Simple Questions For Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com
ask Ben some simple questions first.
1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of the
Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
months now?
2) What is more important to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or his
ego?
3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are
used? (see below)
4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
conclusion?
5) Why was there NO damage to the seats or the carpet when the two
fragments damaged the windshield and the chrome according to the WC?
6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of the
head shot?
7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the
middle section? (see below)
It is time for school little Bennie, sit down as the bell has rung. I
will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how analogies
are meant to be used.
You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof the two
fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet. IOW, your example
breaks a complete pencil into three parts – nose/point, base, and
middle section – but this was NOT proven to be true in our case as
they could NOT match the two fragments. Therefore, the nose could
have come from one bullet, the base could have come from another
bullet, and finally the middle section could have been part of either
previous bullet, or part of another (if there was one at all as it
could have been a complete bullet that disintegrated completely).
This is why Bennie’s analogy is faulty, he is presuming something not
in evidence or proven.
Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
circumstances, but his does not follow this pattern. A great analogy
would be this (and I’m not wishing anything bad on you Ben):
Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor’s office, and
they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
negative. This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but the
doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could still
have cancer. IOW, they can’t say he does have cancer, but they can’t
say he doesn’t have cancer. Would you accept this Ben? Would you
ever go to this doctor again? This is what the WC wants us to accept
with the two fragments. They were covering all there bases but in
medicine and science things don’t work this way. They CAN'T be both
NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet.
Ben won’t prove there was a middle section that connected the two
fragments, he says this is silly. Why I ask when he keeps insisting
the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet. It is
a perfectly valid question to ask – where is the middle section? Prove
it existed, as if no proof can be given; the two fragments most
certainly are not of the same origin. In his analogy they are in my
pocket, therefore, he ACCOUNTED for it, but in the real life example
he runs from explaining where it is, why?
The big piece that proves they were NOT from the same bullet, besides
the failed ballistic tests to prove they were, is the fact they
contain NO DNA from JFK at all. Explain how they could have been
INSIDE him yet have NO DNA on them? No LNer can explain it so let’s
see how Bennie does.
I won't put any nasty comments in the title like he does either.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the chase and
>ask Ben some simple questions first.
I doubt if you will *EVER* answer "the long post" point by point... you've shown
that you're a coward...
>1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of the
>Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
>months now?
Feel free to *QUOTE* any such "defense" of the WC. (I've asked this repeatedly,
and you STILL refuse to cite)
Simply correcting your errors about what Frazier actually testified to can
hardly be called a "defense" of the WC. You lied repeatedly about what Frazier
testified to - and I corrected you a number of times. But that can hardly be
labeled a defense of the WC.
I also told you that you cannot impugn the WCR based ONLY on the material
contained within the WCR... but again, that's merely a fact, and hardly a
"defense" of the WC.
So go ahead and QUOTE IT! Let everyone see my "defense" of the WC.
>2) What is more important to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or his
>ego?
The truth. As I commented, I agree with Prager, who asserts that clarity is
more important than agreement. I agree.
You've been caught in a number of lies about the facts as we know them. Shall I
quote a few of them in my next post?
>3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are
>used? (see below)
Sadly, *YOU* have demonstrated that you don't understand the concept. I've
asked you to look up the word in the dictionary - as you've tried to assert that
I believe a pencil and a bullet are the same thing...
>4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
>conclusion?
Simple... when a "scientific" test cannot test what you believe it can test for.
Citations already supplied... did you bother to read them?
>5) Why was there NO damage to the seats or the carpet when the two
>fragments damaged the windshield and the chrome according to the WC?
Perhaps because no bullets struck the seats or carpet?
Perhaps because the search wasn't performed adequately?
Perhaps because the search was not intended to do anything more than support the
lone assassin?
This is a topic that hasn't been discussed...
>6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of the
>head shot?
Untrue. An inability to gather enough DNA, not degraded, is not proof that the
DNA was not of a particular individual.
> 7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the
>middle section? (see below)
Nope... The Earth *IS* round... we *DID* land on the moon... take your silly
questions and ask someone who believes that someone can fire only the nose or
tail of a bullet out of a rifle...
>It is time for school little Bennie,
Ah, Samantha! I wondered how long it would take before you started misusing my
name again.
>sit down as the bell has rung. I
>will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how analogies
>are meant to be used.
>
>You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof the two
>fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet.
In order to prove that two fragments ORIGINALLY BELONGING ONLY TO A SINGLE
PENCIL - but with no proof of this - showing that your logic that they must
therefore be part of *TWO* pencils... can't work at all if you don't *START*
with a single pencil.
You continue to get confused about what is being demonstrated... but stupidity
*can* be cured... so I keep repeating the same explanation in as many different
ways as I can think of, in the hopes that you'll someday realize just how stupid
you've been looking...
>IOW, your example
>breaks a complete pencil into three parts =96 nose/point, base, and
>middle section =96 but this was NOT proven to be true in our case as
>they could NOT match the two fragments.
Yep... they could not.
So now I give you two pencil fragments... both ends of a pencil - AND REFUSE TO
TELL YOU WHETHER THEY ARE FROM ONE PENCIL, OR TWO PENCILS.
Since you cannot determine by any physical means whether they originally were a
part of one or two pencils, you must, therefore, claim that they are from two
pencils.
And you'd be stupid to do so.
>Therefore, the nose could
>have come from one bullet, the base could have come from another
>bullet, and finally the middle section could have been part of either
>previous bullet, or part of another (if there was one at all as it
>could have been a complete bullet that disintegrated completely).
>This is why Bennie=92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming something not
>in evidence or proven.
How many pencils do I have? You have the two fragments...
>Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
>circumstances,
I've given you two fragments... how many original pencils were there?
Remember - IT'S PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THEM TO ONE SINGLE PENCIL.
You could easily exclude them from being from the same pencil, say, for example
if the 'lead' composition were different.
>but his does not follow this pattern. A great analogy
>would be this (and I=92m not wishing anything bad on you Ben):
>
>Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=92s office, and
>they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
>negative. This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but the
>doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could still
>have cancer. IOW, they can=92t say he does have cancer, but they can=92t
>say he doesn=92t have cancer. Would you accept this Ben?
Of course. It's what my original analogy would have led you to believe. IT'S
NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE WHETHER THE 'FRAGMENTS' CAME FROM ONE PENCIL OR TWO.
Yet you still can't simply admit so...
>Would you
>ever go to this doctor again?
Depends on the doctor... I might get a second opinion, or I might have used this
same doctor for many years... and trust his opinion.
>This is what the WC wants us to accept
>with the two fragments. They were covering all there bases but in
>medicine and science things don=92t work this way.
Only in your ignorant world...
>They CAN'T be both
>NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet.
Yes they can. You see, no-one said that they could not be from the same bullet.
You lied previously on this same topic.
You can't quote ANY expert testimony to that effect.
I *HAVE* given citations that apply.
You continue to refuse to provide citations for these silly statements.
(I really like your confusion of ballistic testing with NAA testing...)
>Ben won=92t prove there was a middle section that connected the two
>fragments, he says this is silly.
Yep... it is. The Earth isn't flat, either...
>Why I ask when he keeps insisting
>the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet. It is
>a perfectly valid question to ask =96 where is the middle section? Prove
>it existed, as if no proof can be given; the two fragments most
>certainly are not of the same origin.
I keep telling you that a lack of proof that two fragments belong to a single
bullet IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT BULLETS.
Such sheer unadulterated stupidity lives on...
>In his analogy they are in my
>pocket, therefore, he ACCOUNTED for it, but in the real life example
>he runs from explaining where it is, why?
The "middle" section, whether from one bullet, or 50 bullets, are also
"accounted" for.
Tell us, Samantha, which bullet manufacturer sells bullet "noses", or bullet
"tails"... do they come by the box? What sizes are they available in? Can I
get a .45 Nose... or are they only available in 6.5mm?
>The big piece that proves they were NOT from the same bullet,
Proving no such thing. You can't prove something from an item you don't have,
other than the fact that you don't have it.
>besides
>the failed ballistic tests to prove they were,
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
"Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
A ballistics test can only prove that two fragments were FIRED from the same
weapon.
PLEASE take the time to educate yourself on this topic - you're making it so
incredibly easy for me to point out your stupidity that it's hardly
entertaining. (anyone could do the same...)
Go back and reread those last three statements until they sink in. Or take
"ballistic" out of your vocabulary and substitute "NAA." (Of course, it still
won't help much, as NAA testing can't do it either, although it had previously
been believed possible)
>is the fact they
>contain NO DNA from JFK at all.
I know you can't cite for the DNA testing... so here it is for those lurkers
interested:
http://jfklancer.com/LNE/fragments/fragreport.html
See page 8-9 in particular.
It is *NOT* a "fact" that the fragments tested contain no DNA from JFK.
Nor can you cite anything in support of such a lie.
It *IS* a fact that not enough un-degraded DNA sequences were found to allow the
possible matching to ANYONE.
A lack of proof is not proof of something else, Samantha.
>Explain how they could have been
>INSIDE him yet have NO DNA on them?
They *DO* have biologic material on them. Once again, you've simply lied about
the evidence.
>No LNer can explain it so let=92s
>see how Bennie does.
It seems strange that no LNT'er could look up the same references I cited, and
give the same answer.
Can you cite where any LNT'er was asked the same question, and failed to come up
with the answer?
>I won't put any nasty comments in the title like he does either.
I will. It's quite helpful in years to come to locate the exact post I'm
looking for when you lie about it again.
robcap...@netscape.com
sure most already knew anyway. You are NOT worth the time to write,
and you are a liar yet again as I have responded to your long post.
On May 16, 1:51 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <748ef51d-4d9e-4b67-84c3-1bdeab191...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
> A ballistics test can only prove ...
>
> read more »
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>Ben, you have proven for all to see what kind of person you are, I'm
>sure most already knew anyway. You are NOT worth the time to write,
>and you are a liar yet again as I have responded to your long post.
Sadly, you ran from responding to this post. In many of the questions below,
all I asked is that you support your words... yet you can't. Understandable,
since many of them were simply outright lies.
But that's okay... I've provided the cites... you can lead a child molester to
water, but you can't make him drink.
>On May 16, 1:51=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <748ef51d-4d9e-4b67-84c3-1bdeab191...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the chase and
>> >ask Ben some simple questions first.
>>
>> I doubt if you will *EVER* answer "the long post" point by point... you've=
> shown
>> that you're a coward...
>>
>> >1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of the
>> >Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
>> >months now?
>>
>> Feel free to *QUOTE* any such "defense" of the WC. =A0(I've asked this rep=
>eatedly,
>> and you STILL refuse to cite)
>>
>> Simply correcting your errors about what Frazier actually testified to can=
>
>> hardly be called a "defense" of the WC. =A0You lied repeatedly about what =
>Frazier
>> testified to - and I corrected you a number of times. =A0But that can hard=
>ly be
>> labeled a defense of the WC.
>>
>> I also told you that you cannot impugn the WCR based ONLY on the material
>> contained within the WCR... but again, that's merely a fact, and hardly a
>> "defense" of the WC.
>>
>> So go ahead and QUOTE IT! =A0Let everyone see my "defense" of the WC.
>>
>> >2) What is more important to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or his
>> >ego?
>>
>> The truth. =A0As I commented, I agree with Prager, who asserts that clarit=
>y is
>> more important than agreement. =A0I agree.
>>
>> You've been caught in a number of lies about the facts as we know them. =
>=A0Shall I
>> quote a few of them in my next post?
>>
>> >3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are
>> >used? (see below)
>>
>> Sadly, *YOU* have demonstrated that you don't understand the concept. =A0I=
>'ve
>> asked you to look up the word in the dictionary - as you've tried to asser=
>t that
>> I believe a pencil and a bullet are the same thing...
>>
>> >4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
>> >conclusion?
>>
>> Simple... when a "scientific" test cannot test what you believe it can tes=
>t for.
>>
>> Citations already supplied... did you bother to read them?
>>
>> >5) Why was there NO damage to the seats or the carpet when the two
>> >fragments damaged the windshield and the chrome according to the WC?
>>
>> Perhaps because no bullets struck the seats or carpet?
>> Perhaps because the search wasn't performed adequately?
>> Perhaps because the search was not intended to do anything more than suppo=
>rt the
>> lone assassin?
>>
>> This is a topic that hasn't been discussed...
>>
>> >6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of the
>> >head shot?
>>
>> Untrue. =A0An inability to gather enough DNA, not degraded, is not proof t=
>hat the
>> DNA was not of a particular individual.
>>
>> > 7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the
>> >middle section? (see below)
>>
>> Nope... The Earth *IS* round... we *DID* land on the moon... take your sil=
>ly
>> questions and ask someone who believes that someone can fire only the nose=
> or
>> tail of a bullet out of a rifle...
>>
>> >It is time for school little Bennie,
>>
>> Ah, Samantha! =A0I wondered how long it would take before you started misu=
>sing my
>> name again.
>>
>> >sit down as the bell has rung. =A0I
>> >will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how analogies
>> >are meant to be used.
>>
>> >You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof the two
>> >fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet.
>>
>> In order to prove that two fragments ORIGINALLY BELONGING ONLY TO A SINGLE=
>
>> PENCIL - but with no proof of this - showing that your logic that they mus=
>t
>> therefore be part of *TWO* pencils... can't work at all if you don't *STAR=
>T*
>> with a single pencil.
>>
>> You continue to get confused about what is being demonstrated... but stupi=
>dity
>> *can* be cured... so I keep repeating the same explanation in as many diff=
>erent
>> ways as I can think of, in the hopes that you'll someday realize just how =
>stupid
>> you've been looking...
>>
>> >IOW, your example
>> >breaks a complete pencil into three parts =3D96 nose/point, base, and
>> >middle section =3D96 but this was NOT proven to be true in our case as
>> >they could NOT match the two fragments.
>>
>> Yep... they could not.
>>
>> So now I give you two pencil fragments... both ends of a pencil - AND REFU=
>SE TO
>> TELL YOU WHETHER THEY ARE FROM ONE PENCIL, OR TWO PENCILS.
>>
>> Since you cannot determine by any physical means whether they originally w=
>ere a
>> part of one or two pencils, you must, therefore, claim that they are from =
>two
>> pencils.
>>
>> And you'd be stupid to do so.
>>
>> >Therefore, the nose could
>> >have come from one bullet, the base could have come from another
>> >bullet, and finally the middle section could have been part of either
>> >previous bullet, or part of another (if there was one at all as it
>> >could have been a complete bullet that disintegrated completely).
>> >This is why Bennie=3D92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming something not=
>
>> >in evidence or proven.
>>
>> How many pencils do I have? =A0You have the two fragments...
>>
>> >Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
>> >circumstances,
>>
>> I've given you two fragments... how many original pencils were there?
>>
>> Remember - IT'S PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THEM TO ONE SINGLE PENCIL=
>.
>>
>> You could easily exclude them from being from the same pencil, say, for ex=
>ample
>> if the 'lead' composition were different.
>>
>> >but his does not follow this pattern. =A0A great analogy
>> >would be this (and I=3D92m not wishing anything bad on you Ben):
>>
>> >Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=3D92s office, and
>> >they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
>> >negative. =A0This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but the
>> >doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could still
>> >have cancer. =A0IOW, they can=3D92t say he does have cancer, but they can=
>=3D92t
>> >say he doesn=3D92t have cancer. =A0Would you accept this Ben?
>>
>> Of course. =A0It's what my original analogy would have led you to believe.=
> =A0IT'S
>> NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE WHETHER THE 'FRAGMENTS' CAME FROM ONE PENCIL OR TWO.=
>
>>
>> Yet you still can't simply admit so...
>>
>> >Would you
>> >ever go to this doctor again?
>>
>> Depends on the doctor... I might get a second opinion, or I might have use=
>d this
>> same doctor for many years... and trust his opinion.
>>
>> >This is what the WC wants us to accept
>> >with the two fragments. =A0They were covering all there bases but in
>> >medicine and science things don=3D92t work this way.
>>
>> Only in your ignorant world...
>>
>> >They CAN'T be both
>> >NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet.
>>
>> Yes they can. =A0You see, no-one said that they could not be from the same=
> bullet.
>> You lied previously on this same topic.
>>
>> You can't quote ANY expert testimony to that effect.
>>
>> I *HAVE* given citations that apply.
>>
>> You continue to refuse to provide citations for these silly statements.
>>
>> (I really like your confusion of ballistic testing with NAA testing...)
>>
>> >Ben won=3D92t prove there was a middle section that connected the two
>> >fragments, he says this is silly.
>>
>> Yep... it is. =A0The Earth isn't flat, either...
>>
>> >Why I ask when he keeps insisting
>> >the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet. =A0It is
>> >a perfectly valid question to ask =3D96 where is the middle section? Prov=
>e
>> >it existed, as if no proof can be given; the two fragments most
>> >certainly are not of the same origin.
>>
>> I keep telling you that a lack of proof that two fragments belong to a sin=
>gle
>> bullet IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT BULLETS.
>>
>> Such sheer unadulterated stupidity lives on...
>>
>> >In his analogy they are in my
>> >pocket, therefore, he ACCOUNTED for it, but in the real life example
>> >he runs from explaining where it is, why?
>>
>> The "middle" section, whether from one bullet, or 50 bullets, are also
>> "accounted" for.
>>
>> Tell us, Samantha, which bullet manufacturer sells bullet "noses", or bull=
>et
>> "tails"... do they come by the box? =A0What sizes are they available in? =
>=A0Can I
>> get a .45 Nose... or are they only available in 6.5mm?
>>
>> >The big piece that proves they were NOT from the same bullet,
>>
>> Proving no such thing. =A0You can't prove something from an item you don't=
>> read more =BB
>
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <3d0ca007-bff2-4c8c-a672-4d208bc8c...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >Ben, you have proven for all to see what kind of person you are, I'm
> >sure most already knew anyway. You are NOT worth the time to write,
> >and you are a liar yet again as I have responded to your long post.
>
"Sadly, you ran from responding to this post. In many of the
questions below, all I asked is that you support your words... yet you
can't. Understandable, since many of them were simply outright lies."
In your dreams I'm running. You are pathetic. I was at work, I can't
spend all day at work on here like you, no wonder you have had so many
jobs (that and your winning personality)!
"But that's okay... I've provided the cites... you can lead a child
molester to water, but you can't make him drink."
You are right, I have tried to give you a drink many times, but you
won't take it. I hear you were the lead platoon "rifle" inspector
when you were in the Marines. You cleaned many a "rifle" from what I
hear.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 16, 6:39=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <3d0ca007-bff2-4c8c-a672-4d208bc8c...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>> >Ben, you have proven for all to see what kind of person you are, I'm
>> >and you are a liar yet again as I have responded to your long post.
>>
>
>"Sadly, you ran from responding to this post. In many of the
>questions below, all I asked is that you support your words... yet you
>can't. Understandable, since many of them were simply outright lies."
>
>In your dreams I'm running.
And yet, you aren't answering the posts. Much as the trolls and LNT'ers do, you
merely duck and run when faced with actually supporting your own assertions.
>You are pathetic. I was at work, I can't
>spend all day at work on here like you, no wonder you have had so many
>jobs (that and your winning personality)!
How many jobs have I had? I'd be interested to hear you cite 'em.
Didn't know you'd joined my fan club... :)
>"But that's okay... I've provided the cites... you can lead a child
>molester to water, but you can't make him drink."
>
>You are right, I have tried to give you a drink many times, but you
>won't take it.
All it takes is a cite, Samantha...
Yet you keep running from that simple task...
>I hear you were the lead platoon "rifle" inspector
>when you were in the Marines. You cleaned many a "rifle" from what I
>hear.
>
>
>
>>
>> >On May 16, 1:51=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <748ef51d-4d9e-4b67-84c3-1bdeab191...@26g2000hsk.googlegroup=
>s.c=3D
>> >om>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the chase and=
>
>> >> >ask Ben some simple questions first.
>>
>> >> I doubt if you will *EVER* answer "the long post" point by point... you=
>'ve=3D
>> > shown
>> >> that you're a coward...
>>
>> >> >1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of the
>> >> >Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
>> >> >months now?
>>
>> >> Feel free to *QUOTE* any such "defense" of the WC. =3DA0(I've asked thi=
>s rep=3D
>> >eatedly,
>> >> and you STILL refuse to cite)
>>
>> >> Simply correcting your errors about what Frazier actually testified to =
>can=3D
>>
>> >> hardly be called a "defense" of the WC. =3DA0You lied repeatedly about =
>what =3D
>> >Frazier
>> >> testified to - and I corrected you a number of times. =3DA0But that can=
> hard=3D
>> >ly be
>> >> labeled a defense of the WC.
>>
>> >> I also told you that you cannot impugn the WCR based ONLY on the materi=
>al
>> >> contained within the WCR... but again, that's merely a fact, and hardly=
> a
>> >> "defense" of the WC.
>>
>> >> So go ahead and QUOTE IT! =3DA0Let everyone see my "defense" of the WC.=
>
>>
>> >> >2) What is more important to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or his
>> >> >ego?
>>
>> >> The truth. =3DA0As I commented, I agree with Prager, who asserts that c=
>larit=3D
>> >y is
>> >> more important than agreement. =3DA0I agree.
>>
>> >> You've been caught in a number of lies about the facts as we know them.=
> =3D
>> >=3DA0Shall I
>> >> quote a few of them in my next post?
>>
>> >> >3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are
>> >> >used? (see below)
>>
>> >> Sadly, *YOU* have demonstrated that you don't understand the concept. =
>=3DA0I=3D
>> >'ve
>> >> asked you to look up the word in the dictionary - as you've tried to as=
>ser=3D
>> >t that
>> >> I believe a pencil and a bullet are the same thing...
>>
>> >> >4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
>> >> >conclusion?
>>
>> >> Simple... when a "scientific" test cannot test what you believe it can =
>tes=3D
>> >t for.
>>
>> >> Citations already supplied... did you bother to read them?
>>
>> >> >5) Why was there NO damage to the seats or the carpet when the two
>> >> >fragments damaged the windshield and the chrome according to the WC?
>>
>> >> Perhaps because no bullets struck the seats or carpet?
>> >> Perhaps because the search wasn't performed adequately?
>> >> Perhaps because the search was not intended to do anything more than su=
>ppo=3D
>> >rt the
>> >> lone assassin?
>>
>> >> This is a topic that hasn't been discussed...
>>
>> >> >6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of the=
>
>> >> >head shot?
>>
>> >> Untrue. =3DA0An inability to gather enough DNA, not degraded, is not pr=
>oof t=3D
>> >hat the
>> >> DNA was not of a particular individual.
>>
>> >> > 7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the
>> >> >middle section? (see below)
>>
>> >> Nope... The Earth *IS* round... we *DID* land on the moon... take your =
>sil=3D
>> >ly
>> >> questions and ask someone who believes that someone can fire only the n=
>ose=3D
>> > or
>> >> tail of a bullet out of a rifle...
>>
>> >> >It is time for school little Bennie,
>>
>> >> Ah, Samantha! =3DA0I wondered how long it would take before you started=
> misu=3D
>> >sing my
>> >> name again.
>>
>> >> >sit down as the bell has rung. =3DA0I
>> >> >will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how analogies
>> >> >are meant to be used.
>>
>> >> >You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof the two=
>
>> >> >fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet.
>>
>> >> In order to prove that two fragments ORIGINALLY BELONGING ONLY TO A SIN=
>GLE=3D
>>
>> >> PENCIL - but with no proof of this - showing that your logic that they =
>mus=3D
>> >t
>> >> therefore be part of *TWO* pencils... can't work at all if you don't *S=
>TAR=3D
>> >T*
>> >> with a single pencil.
>>
>> >> You continue to get confused about what is being demonstrated... but st=
>upi=3D
>> >dity
>> >> *can* be cured... so I keep repeating the same explanation in as many d=
>iff=3D
>> >erent
>> >> ways as I can think of, in the hopes that you'll someday realize just h=
>ow =3D
>> >stupid
>> >> you've been looking...
>>
>> >> >IOW, your example
>> >> >breaks a complete pencil into three parts =3D3D96 nose/point, base, an=
>d
>> >> >middle section =3D3D96 but this was NOT proven to be true in our case =
>as
>> >> >they could NOT match the two fragments.
>>
>> >> Yep... they could not.
>>
>> >> So now I give you two pencil fragments... both ends of a pencil - AND R=
>EFU=3D
>> >SE TO
>> >> TELL YOU WHETHER THEY ARE FROM ONE PENCIL, OR TWO PENCILS.
>>
>> >> Since you cannot determine by any physical means whether they originall=
>y w=3D
>> >ere a
>> >> part of one or two pencils, you must, therefore, claim that they are fr=
>om =3D
>> >two
>> >> pencils.
>>
>> >> And you'd be stupid to do so.
>>
>> >> >Therefore, the nose could
>> >> >have come from one bullet, the base could have come from another
>> >> >bullet, and finally the middle section could have been part of either
>> >> >previous bullet, or part of another (if there was one at all as it
>> >> >could have been a complete bullet that disintegrated completely).
>> >> >This is why Bennie=3D3D92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming somethin=
>g not=3D
>>
>> >> >in evidence or proven.
>>
>> >> How many pencils do I have? =3DA0You have the two fragments...
>>
>> >> >Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
>> >> >circumstances,
>>
>> >> I've given you two fragments... how many original pencils were there?
>>
>> >> Remember - IT'S PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THEM TO ONE SINGLE PEN=
>CIL=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> You could easily exclude them from being from the same pencil, say, for=
> ex=3D
>> >ample
>> >> if the 'lead' composition were different.
>>
>> >> >but his does not follow this pattern. =3DA0A great analogy
>> >> >would be this (and I=3D3D92m not wishing anything bad on you Ben):
>>
>> >> >Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=3D3D92s office, a=
>nd
>> >> >they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
>> >> >negative. =3DA0This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but the
>> >> >doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could still
>> >> >have cancer. =3DA0IOW, they can=3D3D92t say he does have cancer, but t=
>hey can=3D
>> >=3D3D92t
>> >> >say he doesn=3D3D92t have cancer. =3DA0Would you accept this Ben?
>>
>> >> Of course. =3DA0It's what my original analogy would have led you to bel=
>ieve.=3D
>> > =3DA0IT'S
>> >> NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE WHETHER THE 'FRAGMENTS' CAME FROM ONE PENCIL OR T=
>WO.=3D
>>
>> >> Yet you still can't simply admit so...
>>
>> >> >Would you
>> >> >ever go to this doctor again?
>>
>> >> Depends on the doctor... I might get a second opinion, or I might have =
>use=3D
>> >d this
>> >> same doctor for many years... and trust his opinion.
>>
>> >> >This is what the WC wants us to accept
>> >> >with the two fragments. =3DA0They were covering all there bases but in=
>
>> >> >medicine and science things don=3D3D92t work this way.
>>
>> >> Only in your ignorant world...
>>
>> >> >They CAN'T be both
>> >> >NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet.
>>
>> >> Yes they can. =3DA0You see, no-one said that they could not be from the=
> same=3D
>> > bullet.
>> >> You lied previously on this same topic.
>>
>> >> You can't quote ANY expert testimony to that effect.
>>
>> >> I *HAVE* given citations that apply.
>>
>> >> You continue to refuse to provide citations for these silly statements.=
>
>>
>> >> (I really like your confusion of ballistic testing with NAA testing...)=
>
>>
>> >> >Ben won=3D3D92t prove there was a middle section that connected the tw=
>o
>> >> >fragments, he says this is silly.
>>
>> >> Yep... it is. =3DA0The Earth isn't flat, either...
>>
>> >> >Why I ask when he keeps insisting
>> >> >the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet. =3DA0It=
> is
>> >> >a perfectly valid question to ask =3D3D96 where is the middle section?=
> Prov=3D
>> >e
>> >> >it existed, as if no proof can be given; the two fragments most
>> >> >certainly are not of the same origin.
>>
>> >> I keep telling you that a lack of proof that two fragments belong to a =
>sin=3D
>> >gle
>> >> bullet IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT BULLETS.
>>
>> >> Such sheer unadulterated stupidity lives on...
>>
>> >> >In his analogy they are in my
>> >> >pocket, therefore, he ACCOUNTED for it, but in the real life example
>> >> >he runs from explaining where it is, why?
>>
>> >> The "middle" section, whether from one bullet, or 50 bullets, are also
>> >> "accounted" for.
>>
>> >> Tell us, Samantha, which bullet manufacturer sells bullet "noses", or b=
>ull=3D
>> >et
>> >> "tails"... do they come by the box? =3DA0What sizes are they available =
>in? =3D
>> >=3DA0Can I
>> >> get a .45 Nose... or are they only available in 6.5mm?
>>
>> >> >The big piece that proves they were NOT from the same bullet,
>>
>> >> Proving no such thing. =3DA0You can't prove something from an item you =
>don't=3D
>> > have,
>> >> other than the fact that you don't have it.
>>
>> >> >besides
>> >> >the failed ballistic tests to prove they were,
>>
>> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.=
>
>>
>> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.=
>
>>
>> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.=
>
>>
>> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.=
>
>>
>> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.=
>
>>
>> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.=
>
>>
>> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.=
>
>>
>> >> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <748ef51d-4d9e-4b67-84c3-1bdeab191...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the chase and
> >ask Ben some simple questions first.
>
"I doubt if you will *EVER* answer "the long post" point by point...
you've shown
that you're a coward..."
I have, but when I pasted it I couldn't get it to send. I will keep
trying as I want to post it very badly.
> >1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of the
> >Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
> >months now?
>
"Feel free to *QUOTE* any such "defense" of the WC. (I've asked this
repeatedly,
and you STILL refuse to cite)"
You claim the two fragments did not come from two or more bullets,
despite tests showing the opposite. You also defend the points made
by Frazier and Nicol, how can this be interpreted any other way?
Simply correcting your errors about what Frazier actually testified to
can hardly be called a "defense" of the WC. You lied repeatedly about
what Frazier testified to - and I corrected you a number of times.
But that can hardly be labeled a defense of the WC."
More semantics by Ben, like I can't read he said they may be from one
bullet, or they may be from two, he thinks this is definitive, I
don't.
"I also told you that you cannot impugn the WCR based ONLY on the
material contained within the WCR... but again, that's merely a fact,
and hardly a "defense" of the WC."
You are full of it, as I said before the WCR includes the 26 volumes
and this has been done many times. You are the one who thinks I'm
referring to only the 888 page report.The 26 volumes were meant to
support the report, but as most CTers know this is not the case.
"So go ahead and QUOTE IT! Let everyone see my "defense" of the WC."
They have been reading it for awhile now, why should I quote it?
> >2) What is more important to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or his
> >ego?
"The truth. As I commented, I agree with Prager, who asserts that
clarity is more important than agreement. I agree."
Another sage heard from. I don't care about agreement, but you have
admitted you can't prove any of your asserstions, yet you continue
with this stupid debate.
"You've been caught in a number of lies about the facts as we know
them. Shall I
quote a few of them in my next post?"
Quote whatever you want, they are not lies. I showing the WC was full
of it, you are the one holding the official theory intact.
> >3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are
> >used? (see below)
"Sadly, *YOU* have demonstrated that you don't understand the concept.
I've asked you to look up the word in the dictionary - as you've
tried to assert that I believe a pencil and a bullet are the same
thing..."
Correction, I don't agree with your pathetic ones.
> >4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
> >conclusion?
"Simple... when a "scientific" test cannot test what you believe it
can test for."
This is NOT on the table as the WC convicted LHO in the media and the
public with NAA, therefore, when it blows up in their face they can't
act like it is not important. You shouldn't either. You are
defending them again by letting them off the hook.
"Citations already supplied... did you bother to read them?"
I love the Bugman one, Ben is quoting Bugliosi NOW!!! Can he sink any
lower?
> >5) Why was there NO damage to the seats or the carpet when the two
> >fragments damaged the windshield and the chrome according to the WC?
"Perhaps because no bullets struck the seats or carpet?"
Prove it, opinions are NOT fact. Show me a bullet is moving rapidly
and hits a windshield and chrome but does NOT go back agains a seat or
carpet (where they are found of course).
"Perhaps because the search wasn't performed adequately?"
I will agree with this.
"Perhaps because the search was not intended to do anything more than
support the
lone assassin?"
"This is a topic that hasn't been discussed..."
I agree but it goes to the validity of the fragments, which in terms
goes to the validity of them coming from one bullet.
> >6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of the
> >head shot?
"Untrue. An inability to gather enough DNA, not degraded, is not
proof that the DNA was not of a particular individual."
So you are giving all the LNers on here an answer when they are asked
why the WC couldn't show the bullet and fragments were inside JFK and
JBC? This is not good enough, you have to have shown they had blood,
tissue and clothing striations on them and none did. They did not
have DNA testing like you said, but they did test for blood and found
none.
> > 7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the
> >middle section? (see below)
"Nope... The Earth *IS* round... we *DID* land on the moon... take
your silly questions and ask someone who believes that someone can
fire only the nose or
tail of a bullet out of a rifle..."
Silly question. This has been asked by every major CT researcher for
44 years, but Ben says it is not important. If they claim, and
obviously you do as well, they originated from one bullet, there has
to be a middle part. Where did it go? Why does this scare you so
much.
> >It is time for school little Bennie,
"Ah, Samantha! I wondered how long it would take before you started
misusing my name again."
I wondered how long you would show your true nature again and accuse
people of being child molesters. Bennie, or should I say Beth, can't
take it when he is getting his butt wooped.
> >sit down as the bell has rung. I
> >will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how analogies
> >are meant to be used.
>
> >You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof the two
> >fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet.
>
In order to prove that two fragments ORIGINALLY BELONGING ONLY TO A
SINGLE PENCIL - but with no proof of this - showing that your logic
that they must therefore be part of *TWO* pencils... can't work at all
if you don't *START* with a single pencil."
Wrong!!! I don't have to prove they were part of two pencils, when
will you get this????? The WC, and you, are making assertions of a 3
shot/2 hit scenario, they are thus forced to prove their theory. I'm
sticking with their assertion, they said the two fragments could have
come from one bullet, so prove it. They failed and you are failing
miserably.
"You continue to get confused about what is being demonstrated... but
stupidity *can* be cured... so I keep repeating the same explanation
in as many different ways as I can think of, in the hopes that you'll
someday realize just how stupid you've been looking..."
The day a Marine confuses me the Earth will be flat. You fail to grasp
the court concept of the prosecution having to prove their theory.
Hang in there, you may be cured of your stupidity.
> >IOW, your example
> >breaks a complete pencil into three parts =96 nose/point, base, and
> >middle section =96 but this was NOT proven to be true in our case as
> >they could NOT match the two fragments.
>
"Yep... they could not.
So now I give you two pencil fragments... both ends of a pencil - AND
REFUSE TO
TELL YOU WHETHER THEY ARE FROM ONE PENCIL, OR TWO PENCILS.
"Since you cannot determine by any physical means whether they
originally were a part of one or two pencils, you must, therefore,
claim that they are from two pencils.
And you'd be stupid to do so."
NO you wouldn't, this is called logic and a good investigation would
have done this if the fix wasn't in. You are claiming cops would have
stopped with a "could have been one, or could have been two or more"
scenario. The whole point of an investigation, just like medicine and
science, is to reach a conclusion.
> >Therefore, the nose could
> >have come from one bullet, the base could have come from another
> >bullet, and finally the middle section could have been part of either
> >previous bullet, or part of another (if there was one at all as it
> >could have been a complete bullet that disintegrated completely).
> >This is why Bennie=92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming something not
> >in evidence or proven.
>
"How many pencils do I have? You have the two fragments..."
The number of pencils you have is irrevelevant, the issue is we have
two fragments and they could NOT be shown conclusively to have come
from one bullet.
> >Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
> >circumstances,
>
"I've given you two fragments... how many original pencils were
there?"
Who knows, some have guessed at the number of shots but it is open for
debate. The analogy I like is this:
Take 3 bullets (for the number of shots) and cut each into a thirds
like you did, and then put them in a bag. Shake them up. Now pick
out two fragments. Run NAA tests on them (and I know this is faulty,
but in 1964 the FBI said it was the best thing since sliced bread and
the HSCA used it to bury LHO in 1979) and when they don't match what
do you have? The same dilemna the WC had, which pieces were part of
the same bullet to start with?
"Remember - IT'S PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THEM TO ONE SINGLE
PENCIL."
Then why did they NOT do this?
"You could easily exclude them from being from the same pencil, say,
for example
if the 'lead' composition were different."
Right, and this is the burden of proof a prosecutor has to work with.
They had NO proof to support they came from just one bullet, this then
opens up the possibility of more bullets being involved. How many?
Who knows for sure. I'm not claiming a number.
> >but his does not follow this pattern. A great analogy
> >would be this (and I=92m not wishing anything bad on you Ben):
>
> >Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=92s office, and
> >they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
> >negative. This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but the
> >doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could still
> >have cancer. IOW, they can=92t say he does have cancer, but they can=92t
> >say he doesn=92t have cancer. Would you accept this Ben?
>
"Of course. It's what my original analogy would have led you to
believe. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE WHETHER THE 'FRAGMENTS' CAME FROM
ONE PENCIL OR TWO."
Ben, I have never disagreed with this statement, you just think I
have. I am thinking from a defense point of view. IF the prosecutor
can't PROVE they came from one bullet, that is as good as if they came
from two, three or six. It shows they CANNOT support the 3 shot/2 hit
theory, this is all I was trying to prove.
"Yet you still can't simply admit so..."
I have always admitted this, the inability to prove the key part of
their theory is ALL the proof I need.
> >Would you
> >ever go to this doctor again?
"Depends on the doctor... I might get a second opinion, or I might
have used this same doctor for many years... and trust his opinion."
You are more trusting than me, if the doctor can't tell me for sure I
have cancer or not, I'm going eslewhere.
> >This is what the WC wants us to accept
> >with the two fragments. They were covering all there bases but in
> >medicine and science things don=92t work this way.
"Only in your ignorant world..."
Sorry Ben, but this is how the science world works. You have NOTHING
if you CAN'T PROVE IT. Nobody funds thoeries forever.
> >They CAN'T be both
> >NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet.
"Yes they can. You see, no-one said that they could not be from the
same bullet.
You lied previously on this same topic."
By saying they could be from two or more they are saying this, for if
they could be from just one bullet, why mention they could also be
from two or more? They wouldn't have. Why open that can of worms?
"You can't quote ANY expert testimony to that effect."
I can quote Frazier and Nicol saying they could be from two or more
bullets. Neither would give a firm opinion in the sense they were
definitely ONLY from one. This is solid for a defense attorney.
I *HAVE* given citations that apply."
Yes, you have given the citations that say they could be from one, or
they could be from two or more bullets, and I've always ask how can
you accept this? The possibility of two or more destroys their
theory.
"You continue to refuse to provide citations for these silly
statements."
What silly statements? There was a conspiracy and they can't prove
their own theory? Those silly statments?
(I really like your confusion of ballistic testing with NAA
testing...)
There is no confusion, I understand the difference. I have been
through this with you as well. There is a third area, spectography,
that Frazier was NOT qualified to testify to, yet the WC refused to
call the man who was, John Gallagher, why?
> >Ben won=92t prove there was a middle section that connected the two
> >fragments, he says this is silly.
"Yep... it is. The Earth isn't flat, either..."
It is not silly, it is UNPROVABLE, and you are a coward so you pull
out the Marshisms instead.
> >Why I ask when he keeps insisting
> >the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet. It is
> >a perfectly valid question to ask =96 where is the middle section? Prove
> >it existed, as if no proof can be given; the two fragments most
> >certainly are not of the same origin.
>
"I keep telling you that a lack of proof that two fragments belong to
a single bullet IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT
BULLETS."
And I keep telling you I don't have to prove anything beyond the fact
the WC's theory is invalid, and I have by raising this doubt. I am
not presenting a case, therefore, the burden of proof is NOT on me.
"Such sheer unadulterated stupidity lives on..."
It sure does, but you won't go away, so we have to deal with I guess.
> >In his analogy they are in my
> >pocket, therefore, he ACCOUNTED for it, but in the real life example
> >he runs from explaining where it is, why?
"The "middle" section, whether from one bullet, or 50 bullets, are
also "accounted" for."
They are??? Was it found in the limo??? Was it found in DP?? Was it
in JFK's head? Where was it ACCOUNTED for again?
"Tell us, Samantha, which bullet manufacturer sells bullet "noses", or
bullet "tails"... do they come by the box? What sizes are they
available in? Can I get a .45 Nose... or are they only available in
6.5mm?"
Little Benita attempts humor. They also don't sell them in fragment
size, but that is how it was found. What happen to the middle portion
of this single bullet you keep claiming exists.
> >The big piece that proves they were NOT from the same bullet,
"Proving no such thing. You can't prove something from an item you
don't have, other than the fact that you don't have it."
I hate to agree with LNers, but they are right as you splice up
people's quotes. DO you understand the editing of somones replies is
dishonest? Of course you do. You are changing the context by doing
this. He separates my thought here, only the uber-liar would do this.
> >besides
> >the failed ballistic tests to prove they were,
>
> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
from one bullet.
> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
and then he completely hides the rest of my comment with this childish
drivel. He is dishonest through and through.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <61695975-ad48-4bc2-adbe-7b2563d53...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 16, 6:39=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >> In article <3d0ca007-bff2-4c8c-a672-4d208bc8c...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.c=
> >om>,
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >Ben, you have proven for all to see what kind of person you are, I'm
> >> >sure most already knew anyway. =A0You are NOT worth the time to write,
> >> >and you are a liar yet again as I have responded to your long post.
>
> >"Sadly, you ran from responding to this post. In many of the
> >questions below, all I asked is that you support your words... yet you
> >can't. Understandable, since many of them were simply outright lies."
>
> >In your dreams I'm running.
"And yet, you aren't answering the posts. Much as the trolls and
LNT'ers do, you merely duck and run when faced with actually
supporting your own assertions."
Another out and out lie, it seems all I have done for the last few
days is answer your silly posts.
>
> >You are pathetic. I was at work, I can't
> >spend all day at work on here like you, no wonder you have had so many
> >jobs (that and your winning personality)!
>
"How many jobs have I had? I'd be interested to hear you cite 'em."
Who knows, who cares, but you keep changing your e-mail address, I
guess to keep the government off your trail.
"Didn't know you'd joined my fan club... :)"
Sure, you on my list, the VERY bottom.
> >"But that's okay... I've provided the cites... you can lead a child
> >molester to water, but you can't make him drink."
>
> >You are right, I have tried to give you a drink many times, but you
> >won't take it.
>
"All it takes is a cite, Samantha...
Yet you keep running from that simple task..."
Of what? You change topics quicker than an Indy 500 driver turns
laps.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of the head shot?" <<<
The FBI lab never even checked CE567/569 for that kind of blood/tissue
evidence. That's obvious from Frazier's testimony cited by VB
below.....
"{Robert} Frazier testified that with respect to the two main
bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine {CE567 & CE569},
"there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material
adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped
off to clean up the bullet for examination." .... One can only wonder
why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have any blood residuum on it.
My only guess is that the blood traces that must have been on it were
removed by someone early on at the Dallas crime lab or elsewhere
almost as a matter of course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in
court in murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none had any
visible blood on them." -- Vince T. Bugliosi; Page 425 of "RH"
Endnotes
>>> "IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the middle section?" <<<
Buried with Jimmy Hoffa.
BTW, just to remind the masses ---
Rob Caprio is a freakin' kook.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 16, 1:51=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <748ef51d-4d9e-4b67-84c3-1bdeab191...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the chase and
>> >ask Ben some simple questions first.
>>
>
>"I doubt if you will *EVER* answer "the long post" point by point...
>you've shown that you're a coward..."
>
>I have, but when I pasted it I couldn't get it to send. I will keep
>trying as I want to post it very badly.
I'll be looking for it.
>> >1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of the
>> >Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
>> >months now?
>>
>
>"Feel free to *QUOTE* any such "defense" of the WC. (I've asked this
>repeatedly, and you STILL refuse to cite)"
>
>You claim the two fragments did not come from two or more bullets,
No, Samantha, I've never made any such claim.
I assert that you cannot *PROVE* that they came from two or more bullets, and
that there is no expert testimony to that effect, as you've asserted.
>despite tests showing the opposite.
There has been *NO* test showing that the two limo fragments belong to separate
bullets.
Nor can you CITE any such test.
(I wonder why I seem to be the one citing and quoting all the time...)
>You also defend the points made
>by Frazier and Nicol, how can this be interpreted any other way?
You lied about what they said, I correct your lies.
But my disagreement with *PARTS* of what they testify to can be located in prior
posts.
It's not "black and white"... I don't have to disagree with everything they
say... or agree with everything they say.
You lied about what they testified to, I corrected you... you've never admitted
nor retracted...
>"Simply correcting your errors about what Frazier actually testified to
>can hardly be called a "defense" of the WC. You lied repeatedly about
>what Frazier testified to - and I corrected you a number of times.
>But that can hardly be labeled a defense of the WC."
>
>More semantics by Ben, like I can't read he said they may be from one
>bullet, or they may be from two, he thinks this is definitive, I
>don't.
Did you, or did you not, try asserting that Frazier said something that you
CANNOT QUOTE OR CITE FOR?
Tis a simple yes or no question - my crystal ball tells me that you'll duck it.
>"I also told you that you cannot impugn the WCR based ONLY on the
>material contained within the WCR... but again, that's merely a fact,
>and hardly a "defense" of the WC."
>
>You are full of it, as I said before the WCR includes the 26 volumes
>and this has been done many times.
No Samantha, the Warren Commission REPORT is not the same as the 26 volumes of
supporting evidence.
Were it true, no-one here would ever need to differentiate between the WCR and
the 26 volumes.
>You are the one who thinks I'm
>referring to only the 888 page report.
This is, in fact, your *FIRST* time asserting this peculiar belief...
I've before been QUITE SPECIFIC in separating the two - and you said nothing...
For example (From November, 2007):
*******************************************************************
I've told you time and time again that you can't impugn the WCR based ONLY on
the evidence that the WCR chose to tell you about in it's report. You *MUST* go
to the same evidence that they had - then it's relatively trivial to prove the
WCR a fraud.
********************************************************************
So why didn't you agree with this statement, Samantha?
>The 26 volumes were meant to
>support the report, but as most CTers know this is not the case.
"most?"
>"So go ahead and QUOTE IT! Let everyone see my "defense" of the WC."
>
>They have been reading it for awhile now, why should I quote it?
Coward, aren't you?
>> >2) What is more important to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or his
>> >ego?
>
>"The truth. As I commented, I agree with Prager, who asserts that
>clarity is more important than agreement. I agree."
>
>Another sage heard from.
Not the "Sage from South Central", admittedly... but still pretty good.
>I don't care about agreement, but you have
>admitted you can't prove any of your asserstions, yet you continue
>with this stupid debate.
No Samantha, I can indeed prove my assertions... I do so quite frequently, with
cites and quotes.
>"You've been caught in a number of lies about the facts as we know
>them. Shall I quote a few of them in my next post?"
>
>Quote whatever you want, they are not lies. I showing the WC was full
>of it, you are the one holding the official theory intact.
When Frazier says something (and it could be anything at all...), and you refer
to his statement - but say that he said something else ... THEN YOU ARE LYING,
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WHAT FRAZIER SAID WAS THE TRUTH OR NOT.
>> >3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are
>> >used? (see below)
>
>"Sadly, *YOU* have demonstrated that you don't understand the concept.
>I've asked you to look up the word in the dictionary - as you've
>tried to assert that I believe a pencil and a bullet are the same
>thing..."
>
>Correction, I don't agree with your pathetic ones.
Who cares whether you "agree" with them or not?
If you cannot refute them with *reasoned* argument, then *YOU* are the one who
looks stupid.
>> >4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
>> >conclusion?
>
>"Simple... when a "scientific" test cannot test what you believe it
>can test for."
>
>This is NOT on the table as the WC convicted LHO in the media and the
>public with NAA, therefore, when it blows up in their face they can't
>act like it is not important. You shouldn't either. You are
>defending them again by letting them off the hook.
How silly!
This is really quite simple. Can matching striations on two fragments prove
that they came from the same bullet? Yes or no.
Can NAA testing prove that two fragments came from the same bullet? Yes or no.
Now... PROVIDE A CITATION THAT SUPPORTS WHAT YOU JUST ASSERTED.
I already have...
>"Citations already supplied... did you bother to read them?"
>
>I love the Bugman one, Ben is quoting Bugliosi NOW!!! Can he sink any
>lower?
I'm guessing that you're referring to this:
******************************************************************
Let's not forget that Vince Bugliosi argued a conspiracy in the RFK *AND* the
JFK case in court. He was, in fact, instrumental in proving that more shots
were fired in the pantry than could have come out of Sirhan's gun.
Of course, lawyers are not historians, nor unbiased. They argue the side that
pays them.
*******************************************************************
Sounds like I'm speaking to DVP, for Bugliosi certainly can't be proud of this,
given his recent tome.
>> >5) Why was there NO damage to the seats or the carpet when the two
>> >fragments damaged the windshield and the chrome according to the WC?
>
>"Perhaps because no bullets struck the seats or carpet?"
>
>Prove it, opinions are NOT fact. Show me a bullet is moving rapidly
>and hits a windshield and chrome but does NOT go back agains a seat or
>carpet (where they are found of course).
No thank you...
>"Perhaps because the search wasn't performed adequately?"
>
>I will agree with this.
>
>"Perhaps because the search was not intended to do anything more than
>support the lone assassin?"
>
>"This is a topic that hasn't been discussed..."
>
>I agree but it goes to the validity of the fragments, which in terms
>goes to the validity of them coming from one bullet.
And yet, all you have is speculation.
I prefer evidence.
>> >6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of the
>> >head shot?
>
>"Untrue. An inability to gather enough DNA, not degraded, is not
>proof that the DNA was not of a particular individual."
>
>So you are giving all the LNers on here an answer when they are asked
>why the WC couldn't show the bullet and fragments were inside JFK and
>JBC?
Am I supposed to shut up?
The truth supports *MY ACCEPTANCE OF A CONSPIRACY* - it would be quite stupid of
me to "hide" the facts.
>This is not good enough, you have to have shown they had blood,
>tissue and clothing striations on them and none did.
When you have to lie, all you've done is prove that you're a liar...
>They did not
>have DNA testing like you said, but they did test for blood and found
>none.
*I* didn't say it... I quoted the actual DNA results.
Liar, aren't you?
Here's the cite again for anyone interested:
http://jfklancer.com/LNE/fragments/fragreport.html
>> > 7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is the
>> >middle section? (see below)
>
>"Nope... The Earth *IS* round... we *DID* land on the moon... take
>your silly questions and ask someone who believes that someone can
>fire only the nose or tail of a bullet out of a rifle..."
>
>Silly question.
Yes... I agree.
>This has been asked by every major CT researcher for
>44 years,
Then cite or quote JUST ONE OF THEM!
>but Ben says it is not important. If they claim, and
>obviously you do as well, they originated from one bullet, there has
>to be a middle part. Where did it go? Why does this scare you so
>much.
It scares you so much that you will refuse to cite or quote a SINGLE "major CT
researcher" who has stated anything like your silly "middle section" assertions.
>> >It is time for school little Bennie,
>
>"Ah, Samantha! I wondered how long it would take before you started
>misusing my name again."
>
>I wondered how long you would show your true nature again and accuse
>people of being child molesters. Bennie, or should I say Beth, can't
>take it when he is getting his butt wooped.
You should recall your assertion that you were a basically honest person...
>> >sit down as the bell has rung. I
>> >will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how analogies
>> >are meant to be used.
>>
>> >You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof the two
>> >fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet.
>>
>
>"In order to prove that two fragments ORIGINALLY BELONGING ONLY TO A
>SINGLE PENCIL - but with no proof of this - showing that your logic
>that they must therefore be part of *TWO* pencils... can't work at all
>if you don't *START* with a single pencil."
>
>Wrong!!!
Okay... start with two pencils then... and see how the logic works when you're
now trying to assert that you began with a single pencil.
Sheer stupidity runs rampant!
>I don't have to prove they were part of two pencils, when
>will you get this?????
And yet, you assert that the two limo fragments were 'proven' to have come from
two separate bullets.
>The WC, and you, are making assertions of a 3
>shot/2 hit scenario,
Why Samantha, would you assert that little boys & girls are fair game for your
less than honorable intentions?
For, of course, I've *NEVER* defended a 3 shot/2 hit scenario.
>they are thus forced to prove their theory. I'm
>sticking with their assertion, they said the two fragments could have
>come from one bullet, so prove it. They failed and you are failing
>miserably.
It seems silly to repeat it... so you may insert the appropriate comment here -
you should know it by now.
>"You continue to get confused about what is being demonstrated... but
>stupidity *can* be cured... so I keep repeating the same explanation
>in as many different ways as I can think of, in the hopes that you'll
>someday realize just how stupid you've been looking..."
>
>The day a Marine confuses me the Earth will be flat. You fail to grasp
>the court concept of the prosecution having to prove their theory.
>Hang in there, you may be cured of your stupidity.
Until you can tell everyone where the other pencil is, Samantha, I *HAVE*
provably "confused" you.
>> >IOW, your example
>> >breaks a complete pencil into three parts =3D96 nose/point, base, and
>> >middle section =3D96 but this was NOT proven to be true in our case as
>> >they could NOT match the two fragments.
>>
>
>"Yep... they could not.
>
>So now I give you two pencil fragments... both ends of a pencil - AND
>REFUSE TO TELL YOU WHETHER THEY ARE FROM ONE PENCIL, OR TWO PENCILS.
>
>"Since you cannot determine by any physical means whether they
>originally were a part of one or two pencils, you must, therefore,
>claim that they are from two pencils.
>
>And you'd be stupid to do so."
>
>NO you wouldn't, this is called logic and a good investigation would
>have done this if the fix wasn't in. You are claiming cops would have
>stopped with a "could have been one, or could have been two or more"
>scenario. The whole point of an investigation, just like medicine and
>science, is to reach a conclusion.
Tell that to Heisenberg.
You clearly don't know enough about science to be in the same debate with me.
>> >Therefore, the nose could
>> >have come from one bullet, the base could have come from another
>> >bullet, and finally the middle section could have been part of either
>> >previous bullet, or part of another (if there was one at all as it
>> >could have been a complete bullet that disintegrated completely).
>> >This is why Bennie=3D92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming something not=
>
>> >in evidence or proven.
>>
>
>"How many pencils do I have? You have the two fragments..."
>
>The number of pencils you have is irrevelevant, the issue is we have
>two fragments and they could NOT be shown conclusively to have come
>from one bullet.
You can't prove conclusively that the two "fragments" of pencil I handed you are
from the same pencil.
So how many pencils did I have?
Running from this isn't going to make it go away...
>> >Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
>> >circumstances,
>>
>
>"I've given you two fragments... how many original pencils were
>there?"
>
>Who knows,
And yet, when it comes to the limo fragments, you claim to know.
Why is that, Samantha?
What's the difference?
>some have guessed at the number of shots but it is open for
>debate. The analogy I like is this:
>
>Take 3 bullets (for the number of shots) and cut each into a thirds
>like you did, and then put them in a bag. Shake them up. Now pick
>out two fragments. Run NAA tests on them (and I know this is faulty,
>but in 1964 the FBI said it was the best thing since sliced bread and
>the HSCA used it to bury LHO in 1979) and when they don't match what
>do you have? The same dilemna the WC had, which pieces were part of
>the same bullet to start with?
Since NAA *CANNOT* prove that two fragments came from the same bullet, you are
using that fact to "prove" that they came from two bullets.
Stupid... isn't it?
>"Remember - IT'S PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THEM TO ONE SINGLE
>PENCIL."
>
>Then why did they NOT do this?
What did you not understand about "physically not possible?"
>"You could easily exclude them from being from the same pencil, say,
>for example if the 'lead' composition were different."
>
>Right, and this is the burden of proof a prosecutor has to work with.
>They had NO proof to support they came from just one bullet, this then
>opens up the possibility of more bullets being involved. How many?
>Who knows for sure. I'm not claiming a number.
You claimed that the failure to *PROVE* that these fragments came from one
bullet PROVES THAT THEY CAME FROM TWO BULLETS.
You're a liar.
>> >but his does not follow this pattern. =A0A great analogy
>> >would be this (and I=3D92m not wishing anything bad on you Ben):
>>
>> >Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=3D92s office, and
>> >they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
>> >negative. =A0This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but the
>> >doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could still
>> >have cancer. =A0IOW, they can=3D92t say he does have cancer, but they can=
>=3D92t
>> >say he doesn=3D92t have cancer. =A0Would you accept this Ben?
>>
>
>"Of course. It's what my original analogy would have led you to
>believe. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE WHETHER THE 'FRAGMENTS' CAME FROM
>ONE PENCIL OR TWO."
>
>Ben, I have never disagreed with this statement, you just think I
>have.
Then all you have to do is admit it, Samantha. And stop claiming that a lack of
proof is anything more than a lack of proof.
For until you do - lurkers are going to realize your incompetence to speak about
the evidence.
>I am thinking from a defense point of view. IF the prosecutor
>can't PROVE they came from one bullet, that is as good as if they came
>from two, three or six. It shows they CANNOT support the 3 shot/2 hit
>theory, this is all I was trying to prove.
It's *NOT* what you said. I've agreed a number of times that the two limo
fragments *COULD* have come from separate bullets.
Why does it take you so long to understand simple logic?
>"Yet you still can't simply admit so..."
>
>I have always admitted this, the inability to prove the key part of
>their theory is ALL the proof I need.
Hmmm... just when I thought you were beginning to understand...
>> >Would you
>> >ever go to this doctor again?
>
>"Depends on the doctor... I might get a second opinion, or I might
>have used this same doctor for many years... and trust his opinion."
>
>You are more trusting than me, if the doctor can't tell me for sure I
>have cancer or not, I'm going eslewhere.
Then you're just as medically challenged as you are scientifically challenged.
Try researching "pre-cancerous cells"
>> >This is what the WC wants us to accept
>> >with the two fragments. =A0They were covering all there bases but in
>> >medicine and science things don=3D92t work this way.
>
>"Only in your ignorant world..."
>
>Sorry Ben, but this is how the science world works. You have NOTHING
>if you CAN'T PROVE IT. Nobody funds thoeries forever.
Ouch! The theories that are unproven in science are legion. I suggest that you
read a decent primer on how science operates, because you are definitely looking
hilarious to those who've studied any decent amount of science.
>> >They CAN'T be both
>> >NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet.
>
>"Yes they can. You see, no-one said that they could not be from the
>same bullet. You lied previously on this same topic."
>
>By saying they could be from two or more they are saying this,
Asserting that two fragments could be from two bullets DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE
POSSIBILITY THAT THEY COULD ALSO BE FROM ONE.
Why not try printing out this post, and visiting your local college, and have a
talk with any teacher from the science department.
You surely won't believe me.
>for if
>they could be from just one bullet, why mention they could also be
>from two or more? They wouldn't have. Why open that can of worms?
You don't seem to understand that one possibility doesn't exclude the other.
>"You can't quote ANY expert testimony to that effect."
>
>I can quote Frazier and Nicol saying they could be from two or more
>bullets.
Of course you can. What you CANNOT quote them saying is that these two
fragments MUST HAVE COME FROM TWO SEPARATE BULLETS.
>Neither would give a firm opinion in the sense they were
>definitely ONLY from one. This is solid for a defense attorney.
>
>I *HAVE* given citations that apply."
>
>Yes, you have given the citations that say they could be from one, or
>they could be from two or more bullets, and I've always ask how can
>you accept this? The possibility of two or more destroys their
>theory.
No Samantha... it doesn't.
>"You continue to refuse to provide citations for these silly
>statements."
>
>What silly statements?
I challenge you to run this post past a science teacher.
You won't, of course... because even you must have an inkling that you really
don't know this topic as well as you should.
>There was a conspiracy and they can't prove
>their own theory? Those silly statments?
>
>(I really like your confusion of ballistic testing with NAA
>testing...)
>
>There is no confusion, I understand the difference.
Then tell everyone here just how you propose to prove that two fragments came
from the same bullet by means of ballistic testing.
>I have been
>through this with you as well. There is a third area, spectography,
>that Frazier was NOT qualified to testify to, yet the WC refused to
>call the man who was, John Gallagher, why?
I brought this up years ago... and it's "spectrography".
>> >Ben won't prove there was a middle section that connected the two
>> >fragments, he says this is silly.
>
>"Yep... it is. The Earth isn't flat, either..."
>
>It is not silly, it is UNPROVABLE, and you are a coward so you pull
>out the Marshisms instead.
There are few areas that I won't provide answers to... and the flat-earth
questions are one of them.
>> >Why I ask when he keeps insisting
>> >the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet. =A0It is
>> >a perfectly valid question to ask =3D96 where is the middle section? Prov=
>e
>> >it existed, as if no proof can be given; the two fragments most
>> >certainly are not of the same origin.
>>
>
>"I keep telling you that a lack of proof that two fragments belong to
>a single bullet IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY BELONG TO TWO DIFFERENT
>BULLETS."
>
>And I keep telling you I don't have to prove anything beyond the fact
>the WC's theory is invalid, and I have by raising this doubt. I am
>not presenting a case, therefore, the burden of proof is NOT on me.
Then why do you feel the need to lie about Frazier & Nicol's testimony?
Or make outrageously silly statements?
>"Such sheer unadulterated stupidity lives on..."
>
>It sure does, but you won't go away, so we have to deal with I guess.
>
>
>> >In his analogy they are in my
>> >pocket, therefore, he ACCOUNTED for it, but in the real life example
>> >he runs from explaining where it is, why?
>
>"The "middle" section, whether from one bullet, or 50 bullets, are
>also "accounted" for."
>
>They are???
Of course.
Just *try* to buy a box of 'tail' ammunition... or 'nose' ammunition.
Can't be done.
>Was it found in the limo??? Was it found in DP?? Was it
>in JFK's head? Where was it ACCOUNTED for again?
>
>"Tell us, Samantha, which bullet manufacturer sells bullet "noses", or
>bullet "tails"... do they come by the box? What sizes are they
>available in? Can I get a .45 Nose... or are they only available in
>6.5mm?"
>
>Little Benita attempts humor. They also don't sell them in fragment
>size, but that is how it was found. What happen to the middle portion
>of this single bullet you keep claiming exists.
If you can't buy anything less than a whole bullet... then the "middle section",
or indeed, ANY part of a bullet... exists.
No amount of silliness from you is going to erase this fact.
>> >The big piece that proves they were NOT from the same bullet,
>
>"Proving no such thing. You can't prove something from an item you
>don't have, other than the fact that you don't have it."
>
>I hate to agree with LNers, but they are right as you splice up
>people's quotes. DO you understand the editing of somones replies is
>dishonest? Of course you do. You are changing the context by doing
>this. He separates my thought here, only the uber-liar would do this.
I respond to the exact sentence that my response is aimed at. Nothing's been
changed.
You do *PRECISELY* the same thing all the time - for it's not possible to answer
a specific point in an entire paragraph or more without breaking to that point.
It's routinely done, normally done, and accepted forum practice.
So you'll have to find something else to whine about.
And don't think that no-one has noticed that by changing the topic, you've
avoided the point that was made. Once again: You can't prove something from an
item you don't have, other than the fact that you don't have it.
>> >besides
>> >the failed ballistic tests to prove they were,
>>
>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
>from one bullet.
>> "Ballistic" tests cannot prove that two fragments came from one bullet.
>
>and then he completely hides the rest of my comment with this childish
>drivel. He is dishonest through and through.
Actually, the rest was still there ... I see you snipped it with no notice. How
dishonest of you.
Nor, I note, were you honest enough to respond to that point.
But don't worry... you were stupid enough to try claiming that ballistic testing
could accomplish what it cannot back in November - you're doing it now... and
you'll continue in the future.
For it seems that you simply can't get it through your head that you're ignorant
on this topic.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On May 16, 7:07=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <61695975-ad48-4bc2-adbe-7b2563d53...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On May 16, 6:39=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <3d0ca007-bff2-4c8c-a672-4d208bc8c...@34g2000hsf.googlegroup=
>e,
>> >> >and you are a liar yet again as I have responded to your long post.
>>
>> >"Sadly, you ran from responding to this post. In many of the
>> >questions below, all I asked is that you support your words... yet you
>> >can't. Understandable, since many of them were simply outright lies."
>>
>> >In your dreams I'm running.
>
>LNT'ers do, you merely duck and run when faced with actually
>supporting your own assertions."
>
>Another out and out lie, it seems all I have done for the last few
>days is answer your silly posts.
You *STILL* haven't responded to the "He claims" point I made. (nor a number of
others...)
And despite the number of citations I've listed, not ONE SINGLE COMMENT has come
out of them...
>> >You are pathetic. I was at work, I can't
>> >spend all day at work on here like you, no wonder you have had so many
>> >jobs (that and your winning personality)!
>>
>
>"How many jobs have I had? I'd be interested to hear you cite 'em."
>
>Who knows, who cares,
It was *YOUR* assertion.
Can't support your own words?
>but you keep changing your e-mail address,
List each and every one of them right here:
>I guess to keep the government off your trail.
>
>
>"Didn't know you'd joined my fan club... :)"
>
>Sure, you on my list, the VERY bottom.
>
>> >"But that's okay... I've provided the cites... you can lead a child
>> >molester to water, but you can't make him drink."
>>
>> >You are right, I have tried to give you a drink many times, but you
>> >won't take it.
>>
>
>"All it takes is a cite, Samantha...
>
>Yet you keep running from that simple task..."
>
>Of what? You change topics quicker than an Indy 500 driver turns
>laps.
I respond to your statements... if the topic is "changing", then you know who to
blame.
>> >I hear you were the lead platoon "rifle" inspector
>> >when you were in the Marines. =A0You cleaned many a "rifle" from what I
>> >hear.
>>
>> >> >On May 16, 1:51=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <748ef51d-4d9e-4b67-84c3-1bdeab191...@26g2000hsk.googlegr=
>oup=3D
>> >s.c=3D3D
>> >> >om>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >Before I answer the long thread I thought I would cut to the chase =
>and=3D
>>
>> >> >> >ask Ben some simple questions first.
>>
>> >> >> I doubt if you will *EVER* answer "the long post" point by point... =
>you=3D
>> >'ve=3D3D
>> >> > shown
>> >> >> that you're a coward...
>>
>> >> >> >1) Why does someone who posts questions showing the deceptions of t=
>he
>> >> >> >Warren Commission every day choose to defend them earnestly for 6
>> >> >> >months now?
>>
>> >> >> Feel free to *QUOTE* any such "defense" of the WC. =3D3DA0(I've aske=
>d thi=3D
>> >s rep=3D3D
>> >> >eatedly,
>> >> >> and you STILL refuse to cite)
>>
>> >> >> Simply correcting your errors about what Frazier actually testified =
>to =3D
>> >can=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> hardly be called a "defense" of the WC. =3D3DA0You lied repeatedly a=
>bout =3D
>> >what =3D3D
>> >> >Frazier
>> >> >> testified to - and I corrected you a number of times. =3D3DA0But tha=
>t can=3D
>> > hard=3D3D
>> >> >ly be
>> >> >> labeled a defense of the WC.
>>
>> >> >> I also told you that you cannot impugn the WCR based ONLY on the mat=
>eri=3D
>> >al
>> >> >> contained within the WCR... but again, that's merely a fact, and har=
>dly=3D
>> > a
>> >> >> "defense" of the WC.
>>
>> >> >> So go ahead and QUOTE IT! =3D3DA0Let everyone see my "defense" of th=
>e WC.=3D
>>
>> >> >> >2) What is more important to Ben, the true events of 11/22/63 or hi=
>s
>> >> >> >ego?
>>
>> >> >> The truth. =3D3DA0As I commented, I agree with Prager, who asserts t=
>hat c=3D
>> >larit=3D3D
>> >> >y is
>> >> >> more important than agreement. =3D3DA0I agree.
>>
>> >> >> You've been caught in a number of lies about the facts as we know th=
>em.=3D
>> > =3D3D
>> >> >=3D3DA0Shall I
>> >> >> quote a few of them in my next post?
>>
>> >> >> >3) Why does Ben NOT understand what analogies are, and how they are=
>
>> >> >> >used? (see below)
>>
>> >> >> Sadly, *YOU* have demonstrated that you don't understand the concept=
>. =3D
>> >=3D3DA0I=3D3D
>> >> >'ve
>> >> >> asked you to look up the word in the dictionary - as you've tried to=
> as=3D
>> >ser=3D3D
>> >> >t that
>> >> >> I believe a pencil and a bullet are the same thing...
>>
>> >> >> >4) How can scientific tests show a result, but NOT provide a
>> >> >> >conclusion?
>>
>> >> >> Simple... when a "scientific" test cannot test what you believe it c=
>an =3D
>> >tes=3D3D
>> >> >t for.
>>
>> >> >> Citations already supplied... did you bother to read them?
>>
>> >> >> >5) Why was there NO damage to the seats or the carpet when the two
>> >> >> >fragments damaged the windshield and the chrome according to the WC=
>?
>>
>> >> >> Perhaps because no bullets struck the seats or carpet?
>> >> >> Perhaps because the search wasn't performed adequately?
>> >> >> Perhaps because the search was not intended to do anything more than=
> su=3D
>> >ppo=3D3D
>> >> >rt the
>> >> >> lone assassin?
>>
>> >> >> This is a topic that hasn't been discussed...
>>
>> >> >> >6) Why is there NO JFK DNA on either fragment IF they were part of =
>the=3D
>>
>> >> >> >head shot?
>>
>> >> >> Untrue. =3D3DA0An inability to gather enough DNA, not degraded, is n=
>ot pr=3D
>> >oof t=3D3D
>> >> >hat the
>> >> >> DNA was not of a particular individual.
>>
>> >> >> > 7) IF these two fragments are part of the same bullet, where is th=
>e
>> >> >> >middle section? (see below)
>>
>> >> >> Nope... The Earth *IS* round... we *DID* land on the moon... take yo=
>ur =3D
>> >sil=3D3D
>> >> >ly
>> >> >> questions and ask someone who believes that someone can fire only th=
>e n=3D
>> >ose=3D3D
>> >> > or
>> >> >> tail of a bullet out of a rifle...
>>
>> >> >> >It is time for school little Bennie,
>>
>> >> >> Ah, Samantha! =3D3DA0I wondered how long it would take before you st=
>arted=3D
>> > misu=3D3D
>> >> >sing my
>> >> >> name again.
>>
>> >> >> >sit down as the bell has rung. =3D3DA0I
>> >> >> >will now explain why your pencil analogy is faulty and how analogie=
>s
>> >> >> >are meant to be used.
>>
>> >> >> >You begin with a WHOLE pencil for yours, but there is NO proof the =
>two=3D
>>
>> >> >> >fragments ever formed a complete, single bullet.
>>
>> >> >> In order to prove that two fragments ORIGINALLY BELONGING ONLY TO A =
>SIN=3D
>> >GLE=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> PENCIL - but with no proof of this - showing that your logic that th=
>ey =3D
>> >mus=3D3D
>> >> >t
>> >> >> therefore be part of *TWO* pencils... can't work at all if you don't=
> *S=3D
>> >TAR=3D3D
>> >> >T*
>> >> >> with a single pencil.
>>
>> >> >> You continue to get confused about what is being demonstrated... but=
> st=3D
>> >upi=3D3D
>> >> >dity
>> >> >> *can* be cured... so I keep repeating the same explanation in as man=
>y d=3D
>> >iff=3D3D
>> >> >erent
>> >> >> ways as I can think of, in the hopes that you'll someday realize jus=
>t h=3D
>> >ow =3D3D
>> >> >stupid
>> >> >> you've been looking...
>>
>> >> >> >IOW, your example
>> >> >> >breaks a complete pencil into three parts =3D3D3D96 nose/point, bas=
>e, an=3D
>> >d
>> >> >> >middle section =3D3D3D96 but this was NOT proven to be true in our =
>case =3D
>> >as
>> >> >> >they could NOT match the two fragments.
>>
>> >> >> Yep... they could not.
>>
>> >> >> So now I give you two pencil fragments... both ends of a pencil - AN=
>D R=3D
>> >EFU=3D3D
>> >> >SE TO
>> >> >> TELL YOU WHETHER THEY ARE FROM ONE PENCIL, OR TWO PENCILS.
>>
>> >> >> Since you cannot determine by any physical means whether they origin=
>all=3D
>> >y w=3D3D
>> >> >ere a
>> >> >> part of one or two pencils, you must, therefore, claim that they are=
> fr=3D
>> >om =3D3D
>> >> >two
>> >> >> pencils.
>>
>> >> >> And you'd be stupid to do so.
>>
>> >> >> >Therefore, the nose could
>> >> >> >have come from one bullet, the base could have come from another
>> >> >> >bullet, and finally the middle section could have been part of eith=
>er
>> >> >> >previous bullet, or part of another (if there was one at all as it
>> >> >> >could have been a complete bullet that disintegrated completely).
>> >> >> >This is why Bennie=3D3D3D92s analogy is faulty, he is presuming som=
>ethin=3D
>> >g not=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> >in evidence or proven.
>>
>> >> >> How many pencils do I have? =3D3DA0You have the two fragments...
>>
>> >> >> >Analogies are examples of similar events with the same set of
>> >> >> >circumstances,
>>
>> >> >> I've given you two fragments... how many original pencils were there=
>?
>>
>> >> >> Remember - IT'S PHYSICALLY NOT POSSIBLE TO MATCH THEM TO ONE SINGLE =
>PEN=3D
>> >CIL=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> You could easily exclude them from being from the same pencil, say, =
>for=3D
>> > ex=3D3D
>> >> >ample
>> >> >> if the 'lead' composition were different.
>>
>> >> >> >but his does not follow this pattern. =3D3DA0A great analogy
>> >> >> >would be this (and I=3D3D3D92m not wishing anything bad on you Ben)=
>:
>>
>> >> >> >Ben has two lumps on his body, he goes to the doctor=3D3D3D92s offi=
>ce, a=3D
>> >nd
>> >> >> >they run a full battery of tests and tell him they came back
>> >> >> >negative. =3D3DA0This means medically he does NOT have cancer, but =
>the
>> >> >> >doctor then says even though the tests were negative, he could stil=
>l
>> >> >> >have cancer. =3D3DA0IOW, they can=3D3D3D92t say he does have cancer=
>, but t=3D
>> >hey can=3D3D
>> >> >=3D3D3D92t
>> >> >> >say he doesn=3D3D3D92t have cancer. =3D3DA0Would you accept this Be=
>n?
>>
>> >> >> Of course. =3D3DA0It's what my original analogy would have led you t=
>o bel=3D
>> >ieve.=3D3D
>> >> > =3D3DA0IT'S
>> >> >> NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE WHETHER THE 'FRAGMENTS' CAME FROM ONE PENCIL O=
>R T=3D
>> >WO.=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> Yet you still can't simply admit so...
>>
>> >> >> >Would you
>> >> >> >ever go to this doctor again?
>>
>> >> >> Depends on the doctor... I might get a second opinion, or I might ha=
>ve =3D
>> >use=3D3D
>> >> >d this
>> >> >> same doctor for many years... and trust his opinion.
>>
>> >> >> >This is what the WC wants us to accept
>> >> >> >with the two fragments. =3D3DA0They were covering all there bases b=
>ut in=3D
>>
>> >> >> >medicine and science things don=3D3D3D92t work this way.
>>
>> >> >> Only in your ignorant world...
>>
>> >> >> >They CAN'T be both
>> >> >> >NOT from the same bullet, yet at the same time from the same bullet=
>.
>>
>> >> >> Yes they can. =3D3DA0You see, no-one said that they could not be fro=
>m the=3D
>> > same=3D3D
>> >> > bullet.
>> >> >> You lied previously on this same topic.
>>
>> >> >> You can't quote ANY expert testimony to that effect.
>>
>> >> >> I *HAVE* given citations that apply.
>>
>> >> >> You continue to refuse to provide citations for these silly statemen=
>ts.=3D
>>
>> >> >> (I really like your confusion of ballistic testing with NAA testing.=
>..)=3D
>>
>> >> >> >Ben won=3D3D3D92t prove there was a middle section that connected t=
>he tw=3D
>> >o
>> >> >> >fragments, he says this is silly.
>>
>> >> >> Yep... it is. =3D3DA0The Earth isn't flat, either...
>>
>> >> >> >Why I ask when he keeps insisting
>> >> >> >the two fragments could easily have come from the same bullet. =3D3=
>DA0It=3D