> >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 ...

> read more »