who do think . Tom Lowry
David VP wrote:
> >> "The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.""
>
> Yep. That'd be it alright. Glad that Ben finally looked up what he is.
>
> Actually, though, Ben, I really like Merriam-Webster's official
> definition a little better:
>
> "KOOK --- Etymology: by shortening & alteration from cuckoo.
> :one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.
> :SCREWBALL."
>
> http://webster.com/dictionary/kook
>
> No, Ben's picture isn't on the above page. But they've been
> contemplating adding that in.
cdddraftsman
tomnln wrote:
> Would that also include your "David VP" picture alongside the word
> "Satanic"???
>
>
>
>
> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1151694240.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
cdddraftsman
stolen it . These things have a great price on the market . It doesn't
mean automatically conspiracy idiot ! You display all the
characteristics of the ' paranoid mentality ' . Maybe seeing a shrink
would do all of us some good . Spreading a disease like yours have
infected 90% of Americans . Tom Lowry
tomnln wrote:
> Then how come I saw it as a Poster Boy at an Abortion Clinic?
> (good reason to have an abortion)
>
> Wouldn't you rather discuss evidence/testimony?
>
> WHY did the authorities destroy the Walker back yard photo?
> (that's a Felony)
>
> WHY do you Support Felons?
>
>
>
> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1151694831.5...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Nah...my picture only resides on the page reserved for "CS&L" .... VB's
> > mug is on there too.
> >
cdddraftsman
thinking skills , unlike yourself , who have bought into a canopy of
lies . Shows you stupidity level , to be at a all time high of 90% .
Congradulations Ben . Tom Lowry
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1151694240.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded as
> >> strange, eccentric, or crazy."
> >
> >Yep. That'd be it alright. Glad that Ben finally looked up what he is.
>
>
> Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support my
> viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
>
>
> >Actually, though, Ben, I really like Merriam-Webster's official
> >definition a little better:
> >
> >"KOOK --- Etymology: by shortening & alteration from cuckoo.
> >:one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.
> >:SCREWBALL."
>
>
> Yep... your ideas *are* eccentric... less than 10% of America subscribes to
> them.
cdddraftsman
paranoid mentality . Talking to him is like talking into a dead phone ,
only half the fun . Tom Lowry
David VP wrote:
> >> "Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support my viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?"
>
> The vast majority of those "Americans" who believe in conspiracy (which
> is closer to 70%-75% in actuality; Ben-kook's inflated figures
> notwithstanding) haven't studied the "evidence" in any great detail at
> all, and you know it.
>
> A goodly-sized pct. of that "70%-75%" has gotten nearly 100% of its
> CT-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books, and pro-CT movies
> like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize that fact as well.
>
> Don't you?
>
> It's important for you to keep mouthing off about your "up to 90%",
> isn't it Ben? As long as you're in "the majority" you feel safe talking
> your silly pro-CT, anti-Oswald spiel...don't you?
>
> Well, Vince is coming.....and he'll have plenty to say (in style) re.
> that "90%" of yours. Bank on it. ......
>
> "{Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
> evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
> sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy
> theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Mr. Bugliosi's
> irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh
> light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At last we know what
> really happened; at last it all makes sense." -- W.W. Norton; ca.1998
>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> "My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
> Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
> alone." (Emphasis his.) -- Vincent Bugliosi; 2001
>
> ~~~~~~~
>
> "If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
> charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
> invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
> Vincent Bugliosi; 1998
cdddraftsman
which is in support of the WCR conclusions . Everthing in Washington
leaks like a sieve . So what makes you think the JFK Assassination is
any different ? Why hasn't it leaked ? Why hasn't anyone come forward
with an indictment against someone ? Where the hell is your conspiracy
? Where's the beef ? Where are the extra guns ? Who are these extra
players that only you can see in your overactive imagination ? Who's
kidding who ? This exists in your feeble minded brain only ! Tom Lowry
TJ-BF wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> news:e843n...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> > As usual... Davey-boy snips and runs...
> >
> > Coward to the very end.
> >
> >
> > In article <1151700441....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David
> > VP
> > says...
> >>
> >>> Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support
> >>> my
> >>> viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
> >>
> >>The vast majority of those "Americans" who believe in conspiracy (which
> >>is closer to 70%-75% in actuality; Ben-kook's inflated figures
> >>notwithstanding)
> >
> > You may live in La-La land, who cares?
> >
> >
> >>haven't studied the "evidence" in any great detail at
> >>all, and you know it.
> >
> >
> > But those who *have*, don't change their views.
> >
> > Indeed, the poll numbers have *NEVER* favored the WC, and have been only
> > going up...
>
> In 1964, only 20-25% really believed the WCR conclusions.
> By 1967 under numerous books assaulting the basic premises and
> conclusion on LHO, it had already dropped to less than 15%, and probably
> remains in that area of support today from the entire population.
> >
> >>A goodly-sized pct. of that "70%-75%" has gotten nearly 100% of its
> >>CT-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books, and pro-CT movies
> >>like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize that fact as well.
> >>
> >>Don't you?
> >
> >
> > Actually, the educational system and mass media greatly favor the WCR.
> > People
> > must go *out of their way* to find the truth in this case.
>
> That's a great point with all the political propaganda in the
> "educational" system and mass media heavily on the other side!
> Even after *all* the indisputable and numerous lies the U.S. Government
> has been caught in since 1963 (Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Gulf War 1,
> Iraq War, etc., etc., etc.), they still persist in believing the Government
> doesn't lie and especially not in explaining 100% the murder of a president!
>
> > As well YOU know.
> >
> > It's in *spite of*, not due to, the cultural education people have
> > received.
> >
> >
> >>It's important for you to keep mouthing off about your "up to 90%",
> >>isn't it Ben? As long as you're in "the majority" you feel safe talking
> >>your silly pro-CT, anti-Oswald spiel...don't you?
> >
> > Facts bugging you?
> >
> > Just hold on to the thought that at one time, 90% of the world thought
> > that the
> > earth was flat.
> >
> > Perhaps that will comfort you.
> >
> >
> >>Well, Vince is coming.....and he'll have plenty to say (in style) re.
> >>that "90%" of yours. Bank on it. ......
> >
> > Only by lying... who cares?
> >
> > You won't be able or willing to defend him.
> >
> >
> >>"{Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
> >>evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
> >>sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy
> >>theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Mr. Bugliosi's
> >>irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh
> >>light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At last we know what
> >>really happened; at last it all makes sense." -- W.W. Norton; ca.1998
> >
> >
> > And yet, it's *STILL* not published. Bugliosi getting embarrassed
> > already?
>
> His book is not published?
> Then where do all those quotes of his come from?
> Did he say it on a tv program?
> Why is he afraid to publish his book?
>
> >
> >>~~~~~~~
> >>
> >>"My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
> >>Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
> >>alone." (Emphasis his.) -- Vincent Bugliosi; 2001
> >>
> >>~~~~~~~
> >>
> >>"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
> >>charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
> >>invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
> >>Vincent Bugliosi; 1998
>
> But you won't publish your book!
> Even what's-his-face published his 1993 WCR-laughably-defending book,
> to many hoots on his many errors and omissions.
cdddraftsman
The most read is the ' National Inquirer ' ( Man controls wife with tv
remote , jfk alive in iron lung in poland , obl on atlantic gambling
spree ) , you know Ben , the kind of S__t you peddle . Poison without
the labeling . ' Nutcase Paranoid Mentality ' Tom Lowry
Ben Holmes wrote:
> As usual... Davey-boy snips and runs...
>
> Coward to the very end.
>
>
> In article <1151700441....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support my
> >> viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
> >
> >The vast majority of those "Americans" who believe in conspiracy (which
> >is closer to 70%-75% in actuality; Ben-kook's inflated figures
> >notwithstanding)
>
> You may live in La-La land, who cares?
>
>
> >haven't studied the "evidence" in any great detail at
> >all, and you know it.
>
>
> But those who *have*, don't change their views.
>
> Indeed, the poll numbers have *NEVER* favored the WC, and have been only going
> up...
>
>
> >A goodly-sized pct. of that "70%-75%" has gotten nearly 100% of its
> >CT-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books, and pro-CT movies
> >like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize that fact as well.
> >
> >Don't you?
>
>
> Actually, the educational system and mass media greatly favor the WCR. People
> must go *out of their way* to find the truth in this case.
>
> As well YOU know.
>
> It's in *spite of*, not due to, the cultural education people have received.
>
>
> >It's important for you to keep mouthing off about your "up to 90%",
> >isn't it Ben? As long as you're in "the majority" you feel safe talking
> >your silly pro-CT, anti-Oswald spiel...don't you?
>
> Facts bugging you?
>
> Just hold on to the thought that at one time, 90% of the world thought that the
> earth was flat.
>
> Perhaps that will comfort you.
>
>
> >Well, Vince is coming.....and he'll have plenty to say (in style) re.
> >that "90%" of yours. Bank on it. ......
>
> Only by lying... who cares?
>
> You won't be able or willing to defend him.
>
>
> >"{Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
> >evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
> >sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy
> >theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Mr. Bugliosi's
> >irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh
> >light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At last we know what
> >really happened; at last it all makes sense." -- W.W. Norton; ca.1998
>
>
> And yet, it's *STILL* not published. Bugliosi getting embarrassed already?
>
>
>
cdddraftsman
anyone whose critical thinking skills are intact . Rules you out . How
does it feel to be an amebocite , all central nervous system with no
brain and nothing to guide you in your search ? Tom lowry
TJ-BF wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1151708668....@d30g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> "In 1964, only 20-25% really believed the WCR conclusions. By 1967
> >>>> under numerous books assaulting the basic premises and conclusion on
> >>>> LHO, it had already dropped to less than 15%, and probably remains in
> >>>> that area of support today from the entire population." <<<
> >
> >
> > And out of that %, how many people have really "studied" the case in
> > ANY depth whatsoever? Got that figure?
>
> You don't have to "study" to recognize numerous inconsistencies and
> that 2 + 2 does not equal 5; as the WC would have you believe in their
> "facts."
> The WC also casually, and conveniently for them, omitted receiving
> testimony from many eyewitnesses who wanted to testify but would strongly
> contradict many of the "facts" the WCR said in its assumptions and
> conclusions.
> The WC, and Chief Justice Warren himself would not even allow Jack
> Ruby to travel to D.C. to testify away from the Dallas police, who were so
> corrupt, he knew it wouldn't be wise to say what he believed was the truth
> while in their presence. He obviously feared for his life if he said
> anything in the Dallas jails.
>
>
> >>>> "His {VB's} book is not published? Then where do all those quotes of
> >>>> his come from?" <<<
>
> > Well, Ben and Tom probably think I've just made them up from whole
> > cloth. (I imagine that silly idea crossed their minds once or twice at
> > any rate.)
>
> > But, actually, the VB quotes I use were said by Vince over a period of
> > several years, in other books he's written, or in interviews when the
> > subject of the JFK case would crop up, or in newspaper articles...like
> > this one from 1988:
>
> > http://tinypic.com/seaae9.jpg
> >
> >
> >>>> "Why is he {VB} afraid to publish his book?" <<<
> >
> >
> > Why do you think he's "afraid" to publish? That's certainly not correct
> > at all. He just wants to dot every "i", and thoroughly counter every
> > CT-kook before the book gets to the public...that's all. More.....
> >
> > http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1fb1e67721e35822
>
> I'm sure the CT "kooks" will gladly demolish most (if not all) of his
> "facts" no matter how long he waits or how much he wants to 'dot every i'
> before he publishes.
> It will be similar to when the other LN kook, forgot his name, who
> published "Case Closed" way back in 1993; obviously he is dead wrong on his
> outrageously, presumptuous title or these countering ng's wouldn't need to
cdddraftsman
explaining the true , undistorted facts , they agree with me , with no
reservations . Con artists like you need a new profession . The JFK
Assassination sure don't fit your pistol . Tom Lowry
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1151708668....@d30g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> In 1964, only 20-25% really believed the WCR conclusions. By 1967 under
> >> numerous books assaulting the basic premises and conclusion on LHO, it had
> >> already dropped to less than 15%, and probably remains in that area of
> >> support today from the entire population.
> >
> >
> >And out of that %, how many people have really "studied" the case in
> >ANY depth whatsoever? Got that figure?
>
>
> Matters not at all. People believe that there was a conspiracy *IN SPITE OF*
> the mass media and the educational system.
>
> And those that *do* study the topic don't change their views, and suddenly
> become LNT'ers... despite that particular factoid.
cdddraftsman
Holmes . A fitting title indeed ! Tom Lowry
cdddraftsman
Tom Lowry
cdddraftsman
your interested in knowing the truth , try going to McAdams Site : Good
articles that debunk , all that junk , that was pulled out of the trunk
, written by all those punks ! I'll bet you'll pay any prise to be lied
to . Tom Lowry
TJ-BF wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1151710999....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> "He {Gerald Posner} is dead wrong...or these countering ng's wouldn't
> >>>> need to exist and we can all call it quits and go home." <<<
> >
> > And give up being a CT-Kook??
> >
> > Surely you.....jest???
>
> I wouldn't be jesting if I said you are a LN-Kook.
> Or does the 'kook' label only fly one way?
>
> Actually, when I was young in the mid-'60s, I thought the Government
> was correct on LHO, simply because it *was* the Government, with all its
> majesty (i.e., King) saying it, so it must be so.
> I didn't know any better, and then Vietnam (lies) and Watergate (lies)
> occurred back-to-back-to-back after the JFK murder.
> After reading some of the opposition books, it became obvious there
> were so many holes in the "official" Government story, it ceased to be a
> simple conclusion that LHO was the "lone nut" or there wouldn't be so many
> holes, missuppositions, omissions, 'what-ifs', a zig-zagging in mid-air
> 'magic bullet', lack of questioning by the WC of many eyewitnesses who
> claimed at least one shot came from behind them by the fence on the knoll,
> burned autopsy notes (Cmdr. Humes), missing brain (JFKs) that had never been
> sectioned as a real autopsy would have done to determine the path and
> entry/exit of the bullet(s), then came all the potential witnesses or other
> key individuals winding up dead in so many mysterious ways while they were
> still young and healthy (Karyn Kupcinet, Dorothy Kilgallen after
> interviewing Jack Ruby who announced publicly she was going to 'break' the
> story wide open; her writings on the case disappeared after she died and
> were never seen again), etc., etc., etc.
cdddraftsman
again , in no uncertain terms . People like you , who expout conspiracy
upon conspiracy are the only reason this issue remains alive . Most
people , really don't care , one way or the other . Most have been
brainwashed , unlike yourself ( I'm sure it only took a damp sponge )
into thinking a lie . All are welcomed to the lier's club ! Your in ,
you now belong , but leave your thinking skills and personal integrity
behind ! We have a high priest of mumbo jumbo to think for you ! As far
as personal integrity , Ah shit , who needs it , the average CTer needs
personal integrety like a alley cat needs a marraige licence . Tom
Lowry
cdddraftsman
brain dead people don't want to use their head , other than to hang a
hat on . Physic's , forensics , scientific thinking , who needs em ,
it's much easier to believe in a lie . Plus if they use their brains ,
they might hurt themselves . Tom Lowry
cdddraftsman
First the non believers : % who look at you in shocked disbelief that
you would even ask such a mundane question = 15% . % who act like a
duck , that was just hit over head , with nothing to say = 10% . % who
will side with anyone against the government , because they have seen
one or more cowboy movies , that expouse the underdog role = 5% . % who
didn't even know JFK was the President at one time = 5% . % who think
VB means their is a new venereal disease about = 5% . % who have been
brainwahed by DST ( Damp Sponge Technique ) , by constant repetition
of lies and the movie ' JFK ' into thinking conspiracy = 20% . % of
people who think BC means ' Before Cable ' = 5% . % who suffer from GKS
( Grassy Knoll Syndrome ) = 5% . Total from the unwashed and unholy
mobocracy = 75 % Believers : % who haven't lost their critical
thinking skills = 15% . % who know a construct and a con artist story
when they see one = 5% . % who are intimately familiar with the known
facts of the case , who have a scientific background and are well
versed with multi-various analytical techniques = 5% . Total = 25% .
The only question left on the believer side is : are you proud to
belong to the minority ? All would answer : yes . The only question
left on the non believers side is which corpse will get the most
flowers . Tom Lowry
tomnln
Why is it that that name-cal;ling always comes from people with AIDS?
Why don't AIDS infested people won't tell us why the authorities destroyed
the Walker back yard photo?
Why do AIDS infested people Condone Destruction of Evidence?
David VP; YOU tell us why they destroyed the Walker back yard photo?
tomnln
> In article <1151708668....@d30g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David
> VP
> says...
>>
>>> In 1964, only 20-25% really believed the WCR conclusions. By 1967 under
>>> numerous books assaulting the basic premises and conclusion on LHO, it
>>> had
>>> already dropped to less than 15%, and probably remains in that area of
>>> support today from the entire population.
>>
>>
>>And out of that %, how many people have really "studied" the case in
>>ANY depth whatsoever? Got that figure?
>
> Matters not at all. People believe that there was a conspiracy *IN SPITE
> OF*
> the mass media and the educational system.
EXACTLY BEN;
Just like Ken Rahn taking Thousands of $$$ from students then, teaching them
Lies.
Ken even Refuses to Debate a conspiracy believer in fron of his class.
===========================================================================
tomnln
David, tell us why the authorities destroyed the Walker back yard photo?
Dale Myers won't ever address it.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151715062.5...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "And those that *do* study the topic don't change their views, and
>>>> suddenly become LNT'ers... despite that particular factoid."
>
> And Ben, of course, knows this for a fact. He's talked to every person
> who's ever studied the case "in depth".
>
> Must have been a daunting task for you.
>
> You must have bypassed Dale Myers though.
>
tomnln
Maybe you can change my mind by explaining why the authorities destroyed the
Walker back yard photo?
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151749859....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Those AIDS distributors have to check for Lesions every morning.
That way they don't have to answer questions like why the authorities
destroyed the Walkler back yard photo.
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e84g9...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <1151710999....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David
> VP
> says...
>>
>>> He {Gerald Posner} is dead wrong...or these countering ng's wouldn't
>>> need
>>> to exist and we can all call it quits and go home.
>>
>>And give up being a CT-Kook??
>>
>>Surely you.....jest???
>
>
> What the jest is - is that you will *refuse* to defend Posner's book.
>
> Gutless coward and liar... how you look at yourself in the mirror each
> morning
> is a true mystery.
>
tomnln
will lower-ee Ever address the authorities destroying the Walker back yard
photo?
Does lower-ee Support the desrtruction of evidence a Felony?
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151750212.9...@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Below is actual Proof that AIDS does indeed have a Negative effect on the
brain.
WHERE in the Tirade below does AIDS Distributor David VP address ANY
evidence/testimony?
Ask David VP to explain WHY the authorities destroyed the Walker back yard
photo?
Ask David VP to explain WHY he condones Felonies?
Ask David VP to explain WHY he chose to tarde insults instead of discussin
Facts?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151730721.0...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Just a few inches one way and then it suddenly stops, reverses
>>>> direction like a football runner opposed by some big defensive
>>>> guys....Anyway, I don't believe LHO even was a shooter....And that
>>>> rifle! A pure, piece of Italian junk..." <<<
>
> OK. OK. I'll stop you right there. This is more than enough to fully
> establish your status as another CT-Kook.
>
> Congrats...you made the club....spouting the nearly-verbatim
> pro-conspiracy crap as thousands before you.....
>
> The zig-zag path....
> Oswald was a shitty shooter....
> That crappy POS rifle!....
> Milteer said this....
> Oswald never harmed as flea....
> And Ford's a crook too....
> And LHO never hurt a hair on Tippit's head....
>
> I don't even believe Kennedy was killed.
> Neither was Malcolm X.
> Barbara Eden has got them both in her bottle right now.
> And Khrushchev is cute as a button.
>
> Fantasies.....it's hard to live without them.
>
> A disinfo specialist like me hasn't got a chance these days. Why?
> Because kooks rule the roost, dammit.
>
> Somebody get Ted Baxter in here when he's finished lousing up the 6:00
> News. I want a word with him. Maybe he can help with these kooks.
>
> Rochester! Get me my dinner! I've got violin practice at 7 PM ya know!
>
> Reality is hard to come by. Just ask a CT-kook.
>
> Anyway....after a pause.....I think we can easily see that TJ is,
> indeed, a CTer with kook status embedded within.
>
> And it all started in a 5,000-watt radio station in Fresno,
> California.....
> Oh Lou...please!!!!!!!
>
tomnln
Now the AIDS has given David an "ECHO".
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151731018.9...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Just a few inches one way and then it suddenly stops, reverses
>>>> direction like a football runner opposed by some big defensive
>>>> guys....Anyway, I don't believe LHO even was a shooter....And that
>>>> rifle! A pure, piece of Italian junk..." <<<
>
> OK. OK. I'll stop you right there. This is more than enough to fully
> establish your status as another CT-Kook.
>
> Congrats...you made the kook club....spouting the nearly-verbatim
> pro-conspiracy crap as thousands before you.....it's the "Oswald Never
> Shot Anybody" line that cemented your kook status, as you no doubt
> realized before uttering such a piece-of-shit lie.
>
> Then there's the.......
>
> Zig-zag path....
> Oswald was a shitty shooter....
> That crappy POS rifle!....
> Milteer said this....
> Ford's a crook too (right?)....
> The SBT's a ruse....
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151731203.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Just a few inches one way and then it suddenly stops, reverses
>>>> direction like a football runner opposed by some big defensive
>>>> guys....Anyway, I don't believe LHO even was a shooter....And that
>>>> rifle! A pure, piece of Italian junk..." <<<
>
> OK. OK. I'll stop you right there. This is more than enough to fully
> establish your status as another CT-Kook.
>
> Congrats...you made the kook club....spouting the nearly-verbatim
> pro-conspiracy crap as thousands before you.....it's the "I don't
> believe LHO even was a shooter" line that cemented your kook status, as
> you no doubt
> realized before uttering such a hunk of nonsense.
tomnln
Maybe it's a Stuttering Problem?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151732312....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "Just a few inches one way and then it suddenly stops, reverses
>>>> direction like a football runner opposed by some big defensive
>>>> guys....Anyway, I don't believe LHO even was a shooter....And that
>>>> rifle! A pure, piece of Italian junk..." <<<
>
> OK. OK. I'll stop you right there. This is more than enough to fully
> establish your status as another CT-Kook. Save the rest of your
> long-winded tripe for tomorrow's matinee performance if you please.
tomnln
Start by telling us why the authorities destroyed the Walker back yard
photo?
Tell us if you Condone that Felony?
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151751607.0...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Your friend McAdams has already admitted that the authorities Destroyed
Evidence at least 2 or 3 times.
McAdams Just never had the guts to identify Which 2 or 3 times.
So, even your Guru has fallen by the wayside.
Do all of you people Support Felonies?
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151750544.8...@j8g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
This guy wrote the WCR.
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151753566.1...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Steve
tomnln wrote:
> Do we get Popcorn with THAT Cartoon?
>
"Cartoon"? Why don't you technically tell us what is wrong with Dale
Myers' animation, Tom, that causes you to refer to it as such? I see a
lot of people bitching in here about it, but no one ever technically
states exactly what is "wrong" with it.
tomnln
Tell us WHY the FBI tried to Withhold Evidence from the WC?
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151735765....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Thats quite a statement for someone who's head is so far up his rectum
> he see's stars ! Tom Lowry
>
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> TOUCHE'
>>
>> It appears that Everything is Backwards for WCR Supporters.
>>
>>
>> "Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>> news:e83qj...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> > The word "kook" keeps being tossed around on this newsgroup, and
>> > perhaps
>> > it's
>> > time to examine just what it *means*.
>> >
>> > The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded as
>> > strange,
>> > eccentric, or crazy."
>> >
>> > Wordnet has the following definition: "Someone regarded as eccentric or
>> > crazy
>> > and standing out from a group"
>> >
>> > Lurkers may wonder why people belonging to the roughly 10% of America
>> > that
>> > believes the Warren Commission Report continue to call *others*
>> > "kooks".
>> >
>> > Perhaps to avoid the evidence that they cannot handle... ?
>> >
>
tomnln
I was hoping I wouldn't have to mention your AIDS Problem.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to mention you being a Child Molester.
I was hoping I wouls\dn't have to mention that tou Support Felons.
(I have Many more abortion survivor)
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151737506....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> What rock did tomln crawl from under ? Tom Lowry
>
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> Would that also include your "David VP" picture alongside the word
>> "Satanic"???
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151694240.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> "The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded
>> >>> as
>> >>> strange, eccentric, or crazy.""
>> >
>> > Yep. That'd be it alright. Glad that Ben finally looked up what he is.
>> >
>> > Actually, though, Ben, I really like Merriam-Webster's official
>> > definition a little better:
>> >
>> > "KOOK --- Etymology: by shortening & alteration from cuckoo.
>> > :one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.
>> > :SCREWBALL."
>> >
>> > http://webster.com/dictionary/kook
>> >
>> > No, Ben's picture isn't on the above page. But they've been
>> > contemplating adding that in.
>> >
>
tomnln
It's seen intact in Cheif Curry's book.
Marina's testimony states "there was no hole in the picture when the FBI
showed it to her".
It is in the 26 Volumes with a big black hole in it.
NOW, prove it was "stolen" as you suggested.
No wonder you accept the WCR, You don't know whats in it.
Just like the WC all you ever do is GUESS & Spout Lies.
You're a Felon Supporter.
You have Less sight than Ray Charles.
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151737939.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Did it ever occur to you , oh, brainless one , that someone might have
> stolen it . These things have a great price on the market . It doesn't
> mean automatically conspiracy idiot ! You display all the
> characteristics of the ' paranoid mentality ' . Maybe seeing a shrink
> would do all of us some good . Spreading a disease like yours have
> infected 90% of Americans . Tom Lowry
>
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> Then how come I saw it as a Poster Boy at an Abortion Clinic?
>> (good reason to have an abortion)
>>
>> Wouldn't you rather discuss evidence/testimony?
>>
>> WHY did the authorities destroy the Walker back yard photo?
>> (that's a Felony)
>>
>> WHY do you Support Felons?
>>
>>
>>
>> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151694831.5...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Nah...my picture only resides on the page reserved for "CS&L" .... VB's
>> > mug is on there too.
>> >
>
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Did it ever occur to you , oh, brainless one , that someone might have
>stolen it . These things have a great price on the market . It doesn't
>mean automatically conspiracy idiot ! You display all the
>characteristics of the ' paranoid mentality ' . Maybe seeing a shrink
>would do all of us some good . Spreading a disease like yours have
>infected 90% of Americans . Tom Lowry
Presumably, "has".
Embarrassing, isn't it, to know that you're in the same mathematical minority as
those who believe in faked Moonlandings, or other such silly nonsense?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> He can offer all the support he wants...
Snipped quite a bit, haven't you?
>But you'll STILL disregard ALL of this "support" produced by VB....no
>matter how much of it he provides and no matter how much CS&L it will
>inevitably contain.
>
>Right, Bennut?
Why would you try arguing a point before the book is ever published?
And should it *ever* be published, you'll be unable to defend it.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Bennut , I like that , sounds better than Ben ' Sherlock the Kook '
>Holmes . A fitting title indeed ! Tom Lowry
Well, Tommy, it seems that many LNT'ers don't have ordinary respect for those
who's opinions don't match theirs.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> What the jest is - is that you will *refuse* to defend Posner's book.
>
>This is one of my favorite CT-Ben-Kook pieces of dialogue that
>means......
>
>....well...what exactly DOES this mean???
It means precisely what it says. Are you new to the English language?
>Who the hell knows. Perhaps Ben-kook does...but I doubt it.
>
>Evidently I've failed to (and "refuse" to) "defend" Posner's book...and
>VB's pro-LN position....and the autopsy report....and the WCR....
Yep.
>and Sparky Anderson's decision to move Joe Morgan down to the #3 spot
>during the 1975 World Series, too.
>
>Why Ben-kook keeps saying this is anyone's guess.
Because it's true.
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2468ba452baf99c0
Those aren't defenses... you refuse to respond to rebuttals. Merely restating
what the WCR or Posner or whoever said is not a defense.
Gutless coward, aren't you?
>(I did like the "gutless coward" thing resurfacing though. It's been
>DAYS since I've heard it. I was suffering from Coward Withdrawal due to
>its absence. Thanks.)
All you need to do is look in the mirror.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>> "Or does the 'kook' label only fly one way?" <<<
>
>
>
>
>>>> "A zig-zagging 'magic bullet'..." <<<
>
>
>Hard to believe that anyone still can possibly believe the bullet was
>"magic", or that it had to "zig-zag" all over Dallas to strike both men
>in the appropriate places.
Hard to believe that Davey-boy, and other LNT'ers, refuse to answer simple
questions that reveal the sillyness of this magic bullet.
They know quite well that the evidence is against it.
>TJ -- Do you truly believe the bullet HAD to have zig-zagged to strike
>the victims? If so, why?
You won't defend the position if answered, you never have before...
>The SBT is obviously the "best evidence" re. the wounding of JFK/JBC.
No, it isn't. Do you even understand the term "best evidence"???
>Have you ever seriously contemplated what the "alternative" truly is,
>TJ, if the SBT is NOT the correct scenario?
Certainly. Multiple shooters. Quite simple, really. Happens every day in
America.
>If I were a CTer, I'd seriously begin pondering which is more ludicrous
>-- the SBT or what I'd have to believe if the SBT isn't true. .....
Silly then, that you refuse to answer rebuttals, isn't it?
Ben Holmes
That has to be one of the fastest "snip and run"'s I've seen in quite a while!
Congratulations, TJ.
In article <1151730721.0...@v61g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>>>>"Just a few inches one way and then it suddenly stops, reverses direction like a
>>>>football runner opposed by some big defensive guys....Anyway, I don't believe
>>>>LHO even was a shooter....And that rifle! A pure, piece of Italian junk..." <<<
>
>OK. OK. I'll stop you right there. This is more than enough to fully
>establish your status as another CT-Kook.
>
>Congrats...you made the club....spouting the nearly-verbatim
>pro-conspiracy crap as thousands before you.....
>
>The zig-zag path....
>Oswald was a shitty shooter....
>That crappy POS rifle!....
>Milteer said this....
>Oswald never harmed as flea....
>And Ford's a crook too....
>And LHO never hurt a hair on Tippit's head....
>
>I don't even believe Kennedy was killed.
>Neither was Malcolm X.
>Barbara Eden has got them both in her bottle right now.
>And Khrushchev is cute as a button.
>
>Fantasies.....it's hard to live without them.
>
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Please David , lets not interrupt a belief system with the facts . Most
>brain dead people don't want to use their head , other than to hang a
>hat on . Physic's , forensics , scientific thinking , who needs em ,
>it's much easier to believe in a lie . Plus if they use their brains ,
>they might hurt themselves . Tom Lowry
Belief systems can't be argued on the basis of evidence. This is why, Tommy,
that LNT'ers such as yourself run from the sound of evidence like Superman
facing kryptonite.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Really one of the most brain dead posts I've heard in a long time .
Then by all means, *REBUT IT WITH THE EVIDENCE*.
>If your interested in knowing the truth , try going to McAdams Site : Good
>articles that debunk , all that junk , that was pulled out of the trunk
>, written by all those punks ! I'll bet you'll pay any prise to be lied
>to . Tom Lowry
>
>
>TJ-BF wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151710999....@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>>> "He {Gerald Posner} is dead wrong...or these countering ng's wouldn't
>> >>>> need to exist and we can all call it quits and go home." <<<
>> >
>> > And give up being a CT-Kook??
>> >
>> > Surely you.....jest???
>>
>> I wouldn't be jesting if I said you are a LN-Kook.
>> Or does the 'kook' label only fly one way?
>>
Ben Holmes
Snipped and ran again... Facts really *do* scare these nuts...
In article <1151715062.5...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Dead wrong Ben , I've got all my friends to change their minds , after
>explaining the true , undistorted facts , they agree with me , with no
>reservations . Con artists like you need a new profession . The JFK
>Assassination sure don't fit your pistol . Tom Lowry
Oh, you've convinced me.... (As a loud voice booms down from above - "RIGHT!")
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1151708668....@d30g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>> >
>> >> In 1964, only 20-25% really believed the WCR conclusions. By 1967 under
>> >> numerous books assaulting the basic premises and conclusion on LHO, it had
>> >> already dropped to less than 15%, and probably remains in that area of
>> >> support today from the entire population.
>> >
>> >
>> >And out of that %, how many people have really "studied" the case in
>> >ANY depth whatsoever? Got that figure?
>>
>>
>> Matters not at all. People believe that there was a conspiracy *IN SPITE OF*
>> the mass media and the educational system.
>>
>> And those that *do* study the topic don't change their views, and suddenly
>> become LNT'ers... despite that particular factoid.
>>
>>
>>
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>You mention Vietnam , Watergate , Iran-Contra . These all leaked ,
>which is in support of the WCR conclusions . Everthing in Washington
>leaks like a sieve . So what makes you think the JFK Assassination is
>any different ? Why hasn't it leaked ?
It *DID* leak. The facts are all there for you to see. You just refuse to see
them. Rather dishonest and cowardly of you, isn't it?
>Why hasn't anyone come forward
>with an indictment against someone ?
The government, indicting itself? How silly!
>Where the hell is your conspiracy
>? Where's the beef ? Where are the extra guns ? Who are these extra
>players that only you can see in your overactive imagination ? Who's
>kidding who ? This exists in your feeble minded brain only ! Tom Lowry
>
>
>TJ-BF wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> "Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>> news:e843n...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >
>> > As usual... Davey-boy snips and runs...
>> >
>> > Coward to the very end.
>> >
>> >
>> > In article <1151700441....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David
>> > VP
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >>> Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support
>> >>> my
>> >>> viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
>> >>
>> >>The vast majority of those "Americans" who believe in conspiracy (which
>> >>is closer to 70%-75% in actuality; Ben-kook's inflated figures
>> >>notwithstanding)
>> >
>> > You may live in La-La land, who cares?
>> >
>> >
>> >>haven't studied the "evidence" in any great detail at
>> >>all, and you know it.
>> >
>> >
>> > But those who *have*, don't change their views.
>> >
>> > Indeed, the poll numbers have *NEVER* favored the WC, and have been only
>> > going up...
>>
>> In 1964, only 20-25% really believed the WCR conclusions.
>> By 1967 under numerous books assaulting the basic premises and
>> conclusion on LHO, it had already dropped to less than 15%, and probably
>> remains in that area of support today from the entire population.
>> >
>> >>A goodly-sized pct. of that "70%-75%" has gotten nearly 100% of its
>> >>CT-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books, and pro-CT movies
>> >>like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize that fact as well.
>> >>
>> >>Don't you?
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually, the educational system and mass media greatly favor the WCR.
>> > People
>> > must go *out of their way* to find the truth in this case.
>>
>> That's a great point with all the political propaganda in the
>> "educational" system and mass media heavily on the other side!
>> Even after *all* the indisputable and numerous lies the U.S. Government
>> has been caught in since 1963 (Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Gulf War 1,
>> Iraq War, etc., etc., etc.), they still persist in believing the Government
>> doesn't lie and especially not in explaining 100% the murder of a president!
>>
>> > As well YOU know.
>> >
>> > It's in *spite of*, not due to, the cultural education people have
>> > received.
>> >
>> >
>> >>It's important for you to keep mouthing off about your "up to 90%",
>> >>isn't it Ben? As long as you're in "the majority" you feel safe talking
>> >>your silly pro-CT, anti-Oswald spiel...don't you?
>> >
>> > Facts bugging you?
>> >
>> > Just hold on to the thought that at one time, 90% of the world thought
>> > that the
>> > earth was flat.
>> >
>> > Perhaps that will comfort you.
>> >
>> >
>> >>Well, Vince is coming.....and he'll have plenty to say (in style) re.
>> >>that "90%" of yours. Bank on it. ......
>> >
>> > Only by lying... who cares?
>> >
>> > You won't be able or willing to defend him.
>> >
>> >
>> >>"{Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
>> >>evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
>> >>sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy
>> >>theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Mr. Bugliosi's
>> >>irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh
>> >>light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At last we know what
>> >>really happened; at last it all makes sense." -- W.W. Norton; ca.1998
>> >
>> >
>> > And yet, it's *STILL* not published. Bugliosi getting embarrassed
>> > already?
>>
>> His book is not published?
>> Then where do all those quotes of his come from?
>> Did he say it on a tv program?
>> Why is he afraid to publish his book?
>>
>> >
>> >>~~~~~~~
>> >>
>> >>"My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
>> >>Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
>> >>alone." (Emphasis his.) -- Vincent Bugliosi; 2001
>> >>
>> >>~~~~~~~
>> >>
>> >>"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
>> >>charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
>> >>invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
>> >>Vincent Bugliosi; 1998
>>
>> But you won't publish your book!
>> Even what's-his-face published his 1993 WCR-laughably-defending book,
>> to many hoots on his many errors and omissions.
>
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>The educational system and mass media ?
Yep... and interesting to note, you can't rebut those facts, can you?
>Shows what an idiot you are .
What, hitting you with real facts makes me an idiot? Probably so... when you
get in the mud with Pigs, they are still pigs at the end, and I'm all muddy.
>The most read is the ' National Inquirer '
Untrue. Both Time and Newsweek have larger circulations
http://www.mdsconnect.com/topcirculation.htm
And *far* more people read their daily newspaper than read "National Enquirer".
So why bother to lie about it? It's all too easy to Google the answers, as I've
just illustrated.
>( Man controls wife with tv
>remote , jfk alive in iron lung in poland , obl on atlantic gambling
>spree ) , you know Ben , the kind of S__t you peddle . Poison without
>the labeling . ' Nutcase Paranoid Mentality ' Tom Lowry
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> As usual... Davey-boy snips and runs...
>>
>> Coward to the very end.
>>
>>
>> In article <1151700441....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>> >
>> >> Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support my
>> >> viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
>> >
>> >The vast majority of those "Americans" who believe in conspiracy (which
>> >is closer to 70%-75% in actuality; Ben-kook's inflated figures
>> >notwithstanding)
>>
>> You may live in La-La land, who cares?
>>
>>
>> >haven't studied the "evidence" in any great detail at
>> >all, and you know it.
>>
>>
>> But those who *have*, don't change their views.
>>
>>Indeed, the poll numbers have *NEVER* favored the WC, and have been only going
>> up...
>>
>>
>> >A goodly-sized pct. of that "70%-75%" has gotten nearly 100% of its
>> >CT-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books, and pro-CT movies
>> >like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize that fact as well.
>> >
>> >Don't you?
>>
>>
>>Actually, the educational system and mass media greatly favor the WCR. People
>> must go *out of their way* to find the truth in this case.
>>
>> As well YOU know.
>>
>> It's in *spite of*, not due to, the cultural education people have received.
>>
>>
>> >It's important for you to keep mouthing off about your "up to 90%",
>> >isn't it Ben? As long as you're in "the majority" you feel safe talking
>> >your silly pro-CT, anti-Oswald spiel...don't you?
>>
>> Facts bugging you?
>>
>>Just hold on to the thought that at one time, 90% of the world thought that the
>> earth was flat.
>>
>> Perhaps that will comfort you.
>>
>>
>> >Well, Vince is coming.....and he'll have plenty to say (in style) re.
>> >that "90%" of yours. Bank on it. ......
>>
>> Only by lying... who cares?
>>
>> You won't be able or willing to defend him.
>>
>>
>> >"{Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
>> >evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
>> >sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy
>> >theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Mr. Bugliosi's
>> >irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh
>> >light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At last we know what
>> >really happened; at last it all makes sense." -- W.W. Norton; ca.1998
>>
>>
>> And yet, it's *STILL* not published. Bugliosi getting embarrassed already?
>>
>>
>>
tomnln
SHOW me the position of JBC on the "Z" Film that MATCHES the Cartoon at
point of Impact.
While we're at it, how about You explaining the authorities destroying the
Walker back yard photo?
ps; I never saw You ask McAdams to identify exactly which 2 or 3 times the
authorities destroyed
evidence that he already Admitted to.
You "ARE" in quest of Truth aren't you steve?
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1151770758.0...@h44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Fantastic assumptions , from day one , is all the Cter's have had .
>Assassins that disappear , leaving no visable trace , no guns , no
>shell casings , nothing ! Which sums up their position , that can be
>quantified as the following : Nothing + ignorance + lies = Belief .
>With people like Ben , the lier ,
And yet, just like Tony, you can never seem to QUOTE any "lie" that I've ever
said, along with the citation that proves it so.
You're a dishonest and gutless coward, aren't you?
>contributing to this equation . Bravo
>Ben . Keep lying to yourself and the 90 % . Please remain an ignoramous
>, your blimp on the radar screen , is a irresistable target for people
>who do think . Tom Lowry
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>I think he should be proud to be in the 10% ,
Most kooks are...
>who still have critical
>thinking skills , unlike yourself , who have bought into a canopy of
>lies .
And yet, they must be particularly powerful lies... because *YOU* can never seem
to rebut them.
>Shows you stupidity level , to be at a all time high of 90% .
>Congradulations Ben . Tom Lowry
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1151694240.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>> >
>> >> The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded as
>> >> strange, eccentric, or crazy."
>> >
>> >Yep. That'd be it alright. Glad that Ben finally looked up what he is.
>>
>>
>> Then knowing that the evidence leads up to 90% of Americans to support my
>> viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
>>
>>
>> >Actually, though, Ben, I really like Merriam-Webster's official
>> >definition a little better:
>> >
>> >"KOOK --- Etymology: by shortening & alteration from cuckoo.
>> >:one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.
>> >:SCREWBALL."
>>
>>
>> Yep... your ideas *are* eccentric... less than 10% of America subscribes to
>> them.
Ben Holmes
Why do I get the impression that Tommy is being paid by the word?
The *least* his employers could do is require Tommy to use a spell checker...
In article <1151735642....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
says...
>
>To : Ben ' Sherlock the Kook ' Holmes : I suspect the figures won't
>change anytime soon . Which only indicates that belief has triumphed
>over the truth , with the truth having no requirement that anyone has
>to believe in it . So you can kick it up to 99.9% and it wouldn't have
>anymore meaning than 75% . We've seen this many times in history ,
>something you conveniently ignor . Ignor and ignorance are your allies
>in this dicussion , it must make you feel tremendously important and
>impowering to others , who have let traitors , like yourself , think
>for themselves . You keep ranting about how it is impossible for 90% of
>Americans to be fooled , when 5% of American scientists make up 50% of
>Americas GDP . Ben , please stay in the uninformed , unwashed ,
>ignorant 90% of Americans who don't believe , you deserve it . It fits
>you perfectly . Big , Dumb and a Fool . All your facts and thinking
>processes are backwards and upside down , your usual form . Tom Lowry
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> The word "kook" keeps being tossed around on this newsgroup, and perhaps it's
>> time to examine just what it *means*.
>>
>>The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded as strange,
>> eccentric, or crazy."
>>
tomnln
Ranch?
Did you tell those friennds why the authorities destroyed the Walker back
yard photo?
Did you use evidence/testimony to convince those friends?
You NEVER mention them hers.
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e86bb...@drn.newsguy.com...
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e86c7...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <1151749095.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> cdddraftsman
> says...
>>
>>The educational system and mass media ?
>
>
> Yep... and interesting to note, you can't rebut those facts, can you?
>
>
>
>>Shows what an idiot you are .
>
>
> What, hitting you with real facts makes me an idiot? Probably so... when
> you
> get in the mud with Pigs, they are still pigs at the end, and I'm all
> muddy.
>
>
=======================================================================
>>The most read is the ' National Inquirer '
Maybe in Your AIDS Community.
========================================================================
David VP
Are you talking about the one with the blacked-out license plate?? THAT
Walker BY photo? The one that everybody has ALREADY seen, therefore
"destroying" it would be a foolish and wasted endeavor??
Or are you talking about a different Walker photograph? I have no idea
actually what the hell you're talking about here? But you seem to think
this "Walker Back Yard Photograph" that was "destroyed" (??) by
somebody in the evil gummint (right??) actually must MEAN something in
the long run...right?
Otherwise, WHO THE FUCK CARES??
Does a missing photo of a back yard make Oswald any LESS guilty of the
Walker murder attempt? And does that same missing photo (if there is
one missing) make Marina Oswald's statement of "He {Lee} told me he
just shot {at} Walker" any LESS true?
Please tell me HOW that photo MAKES A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE re.
ANYTHING in this case??
David VP
Because of WHO the author is.....you kook. THAT'S why. (Quite
obviously.)
>>> "And should it *ever* be published, you'll be unable to defend it." <<<
Here we go again with this stupid, makes-no-sense refrain about "not
being able to defend" somebody's LN position. Can ANYONE here tell me
what the Mother-Fuck Mr. Bennut-Kookster is talking about when he
spouts this refrain (over and over)??
I've fully defended just about every last inch of the
LN/SBT/LHO/TSBD/3-SHOT/LHO KILLED TIPPIT points there are to
"defend"......
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2468ba452baf99c0
.....So, Ben-kook -- why not give the "You Can't Defend" shit a rest
for a minute or two...OK? Thanks.
~~Awaiting Next "You Won't Defend
Bugliosi/Posner/Moore/Myers/Jennings/Et Al" hunk of meaningless
verbiage~~
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Why would you try arguing a point before the book is ever published?
>
>Because of WHO the author is.....you kook. THAT'S why. (Quite
>obviously.)
Well, in *that* case, John Welsh Hodges, who's upcoming book is to be published
soon, has devastated Bugliosi's position, and has revealed with formerly secret
documents, just who in the U.S. government gave the order - as well as the
members, by name, of the committee that planned and executed the assassination.
He details several deathbed confessions, and points out where Bugliosi has lied
in his current manuscript.
It's over... you lost.
>> And should it *ever* be published, you'll be unable to defend it.
>
>Here we go again with this stupid, makes-no-sense refrain about "not
>being able to defend" somebody's LN position. Can ANYONE here tell me
>what the Mother-Fuck Mr. Bennut-Kookster is talking about when he
>spouts this refrain (over and over)??
Oh, just the truth. Interestingly, anyone can review where little ole me has
rebutted your assertions, and where *you* were unable to reply. Generally, you
simply snip it away.
You'll do *exactly* the same thing when the rebuttals to this mythical book by
Bugliosi... if and when it ever comes out.
>I've fully defended just about every last inch of the
>LN/SBT/LHO/TSBD/3-SHOT/LHO KILLED TIPPIT points there are to
>"defend"......
No, you haven't. You snip and run all the time. You really need to take the
time to learn what "defended" really means.
To "defend", you must have someone providing the facts or factoids to which you
will "defend". When you merely assert the same things that the WCR did long
before you - and refuse to support those positions when I, or others, point out
the flaws, ommissions, misrepresentations, and outright lies - you really can't
assert that you've "defended" anything at all.
For if you can't defend your own words... who cares?
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2468ba452baf99c0
>
>.....So, Ben-kook -- why not give the "You Can't Defend" shit a rest
>for a minute or two...OK? Thanks.
Why would you ask me to lie? In fact, just for you... I'm going to start a new
series of posts on "Facts that LNT'ers Hate". (Working title...)
David VP
You actually expect a CT-kook's demands re. "defending the WC/LN
position" to be taken seriously? Why don't I just beat my head against
the wall in front of the Grassy Knoll a few thousand times in a
row....that would provide similar results.
So why do I even post at all (you might ask next)?
Silly-willy -- it's all about that lucrative Government-sponsored
disinfo payola (natch). What else? (Well, there's the money, plus the
immense pleasure of poking fun at CT-Kooks like Ben as much as
possible.)
IOW -- It wouldn't matter what I said to "defend" my position, or how
many essays (or books) I write on the subject (touching every base
imaginable within them) -- Ben-Kook would still say I haven't
"defended" my LN position. And he'd be wrong. As my essays on LN-ism
fully bear out. (Ben-Kook's CTer definition of "defending"
notwithstanding.)
Ben seems to think that LNers are FORCED to abide by the CT-Kook's
singular rule which states: "You Must Debunk Every Single Nutty Theory
I Purport OR ELSE".
By digging his kooky heels into such a firm CT trench full of
unsupportable theories, he thinks that if LNers have not knocked down
each and every one of these nutty claims to his complete satisfaction
(which, of course, would be impossible in the first place, what with
Ben being, of course, a CT-Kook) that he has "won" some kind of "CT
Victory" for the kook side. It's called KL (Kook-Logic). And Ben's KL
is a classic (and probably terminal) example of this phenomenon.
>>> "You really need to take the time to learn what "defended" really means." <<<
And Ben had-oughta take time to re-examine the meaning of "Kook" and
"CT Paranoia", too. Somebody toss him a Webster's. He can then look up
"somewhat" again while he's at it.
>>> "Just for you, I'm going to start a new series of posts on "Facts that LNT'ers Hate"." <<<
Should I feel honored here....or merely bored? The latter seems the
more logical choice.
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run... What cowards these LNT'ers be...
In article <1151798959.2...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> John Hodges has devastated Bugliosi's position, and has revealed with
>> formerly secret documents, just who in the U.S. government gave the order
>> - as well as the members, by name, of the committee that planned and
>> executed the assassination. He details several deathbed confessions, and
>> points out where Bugliosi has lied in his current manuscript.
>
>
>A nice "Hodge"-podge of proverbial "CT-isms" all in one volume, eh? I'm
>lovin' it. Lookie what we've got here folks! -- Another stunning
>pro-conspiracy volume which includes all of the following case-busting
>items:
>
>1.) "FORMERLY SECRET DOCUMENTS" (that ONLY Mr. Hodges could obtain, eh?
>Who did he have to sleep with to secure this honor, I ponder?).
>
>2.) NAMES REVEALED (at long last!)...names that ONLY Mr. Hodges could
>come up with, where all the others failed. Amazing.
>
>3.) "DEATHBED CONFESSIONS" even! Here's a real "Stop The Presses!" bolt
>from CTer heaven! Deathbed confessions (that ONLY Mr. Hodges is privy
>too). Boy, this guy is a regular goldmine of heretofore unavailable
>CT-proving info & data. Does he wear a red cape and rescue women in
>distress on his days off too?
>
>4.) "POINTS OUT BUGLIOSI'S LIES IN VINCENT'S CURRENT MANUSCRIPT". More
>remarkable abilities by that caped-crusader named Hodges evidently.
>He's even privy to VB's JFK manuscript ahead of time.
>
>~~~~~!!Industrial-Sized "LOL!" Icon Placed Right Here!!~~~~~
>
>
>>>> "To "defend", you must have....[blah-blah-kook talk-blah-blah]...." <<<
>
>
>You actually expect a CT-kook's demands re. "defending the WC/LN
>position" to be taken seriously? Why don't I just beat my head against
>the wall in front of the Grassy Knoll a few thousand times in a
>row....that would provide similar results.
>
>So why do I even post at all (you might ask next)?
>
>Silly-willy -- it's all about that lucrative Government-sponsored
>disinfo payola (natch). What else? (Well, there's the money, plus the
>immense pleasure of poking fun at CT-Kooks like Ben as much as
>possible.)
>
>IOW -- It wouldn't matter what I said to "defend" my position, or how
>many essays (or books) I write on the subject (touching every base
>imaginable within them) -- Ben-Kook would still say I haven't
>"defended" my LN position. And he'd be wrong. As my essays on LN-ism
>fully bear out. (Ben-Kook's CTer definition of "defending"
>notwithstanding.)
>
>Ben seems to think that LNers are FORCED to abide by the CT-Kook's
>singular rule which states: "You Must Defend Every Single Nutty Theory
>I Purport OR ELSE".
>
>By digging his kooky heels into such a firm CT trench full of
>unsupportable theories, he thinks that if LNers have not "defended"
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run... Going where no honest man has gone before...
In article <1151799527.1...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
David VP
LOL. Incrediburgable!
Even when I DON'T "snip" I still get bitched at by Ben-Kook for doing
so anyway!
How can ya please a CT-kook? That might be the question of the ages.
(BTW....I revised & edited that last post of mine 3 or 4 times for
multiple reasons.....but Ben, as always, manages to get ahold and
respond to the ones I've deleted from the NG. One reason for prior
deletion of a post was realizing that Ben-Kook's "Mr. Hodges" was
simply a made-up CT author, and that, obviously, no such CT book will
be forthcoming....hence, Ben's inclusion of every "CT-ism" under the
sun within his "Hodges'" text....right down to heretofore-unknown
"deathbed confessions" by the "real killers". But, naturally, Ben
responds to the post that was intentionally deleted. Another Kook
trend.)
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> The word "kook" keeps being tossed around on this newsgroup, and perhaps it's
> time to examine just what it *means*.
Was there some doubt?
> The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded as strange,
> eccentric, or crazy."
Not a perfect fit, I`ll admit. "Crackpot" might be more accurate,
but it`s longer to type.
> Wordnet has the following definition: "Someone regarded as eccentric or crazy
> and standing out from a group"
What part of that do you think doesn`t apply? What percentage of
the "group" (people who think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK) do
you think obsesses enough about it to frequent this kookgroup?
> Lurkers may wonder why people belonging to the roughly 10% of America that
> believes the Warren Commission Report continue to call *others* "kooks".
Lurkers might also wonder why Ben thinks enough people have read the
Warren Commission Report to render an informed opinion about it. Or why
only 14% of the American people think Oswald wasn`t involved in the
assassination. By show of hands (yes, that requires taking your fingers
out of your noses), how many of you kooks think Oswald was a
participant in the assassination?
> Perhaps to avoid the evidence that they cannot handle... ?
Ben can`t hadle the information from a simple poll.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> TOUCHE'
>
> It appears that Everything is Backwards for WCR Supporters.
"Kook" reads the same either way.
> "Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> news:e83qj...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > The word "kook" keeps being tossed around on this newsgroup, and perhaps
> > it's
> > time to examine just what it *means*.
> >
> > The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as: "A person regarded as
> > strange,
> > eccentric, or crazy."
> >
> > Wordnet has the following definition: "Someone regarded as eccentric or
> > crazy
> > and standing out from a group"
> >
> > Lurkers may wonder why people belonging to the roughly 10% of America that
> > believes the Warren Commission Report continue to call *others* "kooks".
> >
Bud
> >> strange, eccentric, or crazy."
> >
>
>
> viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
Do 90% of the American people support your viewpoint that Oswald
wasn`t a participant in the assassination?
> >Actually, though, Ben, I really like Merriam-Webster's official
> >definition a little better:
> >
> >"KOOK --- Etymology: by shortening & alteration from cuckoo.
> >:one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane.
> >:SCREWBALL."
>
>
> Yep... your ideas *are* eccentric... less than 10% of America subscribes to
> them.
No telling what ideas Ben is referring to.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> As usual... Davey-boy snips and runs...
>
> Coward to the very end.
>
>
> In article <1151700441....@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> viewpoint, that makes *you* the kook, doesn't it?
> >
> >is closer to 70%-75% in actuality; Ben-kook's inflated figures
> >notwithstanding)
>
> You may live in La-La land, who cares?
>
>
> >haven't studied the "evidence" in any great detail at
> >all, and you know it.
>
>
> But those who *have*, don't change their views.
Whos opinions are reflected in those polls you cite, those that do
study the evidence, or those that don`t?
> Indeed, the poll numbers have *NEVER* favored the WC, and have been only going
> up...
<snicker> Ben posted poll numbers himself that show that "have only
been going up" part to be a lie. And polls refelecting Oz guilt or
innocence are more relevant here than polls about the WC.
> >A goodly-sized pct. of that "70%-75%" has gotten nearly 100% of its
> >CT-favoring ideas from kook websites, pro-CT books, and pro-CT movies
> >like Oliver Stone's travesty. And you surely realize that fact as well.
> >
> >Don't you?
>
>
> Actually, the educational system and mass media greatly favor the WCR. People
> must go *out of their way* to find the truth in this case.
Right off the deep end...
> As well YOU know.
>
> It's in *spite of*, not due to, the cultural education people have received.
Ben will assert 90% of teachers believe in conspiracy, then try to
claim that the educational sysytem has an LN slant. Does he think those
conspiracy believing teachers are teaching things they themselves don`t
believe?
> >It's important for you to keep mouthing off about your "up to 90%",
> >isn't it Ben? As long as you're in "the majority" you feel safe talking
> >your silly pro-CT, anti-Oswald spiel...don't you?
>
> Facts bugging you?
Try using some and we`ll see. You certainly can`t back up your
assertions regarding polls on this subject.
> Just hold on to the thought that at one time, 90% of the world thought that the
> earth was flat.
Is that from a Harris poll?
> Perhaps that will comfort you.
Ben seems to draw comfort from polls, they make him feel warm and
fuzzy inside, despite his inability to understand them.
> >Well, Vince is coming.....and he'll have plenty to say (in style) re.
> >that "90%" of yours. Bank on it. ......
>
> Only by lying... who cares?
Yah, there will still be plenty of books for you kooks to devour. Is
there anybody left to blame?
> You won't be able or willing to defend him.
It will be a sitting duck for kook attacks.
> >"{Bugliosi's} book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic
> >evidence, re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common
> >sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy
> >theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Mr. Bugliosi's
> >irresistible logic and absolute command of the evidence shed fresh
> >light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At last we know what
> >really happened; at last it all makes sense." -- W.W. Norton; ca.1998
>
>
> And yet, it's *STILL* not published. Bugliosi getting embarrassed already?
How long did "Ultimate Sacrifice" take to write?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1151708668....@d30g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> In 1964, only 20-25% really believed the WCR conclusions. By 1967 under
> >> numerous books assaulting the basic premises and conclusion on LHO, it had
> >> already dropped to less than 15%, and probably remains in that area of
> >> support today from the entire population.
> >
> >
> >And out of that %, how many people have really "studied" the case in
> >ANY depth whatsoever? Got that figure?
>
>
> Matters not at all.
Of course it would matter how well the people knew the subject they
were giving thier opinions on. Only a kook would think it didn`t.
> People believe that there was a conspiracy *IN SPITE OF*
> the mass media and the educational system.
>
> And those that *do* study the topic don't change their views, and suddenly
> become LNT'ers... despite that particular factoid.
That wasn`t DVP`s point, as well you know. You divert attention from
his point because you have no real rebuttal. Most of the people who
opinions are reflected in those polls don`t know much about the case.
That makes those opinions "uninformed", and not really meaningful. If a
poll shows that 90% of the American public feel Ming vases are
overpriced, should I assume that they have expertise in that area?
> >>>>"His {VB's} book is not published? Then where do all those quotes of his come
> >>>>from?" <<<
> >
> >
> >Well, Ben and Tom probably think I've just made them up from whole
> >cloth. (I imagine that silly idea crossed their minds once or twice at
> >any rate.)
> >
> >But, actually, the VB quotes I use were said by Vince over a period of
> >several years, in other books he's written, or in interviews when the
> >subject of the JFK case would crop up, or in newspaper articles...like
> >this one from 1988:
> >
> >http://tinypic.com/seaae9.jpg
> >
> >
> >>>> "Why is he {VB} afraid to publish his book?" <<<
> >
> >
> >Why do you think he's "afraid" to publish?
Ben doesn`t think that. He just said it is all.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1151737939.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, cdddraftsman
> says...
> >
> >Did it ever occur to you , oh, brainless one , that someone might have
> >stolen it . These things have a great price on the market . It doesn't
> >mean automatically conspiracy idiot ! You display all the
> >characteristics of the ' paranoid mentality ' . Maybe seeing a shrink
> >would do all of us some good . Spreading a disease like yours have
> >infected 90% of Americans . Tom Lowry
>
>
> Presumably, "has".
>
> Embarrassing, isn't it, to know that you're in the same mathematical minority as
> those who believe in faked Moonlandings, or other such silly nonsense?
VB`s book will not disuade kooks that there was a conspiracy to kill
JFK any more than any book could be written that could dissuade the
moon kooks that we landed on the moon.
>
>
> >tomnln wrote:
> >> Then how come I saw it as a Poster Boy at an Abortion Clinic?
> >> (good reason to have an abortion)
> >>
> >> Wouldn't you rather discuss evidence/testimony?
> >>
> >> WHY did the authorities destroy the Walker back yard photo?
> >> (that's a Felony)
> >>
> >> WHY do you Support Felons?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1151694831.5...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Nah...my picture only resides on the page reserved for "CS&L" .... VB's
> >> > mug is on there too.
> >> >
> >