45 Questions, One by One (#31)

Ben Holmes

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 10:17:26 AM10/12/07

to

Yesterday's posting on the contradiction of the Autopsy Report and the BOH photo
had ZERO LNT'er responses... These questions must truly be embarrassing the
LNT'er crowd...

31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the point of
outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice, for example, or
the date that Oswald left England...

Even trolls will be hard put to argue that these are 'disagreements' - they
certainly can't defend (by means of *any* reasonable explanation) for why the WC
simply lied about the date Oswald left England.

cdddraftsman

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 11:13:44 AM10/12/07

to

Yes , lets not forget about Mrs. Tice , the prosector in the JFK
autopsy
who said " This man looks dead whats he doing here in my kitchen " ?
Big Snicker ! :-) ...........tl

aeffects

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 12:48:24 PM10/12/07

to

you're irrelevant, dolt! Not even good for a laugh now and then......

Bud

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 1:23:53 PM10/12/07

to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> Yesterday's posting on the contradiction of the Autopsy Report and the BOH photo
> had ZERO LNT'er responses... These questions must truly be embarrassing the
> LNT'er crowd...

The "LNT crowd" isn`t much interested in your claims, opinions and
assumptions. You say very little, produce nothing to support the very
little you say.

> 31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the point of
> outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice, for example, or
> the date that Oswald left England...

You`d think if Ben had a point, he`d make it. Being retarded, he
name drops, alludes to something, and challenges others to fill in
what he is too lazy too produce.

> Even trolls will be hard put to argue that these are 'disagreements' - they
> certainly can't defend (by means of *any* reasonable explanation) for why the WC
> simply lied about the date Oswald left England.

What does this have to do with whether Oswald killed JFK?

aeffects

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 1:41:55 PM10/12/07

to

On Oct 12, 10:23 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Yesterday's posting on the contradiction of the Autopsy Report and the BOH photo
> > had ZERO LNT'er responses... These questions must truly be embarrassing the
> > LNT'er crowd...
>
> The "LNT crowd" isn`t much interested in your claims, opinions and
> assumptions. You say very little, produce nothing to support the very
> little you say.
>
> > 31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the point of
> > outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice, for example, or
> > the date that Oswald left England...
>
> You`d think if Ben had a point, he`d make it. Being retarded, he
> name drops, alludes to something, and challenges others to fill in
> what he is too lazy too produce.

pretty simple even a LNT dolt such as yourself should be able to
figure it out: the SBT/LHO/WCR doesn't cut it chum, its been found
wanting....

Ben Holmes

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 1:53:14 PM10/12/07

to

In article <1192207704.1...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
says...

Yet again, when responses like this are the best that the LNT'er side can come
up with - it merely illustrates the weakness of the LNT'er side.

Lies and jokes are the rule, not the exception - when it comes to the LNT'ers.

And while it *should* be embarrassing, they clearly don't recognize what fools
they make of themselves.

>you're irrelevant, dolt! Not even good for a laugh now and then......

I thought it was *far* funnier when one of the LNT'ers kept confusing
"prosector" with "prosecutor".

Ben Holmes

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 2:06:40 PM10/12/07

to

In article <1192210915....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
says...

>
>On Oct 12, 10:23 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Yesterday's posting on the contradiction of the Autopsy Report and
>>> the BOH photo had ZERO LNT'er responses... These questions must truly
>>> be embarrassing the LNT'er crowd...
>>
>> The "LNT crowd" isn`t much interested in your claims, opinions and
>> assumptions. You say very little, produce nothing to support the very
>> little you say.

Of course this is the only possible response!

Since no LNT'er can answer these questions concerning the evidence - LNT'ers
have to pretend that it doesn't mean anything.

>>> 31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the
>>> point of outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice,
>>> for example, or the date that Oswald left England...
>>
>> You`d think if Ben had a point, he`d make it.

Just did. The WC lied about their own evidence. I've previously gone into
great detail, and the answers from the LNT'er side were identical to the ones
I'm getting now - either dead silence or denial.

>> Being retarded, he
>> name drops, alludes to something, and challenges others to fill in
>> what he is too lazy too produce.

Why bother to lie? The WC did, and you can't defend it. You do so here, and
it's merely pointed out.

As for "alluding"... I've posted in detail before... here it is again:

***********************************************************************
The only other person besides Kantor who recalled seeing Ruby at the hospital
did not make known her observation until April 1964, had never seen Ruby before,
allegedly saw him only briefly then, had an obstructed view, and was uncertain
of the time. (WCR 336)

But, let's take a look at Mrs. Tice's actual testimony - to see if the WC was
telling the truth or not:

Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did this man that you think was Jack Ruby, how long did he
stand out there next to you?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about 3 feet from them.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Where was he standing in relation to you. Was he in front of you or
behind you, or off to the side, or where was he?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about like this, and they were standing there, but I
was being nosey and listening.
Mr. GRIFFIN. In other words, this man was off to the side 4 or 5 feet distant
from you, the distance from you to me?
Mrs. TICE. This man that I say was Jack Ruby was about 3 feet from me, I guess,
about as far as you are from me.
Mr. GRIFFIN. You could only see the side of his face, I take it?
Mrs. TICE. Jack Ruby's?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. (15H 392)

Mr. GRIFFIN. So Jack actually was a little bit in front of you?
Mrs. TICE. Yes; I guess.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you put an R where Ruby was? (Mrs. Tice marks.)
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, a man walked up to him and tapped him on the shoulder?
Mrs. TICE. The man came right down this way, over this way and slapped him on
the shoulder and asked him how he was doing.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And at that point Jack turned around?
Mrs. TICE. At that point Jack turned around and started talking to him. At the
time, he was facing right toward me. (15H 394)

The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby - attempting to
state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony shows that Ruby was just
3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs. Tice. The WC *cited* her
testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware that their own evidence
contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the WC would argue that Mrs. Tice
had never seen Jack Ruby before... they didn't appear to be embarrassed that
Brennan had never seen Oswald before...

Another lie of the WC that LNT'ers can't refute... Interestingly, the last time
I posted this - not a single LNT'er responded. It's a little hard when the
facts go against you, isn't it?
***********************************************************************

Bud won't answer it this time, either... Which is, of course, one of the
reasons he's killfiled. Life is too short...

>pretty simple even a LNT dolt such as yourself should be able to
>figure it out: the SBT/LHO/WCR doesn't cut it chum, its been found
>wanting....

Yet Bud's only responses seem to be filed under "Denial"... but the fact is,
he's not unaware of all this, merely dishonest.

>>> Even trolls will be hard put to argue that these are 'disagreements'
>>> - they certainly can't defend (by means of *any* reasonable explanation)
>>> for why the WC simply lied about the date Oswald left England.
>>
>> What does this have to do with whether Oswald killed JFK?

It's simple enough to say, Bud... "The WC Lied"... come on, you can say it...
the evidence I've given on this forum persuasively demonstrates it... the fact
that you're too dishonest to simply admit it bodes ill for your theory on the
case.

For once you *admit* that the WC lied, you'd have to provide a reasonable theory
to explain why they lied.

And *that*, you can't do.

aeffects

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 2:37:15 PM10/12/07

to

On Oct 12, 8:13 am, cdddraftsman <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote:

you're irrelevant, dolt! Not even good for a laugh now and then......

cdddraftsman

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 5:49:52 PM10/12/07

to

On Oct 12, 10:53 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
wrote:
> In article <1192207704.197271.230...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects

> "prosector" with "prosecutor".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You can prosecute a autopsy and also be the prosector , dumb
shit ! .....tl

cdddraftsman

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 5:53:16 PM10/12/07

to

On Oct 12, 11:37 am, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (Snipped)

How's this for a good laugher ? The Honeymoons over catcher ! :

Oswald shoot :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBeMaEwwvwU

The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikIRB3lvFvw&mode=related&search=
Lining up the "magic" bullet :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0&mode=related&search=
Vincent Bugliosi - No Evidence for JFK / Oswald Conspiracies :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JktLkQbtVbE&mode=related&search=

Bud

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 5:54:35 PM10/12/07

to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1192210915....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
> >
> >On Oct 12, 10:23 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> >> Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> Yesterday's posting on the contradiction of the Autopsy Report and
> >>> the BOH photo had ZERO LNT'er responses... These questions must truly
> >>> be embarrassing the LNT'er crowd...
> >>
> >> The "LNT crowd" isn`t much interested in your claims, opinions and
> >> assumptions. You say very little, produce nothing to support the very
> >> little you say.
>
> Of course this is the only possible response!

Yah, it`s an accurate assessment of the situation.

> Since no LNT'er can answer these questions concerning the evidence - LNT'ers
> have to pretend that it doesn't mean anything.

They are your opinion, and your opinion doesn`t mean a thing.

> >>> 31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the
> >>> point of outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice,
> >>> for example, or the date that Oswald left England...
> >>
> >> You`d think if Ben had a point, he`d make it.
>
>
> Just did. The WC lied about their own evidence.

That is your opinion.

> I've previously gone into
> great detail, and the answers from the LNT'er side were identical to the ones
> I'm getting now - either dead silence or denial.

You claim you are doing a public service to the lurkers. Maybe they
aren`t as enamoured with your assertions as you seem to think they
are, maybe they want more than hot air, a little supporting
information to your claims.

> >> Being retarded, he
> >> name drops, alludes to something, and challenges others to fill in
> >> what he is too lazy too produce.
>
>
> Why bother to lie? The WC did, and you can't defend it. You do so here, and
> it's merely pointed out.
>
> As for "alluding"... I've posted in detail before... here it is again:

You may have posted this information before, but not in this post.
Why did you say I lied when I pointed out you didn`t include the
information you are now reluctantly including?

This is your opinion. Can you show that no contradictions can occur
in a massive government investigation except through dishonesty?

>attempting to
> state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony shows that Ruby was just
> 3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs. Tice. The WC *cited* her
> testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware that their own evidence
> contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the WC would argue that Mrs. Tice
> had never seen Jack Ruby before... they didn't appear to be embarrassed that
> Brennan had never seen Oswald before...
>
> Another lie of the WC that LNT'ers can't refute... Interestingly, the last time
> I posted this - not a single LNT'er responded. It's a little hard when the
> facts go against you, isn't it?
> ***********************************************************************
>
> Bud won't answer it this time, either...

I have no problem answering. You just don`t like the answers I
give. This is just "this must means this", as if whoever wrote that
section could not have honestly, yet mistakenly, come to the
conclusion that Tice`s view was obstructed. Ben did not produce the
diagram that Tice made for the WC showing the man she thought was Ruby
and the man "Ruby" was talking to. Perhaps that evidence made it
appear her view was obstructed.

> Which is, of course, one of the
> reasons he's killfiled. Life is too short...

It becomes longer by attacking a decades old investigation? Or does
i only seem longer?

> >pretty simple even a LNT dolt such as yourself should be able to
> >figure it out: the SBT/LHO/WCR doesn't cut it chum, its been found
> >wanting....
>
>
> Yet Bud's only responses seem to be filed under "Denial"... but the fact is,
> he's not unaware of all this, merely dishonest.

You bring these things up, I look at them, I remark on them. If
this is all you have after decades of effort to discredit the WC, I`d
say it`s safe.

> >>> Even trolls will be hard put to argue that these are 'disagreements'
> >>> - they certainly can't defend (by means of *any* reasonable explanation)
> >>> for why the WC simply lied about the date Oswald left England.
> >>
> >> What does this have to do with whether Oswald killed JFK?
>
>
> It's simple enough to say, Bud... "The WC Lied"...

Ok. Ben can`t show the WC lied.

> come on, you can say it...
> the evidence I've given on this forum persuasively demonstrates it... the fact
> that you're too dishonest to simply admit it bodes ill for your theory on the
> case.

You seem to think that the WC`s assertions hinge entirely on Tice`s
testimony. Are you sure that is the case?

> For once you *admit* that the WC lied, you'd have to provide a reasonable theory
> to explain why they lied.

I suppose I could wait until you prove they did lie, like an
interoffice memo from one Commission member to another stating that
this information needs to be misrepresented. You know, a smoking gun,
not a "this must mean this" construct. Why is it you can never produce
the real things you need, conspiracy actions require coordination and
communication, none of which you can produce. You are so desperate for
this type of evidence, you need to misinterpret and misrepresent
Katzenbach`s memo.

> And *that*, you can't do.

It`s a fairly meaningless point. If the WC really did fudge Tice`s
testimony a little to make their conclusion that Ruby was not a
Parkland seem a little stronger (you should be simpathetic to this,
you constantly fudge information to make the idea of conspiracy seem
stronger), it really doesn`t harm the "Oswald shot Kennedy alone"
position any.

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 12, 2007, 11:06:30 PM10/12/07

to

Jack Ruby's being at Parkland on Friday isn't the slightest bit
surprising (or conspiratorial). For some reason, CTers think that Ruby
being at PH = "a plot". (I guess some of the CT-Kooks think Jack MUST
have planted that bullet, since Ollie Stone says so.)

I think Ruby might very well have been at Parkland on Friday
afternoon. But...so what? How does that prove he planted any evidence
or was part of some covert "plot"? It proves no such thing. In fact,
his being there is in perfect character with what we know about Jack
Ruby.

Plus....If Ruby was at Parkland to plant evidence, why would he seek
out and acknowledge a person who knew Ruby on sight, Seth Kantor (by
Ruby's tugging on Kantor's jacket, per Kantor's WC testimony)?
Just...silly.

And don't forget about Ruby giving Connally a kidney (per Wilma Tice).
That one's a howl.

Bud

unread,

Oct 13, 2007, 9:57:55 PM10/13/07

to

What she told the FBI was that word was circulating outside
Parkland that Connally needed a kidney, and the man she identified as
Ruby said "Hell, I`ll give him one" (or words to that effect). Sounds
to me like something Ruby would say. Heres the FBI report...

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do

A few other interesting things I noticed in the FBI report that
differ from what she told the WC. In the FBI report, she says she
noticed "Ruby" because he was standing alone and hitting his hat
against his leg, and then a guy with a coat over his left arm came up,
and sort of clapped him on the shoulder and said "How you doing,
Jack" (or something like). She told the WC she never noticed "Ruby"
until the guy with the suitcase approached him... "When I first
noticed him was when the man walked up to him , because I thought he
was a detective or something, because he had a suitcase"

Another thing to consider is that Mrs Tice did not know Ruby`s
sisters before Ruby shot Oswald, she sought them out afterwards. It
was only *then* that she realized she had important information, after
interjecting herself with people associated with the case. She seems a
"Jean Hill" type to me. .Like a lot of CT, bored with active
imaginations. She went to Parkland against her husbands wishes,
showing a desire to be in the thick of things. She talked to reporters
aginst her husbands wishes. She contacted Ruby`s family against her
husband`s wishes. She spoke before the WC against her husband wishes.
She called her husband home from work because she thought there was a
prowler. Her husband had a funny line he told the FBI... "Hell, the
only thing I`m good for is chasing prowlers and buying groceries."
.

tomnln

unread,

Oct 14, 2007, 12:51:13 AM10/14/07

to

You keep MISSING THE POINT BUD;

The WCR LIEDE when they said Ruby was NOT at Parkland.

In Denial Like you in Denial about your homosexuality.

Care to address these?>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1192327075.5...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 14, 2007, 2:58:42 AM10/14/07

to

>>> "What she {Wilma Tice} told the FBI was that word was circulating outside Parkland that Connally needed a kidney, and the man she identified as Ruby said "Hell, I'll give him one" (or words to that effect). Sounds to me like something Ruby would say." <<<

Could very well be, Bud. Which, if it was actually Ruby who said this
remark about the "kidney", would indicate activity and conversation
being engaged in voluntarily by Jack Ruby at Parkland on Friday
afternoon which hardly adds up to "conspiracy" in any way at all.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Ruby (per Seth Kantor) tugged on
Kantor's coat to make sure Kantor saw Ruby there and then they chatted
for a little while.

And, per Tice, Ruby is making statements about donating a kidney to
the injured Gov. Connally.

Are those the actions of a conspirator who has just planted a bullet
on a stretcher inside the hospital (per Oliver Stone and many other
CTers who seem to believe such nonsense)?

Or -- Do CTers think that Ruby was playing it "smart" and "cool" after
(or before) planting the bullet in the hospital....by acting in a
regular "Ruby-like" fashion by slapping people on the back and talking
to different people and wanting to donate bodily organs to injured
Texas Governors and stuff like that there?

Maybe CTers think Ruby planted the bullet, but then felt like hanging
around the hospital parking lot for a period of time, while drawing
attention to himself.

But, IMO, that's curious activity for a covert plotter who should
probably want to keep a very low profile at the hospital and try to
disappear into the woodwork after performing his evil "planting"
function.

But, then again, maybe CTers think that Jacob Leon Rubenstein was no
average or ordinary "Plotter/Mob Hit Man".

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/77edb3f67ec3350a