Re: Biggest Pussy in Washington
Orville W. Edsel
> My vote goes to Arlen Specter.
>
It took huge balls to come up with that single-bullet theory.
David VP
It would have taken even larger 'nads (way larger!) for Arlen & Company
to have come up with anything OTHER than the logical (and
obviously-accurate) SBT.
I can just hear Arlen explaining the non-SBT scenario now -- an
explanation for an incredible THREE-SHOTS-LOOKS-LIKE-ONE shooting that
the Houdini riflemen pulled off on 11/22/63:
"We here at the Warren Commission have come to the conclusion that
President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by three separate
bullets (not counting the JFK head shot). These three bullets all
disappeared...somehow...not a one was recovered...we at the Commission
are at a loss to explain WHERE all of these missiles vanished to...but
I guess we'll just have to assume that they all just magically
evaporated into a puff of smoke just after the THREE (UNKNOWN AND
UNSEEN) SEPARATE GUNMEN squeezed off these rounds into the two victims.
"We at the Commission are also at a loss to explain just HOW the bullet
which entered Mr. Connally's back created a keyhole-shaped, elongated
entry wound. But, we'll just have to assume, I guess, that the bullet
started tumbling in mid-air after having hit nothing but Dallas, Texas,
atmosphere between the rifleman's weapon and the Governor's back. Oh,
well.
"Also...we at the WC are somewhat stumped as to WHY two separate
bullets just stopped dead inside JFK's neck and back, with neither
bullet causing an exit wound after entering. Oh, well.
"We're also scratching our collective WC heads as to WHY President
Kennedy had absolutely no lead traces from these two whole bullets
(both, of course, which were "Magical Disappearing Bullets" as I
mentioned earlier) inside his neck or upper back. Oh, well.
"We at the WC are also a little puzzled as to HOW in the world Governor
Connally was struck by a separate shot in the back, even though he was
seated directly in front of JFK in the car. Given the bullet's entry
point on Mr. Connally's back and its downward and slightly
right-to-left course through JBC's body, it would seem to us at the
Commission that this bullet would have probably had to have passed
through someone sitting behind the Governor prior to striking Mr.
Connally. But, CTers have told us that this one-bullet scenario must be
impossible...so I guess we'll have to think of a non-SBT way for this
bullet to get to Connally by not travelling through the man sitting
behind JBC. Oh well...we'll try another theory I guess.
"Another 'WC Stumper' for us dumbbells in Washington is the amazing
"lining up" of the three wounds on the two victims -- with the back
wounds on JFK & JBC plus the wound on the front of JFK's neck seemingly
lining up pretty doggone close (if not to near perfection) to being at
an approx. 17-degree downward angle through the men, which is, as it
turns out by gosh, to be an angle that leads back to a 6th-Floor window
in a building where a certain rifle with the serial number "C2766" was
found at 1:22 PM on November 22 (just 52 minutes after JFK & JBC were
shot by these {at least} three separate gunmen in Dealey Plaza). Oh
well, just a pure coincidence I guess. I'll mark it down as such a
coincidence...but I want these incredible shooters/marksmen on MY side
in the next war, by golly, I'll tell ya that right now!
"We at the Commission, after looking long and hard at the Abraham
Zapruder home movie of the assassination, are also a tad bit perplexed
at just exactly HOW these THREE SEPARATE (ace) shooters in DP were able
to fire in perfect, or near-perfect, synchronization from their three
separate locations within Dealey Plaza so to have struck the two
victims with these three shots/bullets at a point in time (per the
Zapruder home movie) to make it appear that both men were struck
initially by bullets at an identical point in time. (Specter notes to
himself in private -- Maybe the film has been "altered" in some
manner....consult a certain 'Mr. Fetzer' for further info on this
possibility; because sans "alteration" of said motion picture, it looks
to the Commission as if this 3-bullet scenario is full of crappola.)
"The WC is also in a quandry over the NAA analysis, which concluded
that the Connally wrist fragments "most likely" came from bullet CE399
found at Parkland. But, if the WC is to believe the words of valid and
bona fide CT researchers who have studied this case long and hard, 399
was "planted" by evil henchmen in the hospital. (Note to self: Figure
out a way to make myself believe that there was ANY way in hell that
some crazy, suicidal conspirator(s) would have WANTED to risk blowing
the conspiracy plot wide open by planting a bullet on a Parkland
stretcher before 2:00 PM (CST) on 11/22/63, a time when Governor
Connally was still in the operating room and, hence, no "plotters" had
the slightest friggin' idea where all the "real" bullets connected with
the assassination were located. Then...call Vince Bugliosi in Minnesota
or L.A. -- I need to talk to someone with a grip on reality here.)" *
* = Paraphrased transcript of Arlen Specter's probable notes re. an SBT
alternative, dated 09/08/1964. Exact verbiage may vary from final
notebook of Mr. Specter...but, rest assured, whatever the final
verbatim version of such a notebook would have looked like, the end
result is undoubtedly just as laughable and impossibly ridiculous.
A Common-Sense Approach To The Single-Bullet Theory:
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=28318
the Bede
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143546357.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
simmer down, beavis.
Anthony Marsh
I can't figure out what your sarcasm is supposed to mean.
As late as April internal memos show that the WC was prepared to issue
the finding that there were three shots and three hits, with Connally
hit by a separate bullet. They never attempted to account for missing
bullets and missing fragments. Hell, they had to be hit over the head
several times to account for Tague's being wounded. It took Specter to
rescue them.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "It took huge balls to come up with that single-bullet theory."
>
>
>It would have taken even larger 'nads (way larger!) for Arlen & Company
>to have come up with anything OTHER than the logical (and
>obviously-accurate) SBT.
"Logical and obviously-accurate"??? How silly. It's not exactly a secret that
the SBT was the only alternative to a finding of multiple assassins. And those
who were there that day have little doubt.
This explains the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses... no-one *wanted* the truth
to come out.
All the eyewitnesses to extra bullet strikes were simply ignored. Photos in the
newpaper showing a bullet being dug up were simply ignored. Tague was ignored
until it became clear to the WC that he couldn't be.
>I can just hear Arlen explaining the non-SBT scenario now -- an
>explanation for an incredible THREE-SHOTS-LOOKS-LIKE-ONE shooting that
>the Houdini riflemen pulled off on 11/22/63:
There's your mistake. It *wasn't* just three shots.
>"We here at the Warren Commission have come to the conclusion that
>President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by three separate
>bullets (not counting the JFK head shot). These three bullets all
>disappeared...somehow...not a one was recovered...
Ah, but they *were*. They simply disappeared into the evidence collection
machine that was intent on covering up what happened.
This is why everything was immediately, and illegally, whisked out of DPD
jurisdiction.
Sometimes, mistakes were made... such as when the FBI inventoried themselves a
Minox camera that they really didn't want to be on the inventory... but no-one
is perfect, mistakes were made.
>we at the Commission
>are at a loss to explain WHERE all of these missiles vanished to...but
>I guess we'll just have to assume that they all just magically
>evaporated into a puff of smoke just after the THREE (UNKNOWN AND
>UNSEEN) SEPARATE GUNMEN squeezed off these rounds into the two victims.
But they *weren't* unseen. This, of course, is the fatal flaw of your silly
rant. There *were* eyewitnesses to others with guns that day.
>"We at the Commission are also at a loss to explain just HOW the bullet
>which entered Mr. Connally's back created a keyhole-shaped, elongated
>entry wound.
But ballistics experts aren't.
>But, we'll just have to assume, I guess, that the bullet
>started tumbling in mid-air after having hit nothing but Dallas, Texas,
>atmosphere between the rifleman's weapon and the Governor's back. Oh,
>well.
Not necessary.
>"Also...we at the WC are somewhat stumped as to WHY two separate
>bullets just stopped dead inside JFK's neck and back, with neither
>bullet causing an exit wound after entering. Oh, well.
You are also stumped as to JFK's obvious medical problems that required chest
insertion tubes. They can't be explained by *your* silly theory.
Nor, of course, can the actual eyewitness testimony concerning the physical
appearence of the neck wound.
>"We're also scratching our collective WC heads as to WHY President
>Kennedy had absolutely no lead traces from these two whole bullets
>(both, of course, which were "Magical Disappearing Bullets" as I
>mentioned earlier) inside his neck or upper back. Oh, well.
Untrue, of course. There *were* traces on the clothing for the back, and *NO*
traces for the mythical collar "exit".
But don't worry... ignorance can be cured.
>"We at the WC are also a little puzzled as to HOW in the world Governor
>Connally was struck by a separate shot in the back, even though he was
>seated directly in front of JFK in the car.
This is just too silly! LOL!!
>Given the bullet's entry
>point on Mr. Connally's back and its downward and slightly
>right-to-left course through JBC's body, it would seem to us at the
>Commission that this bullet would have probably had to have passed
>through someone sitting behind the Governor prior to striking Mr.
>Connally.
When you have to lie to make a point, have you really said anything?
>But, CTers have told us that this one-bullet scenario must be
>impossible...so I guess we'll have to think of a non-SBT way for this
>bullet to get to Connally by not travelling through the man sitting
>behind JBC. Oh well...we'll try another theory I guess.
>
>"Another 'WC Stumper' for us dumbbells in Washington is the amazing
>"lining up" of the three wounds on the two victims -- with the back
>wounds on JFK & JBC plus the wound on the front of JFK's neck seemingly
>lining up pretty doggone close (if not to near perfection) to being at
>an approx. 17-degree downward angle through the men,
Again, if you need to lie about the facts, why would you bother?
>which is, as it
>turns out by gosh, to be an angle that leads back to a 6th-Floor window
>in a building where a certain rifle with the serial number "C2766" was
>found at 1:22 PM on November 22 (just 52 minutes after JFK & JBC were
>shot by these {at least} three separate gunmen in Dealey Plaza). Oh
>well, just a pure coincidence I guess. I'll mark it down as such a
>coincidence...but I want these incredible shooters/marksmen on MY side
>in the next war, by golly, I'll tell ya that right now!
>
>"We at the Commission, after looking long and hard at the Abraham
>Zapruder home movie of the assassination, are also a tad bit perplexed
>at just exactly HOW these THREE SEPARATE (ace) shooters in DP were able
>to fire in perfect, or near-perfect, synchronization from their three
>separate locations within Dealey Plaza so to have struck the two
>victims with these three shots/bullets at a point in time (per the
>Zapruder home movie) to make it appear that both men were struck
>initially by bullets at an identical point in time.
Again, why lie? This isn't the truth, and I'm sure you know it.
>(Specter notes to
>himself in private -- Maybe the film has been "altered" in some
>manner....consult a certain 'Mr. Fetzer' for further info on this
>possibility; because sans "alteration" of said motion picture, it looks
>to the Commission as if this 3-bullet scenario is full of crappola.)
>
>"The WC is also in a quandry over the NAA analysis, which concluded
>that the Connally wrist fragments "most likely" came from bullet CE399
>found at Parkland.
They are in so much of a quandry, that they refuse to release the results. Why
bother to lie?
>But, if the WC is to believe the words of valid and
>bona fide CT researchers who have studied this case long and hard, 399
>was "planted" by evil henchmen in the hospital. (Note to self: Figure
>out a way to make myself believe that there was ANY way in hell that
>some crazy, suicidal conspirator(s) would have WANTED to risk blowing
>the conspiracy plot wide open by planting a bullet on a Parkland
>stretcher before 2:00 PM (CST) on 11/22/63, a time when Governor
>Connally was still in the operating room and, hence, no "plotters" had
>the slightest friggin' idea where all the "real" bullets connected with
>the assassination were located. Then...call Vince Bugliosi in Minnesota
>or L.A. -- I need to talk to someone with a grip on reality here.)" *
Strawman... why not deal with the *real* likely event? That a bullet found was
switched?
>* = Paraphrased transcript of Arlen Specter's probable notes re. an SBT
>alternative, dated 09/08/1964. Exact verbiage may vary from final
>notebook of Mr. Specter...but, rest assured, whatever the final
>verbatim version of such a notebook would have looked like, the end
>result is undoubtedly just as laughable and impossibly ridiculous.
>
>
>A Common-Sense Approach To The Single-Bullet Theory:
>
>www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=28318
>
>www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1557831270
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1143546357.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
>>>> "It took huge balls to come up with that single-bullet theory."
>>
>> It would have taken even larger 'nads (way larger!) for Arlen & Company
>> to have come up with anything OTHER than the logical (and
>> obviously-accurate) SBT.
>
> "Logical and obviously-accurate"??? How silly. It's not exactly a secret that
> the SBT was the only alternative to a finding of multiple assassins. And those
> who were there that day have little doubt.
>
> This explains the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses... no-one *wanted* the truth
> to come out.
>
And the Dallas cops within minutes.
> All the eyewitnesses to extra bullet strikes were simply ignored. Photos in the
> newpaper showing a bullet being dug up were simply ignored. Tague was ignored
> until it became clear to the WC that he couldn't be.
>
What photo showing a bullet being dug up? You are confused.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
David VP
SBT.
Let's face it, the shooting DID occur -- these men WERE injured --
somebody WAS shooting at them.
Lacking the SBT, WHAT IS THE CORRECT BULLET-BY-BULLET SCENARIO??
No CTer EVER wants to tackle THAT tiny little matter. Which says a
lot...because NO CTer can do that without making a total goof out of
themselves!
Three bullets lining up to near SBT perfection?
Three bullets magically "getting lost"?
Two bullets enter Kennedy and never exit -- and these bullets JUST
HAPPEN to line up for a nice "path" for Specter's theory?
Connally's elongated back wound? (Make it "tangential", kids...that
oughta satisfy 'em.)
NO other theory matches the EVIDENCE and, above all, the COMMON SENSE
that the SBT matches.
(And, oh yes, let's see you get Connally hit where he was hit in the
back with that bullet not only tumbling, but NOT HITTING KENNEDY
FIRST....yet another pro-CT piece of silliness to reconcile. Good luck
with all of these sticky-wickets. But, as per the norm, we'll never,
EVER hear even ONE CTer offer up a bullet-by-bullet BELIEVABLE scenario
to take the SBT's place. But I'd love to see them at least TRY.)
aeffects
David VP
Nah...Vincent told me he was gonna pay me a small pct. of his book
profits if I could scour the Internet world of kooks and find JUST ONE
conspiracy theorist who could put forth a reasonable, sensible, and
above all BELIEVABLE pro-conspiracy version of the events of 11/22/63
(esp. with regard to the SBT).
I haven't had any luck finding my elusive prey to date. You know where
I could find such a CTer? (I'll give ya part of my profits if you help
me out just this one time...thanks.)
Anyway, that was a great retort you made there. That was a fabulous
alternate theory to the SBT you posted in your last say-nothing reply.
Want another crack at it?
Why not start by telling the world WHY there would even have been a
NEED to have three separate gunmen mow down President Kennedy ALL AT
THE EXACT SAME 1-second or 2-second point in time when the SBT shot is
occurring (I gave you an extra bit of time there, to even account for
some "delayed reactions" by the victims, etc.)?
Via almost every CT looney-toon theory I've read (save Robert "No Shots
>From The SN" Groden's ultra-nonsensical variants), there would have
been NO WAY in Hades that anyone but the "Oswald Look-alike" would have
taken a shot THAT EARLY in the shooting timeline (i.e., several seconds
prior to when the "necessary" head shot occurs, per CTers).
And yet, via ANY non-SBT theory, the CTers NEED and HAVE to have THREE
separate shooters plugging away at virtually the very same instant!
So, which theory do you want to accept? --
The "No way any frontal shooter fires unless absolutely necessary"
theory?
Or:
The "Everybody fires really EARLY in the assassination attempt to make
sure the crime can't possibly be traced back to just one oddball in the
TSBD" theory?*
* = That last one can only succeed in a "Patsy" context, of course, if
the three gunmen are all magician shooters and can somehow shoot three
bullets into multiple victims (including an UNINTENDED TARGET) at just
the proper angles to make it fool Specter, et al, into thinking that
just maybe only one bullet did all the damage. And, naturally, all the
"real" bullets have to be of that special "Disappearing Before Any
Non-Plotter Sees Them" brand of magic CT missiles.
It's your choice....but neither is really any better than sticking your
head in the toilet and giving it a quick flush.
David VP
President Kennedy had absolutely no lead traces from these two whole
bullets (both, of course, which were "Magical Disappearing Bullets" as
I mentioned earlier) inside his neck or upper back."
SOME CT GOOF: "Untrue, of course. There *were* traces on the clothing
for the back, and *NO* traces for the mythical collar "exit". But don't
worry... ignorance can be cured."
Too bad yours can't be cured ... I said "INSIDE" JFK's neck &
back...not on the outside/clothing. Learn to read.
Any non-SBT theory has TWO bullets stopping inside Kennedy and
obviously hitting SOMETHING to produce the 100% stoppage of said TWO
bullets. Did they "collide" with each other? Hey, there's a brainstorm
of a CT...try that one....but then, WHERE is the trace (lead) evidence
INSIDE the body? It ain't there. Why not?
The 'Why Not?' also applies, of course, outside of my fictional "the
bullets collided" joke....where is the lead INSIDE JFK's neck/back as a
result of TWO missiles that hit something causing both bullets to stop
forward progress?
Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
>> In article <1143546357.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>>>>> "It took huge balls to come up with that single-bullet theory."
>>>
>>> It would have taken even larger 'nads (way larger!) for Arlen & Company
>>> to have come up with anything OTHER than the logical (and
>>> obviously-accurate) SBT.
>>
>> "Logical and obviously-accurate"??? How silly. It's not exactly a
>> secret that the SBT was the only alternative to a finding of multiple
>> assassins. And those who were there that day have little doubt.
>>
>> This explains the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses... no-one *wanted*
>> the truth to come out.
>>
>
>And the Dallas cops within minutes.
>
>> All the eyewitnesses to extra bullet strikes were simply ignored.
>> Photos in the newpaper showing a bullet being dug up were simply ignored.
>> Tague was ignored until it became clear to the WC that he couldn't be.
>>
>
>What photo showing a bullet being dug up? You are confused.
Why bother to lie, Tony? Many people are familiar with the photo. Even *you*
have seen it many times.
Come on, Tony; let's hear you deny it. When you do, I'll cite it.
Being a apologist for the WC is tiring, isn't it?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Only an outright fool could believe in an "alternate" theory to the
>SBT.
Hmmm... that puts the Secret Service and FBI in the "fool" category - since
neither organization ever fell in line with the SBT. Both were proponents of
the "3 bullets, 3 strikes" theory.
>Let's face it, the shooting DID occur -- these men WERE injured --
>somebody WAS shooting at them.
Let's face it, the shooting DID occur -- these men WERE injured --
people WERE shooting at them.
>Lacking the SBT, WHAT IS THE CORRECT BULLET-BY-BULLET SCENARIO??
Six Seconds in Dallas presented one proposal... TKOAP presented another, if I
took more than 10 seconds to think about it, I could probably list other authors
that have likewise attempted a recreation that fits the known evidence.
>No CTer EVER wants to tackle THAT tiny little matter.
You see?? When you have to lie to make a point, you haven't said anything at
all, other than that you're willing to lie to make a point. You certainly
haven't *made* a point.
>Which says a lot...because NO CTer can do that without making a total goof
>out of themselves!
>
>Three bullets lining up to near SBT perfection?
The SBT is the "SINGLE bullet theory" - only the ignorant can try fitting three
bullets into a single bullet theory.
But that's okay - because this is the forum where the ignorant can come and be
cured of their ignorance.
>Three bullets magically "getting lost"?
Presumably, you're speaking of the other shots fired that day. Actually, it's
not exactly common to be able to locate bullets fired. Check with your local
PD. You'll find that sometimes they *can* locate all bullets fired, and many
times they cannot.
Of course, in this case, it was a matter of switching evidence, or intentionally
'losing' it. The Minox camera being a well-documented example, no telling how
much went 'missing' with *no* documentation.
>Two bullets enter Kennedy and never exit -- and these bullets JUST
>HAPPEN to line up for a nice "path" for Specter's theory?
Ah! But they *don't*. You see, there's your problem!
>Connally's elongated back wound? (Make it "tangential", kids...that
>oughta satisfy 'em.)
No mystery there...
>NO other theory matches the EVIDENCE and, above all, the COMMON SENSE
>that the SBT matches.
Perhaps to the LNT'er crowd... but that's a rapidly shrinking minority of the
population. Ranking numerically similar with the numbers that believe in the
"Moon Hoax", or President Bush ordering the Twin Towers to be blown up...
>(And, oh yes, let's see you get Connally hit where he was hit in the
>back with that bullet not only tumbling, but NOT HITTING KENNEDY
>FIRST....
Incredibly easy... why not offer a real *challenge*??
This challenge is *identical* with stating that Connally's back *could not be
seen* from behind - yet all you have to do is read the eyewitness testimony, see
where they place shooters, and bingo!, you have the solution!
>yet another pro-CT piece of silliness to reconcile. Good luck
>with all of these sticky-wickets. But, as per the norm, we'll never,
>EVER hear even ONE CTer offer up a bullet-by-bullet BELIEVABLE scenario
>to take the SBT's place. But I'd love to see them at least TRY.)
It's been done a number of times. Ignorance *can* be cured.
David VP
That's a howl! You know what Mr. Groden's proposal is in TKOAP, do you
not? --- At least 8 shots fired (more probably 10, at least HALF are
complete misses too! Might be six, in fact; I'll have to re-check that;
but either figure is absurd; some great marksmen here in this theory,
huh?)....from 4 gunmen....and Zero shots fired from the SN window,
where Groden thinks the one patsy is being "framed" from!
Yeah...I'd be proud at suggesting TKOAP to "prove" my point re. a
"believable" shooting scenario. That's as rich as dark chocolate!
Thanks.
>> "If I took more than 10 seconds to think about it, I could probably list other authors that have likewise attempted a recreation that fits the known evidence."
~~Ricky Ricardo Laugh Ensues With Vigor Here~~
Please stop!
"That fits the known evidence?" -- You mean like the "known evidence"
in existence such as .... Only Oswald's gun & Oswald's
bullets/fragments being found ANYWHERE within a country mile within the
car, victims, and hospital? And the only known shooter being located,
and seen, firing from the 6th Floor of a brick building at 411 Elm?
THAT type of "known evidence"?
Name one "Conspiracy" author who postulates ANYTHING
reasonable/believable using THAT "known evidence". (Save John
Canal....who's in a unique category all to himself.)
>> "Actually, it's not exactly common to be able to locate bullets fired."
Even when TWO of them never exit a person's neck & back, per CTer
accounts of JFK's neck/back wounding?
Try again. Perhaps you can manage to look even more inept in your
arguments with still more practice.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>DVP : "We're also scratching our collective WC heads as to WHY
>President Kennedy had absolutely no lead traces from these two whole
>bullets (both, of course, which were "Magical Disappearing Bullets" as
>I mentioned earlier) inside his neck or upper back."
>
>SOME CT GOOF: "Untrue, of course. There *were* traces on the clothing
>for the back, and *NO* traces for the mythical collar "exit". But don't
>worry... ignorance can be cured."
>
>
>Too bad yours can't be cured ... I said "INSIDE" JFK's neck &
>back...not on the outside/clothing. Learn to read.
Ah! Your ignorance was merely of a different type. I made the natural
assumption that you knew what you were talking about.
You see, the police don't normally test the *edges of a wound* to locate copper
or lead. Proving that a bullet made the wound is virtually *never* a
consideration.
Now, would you like to provide your explanation for why copper was found on the
clothing for the back wound, but *NOT* found on the shirt collar?
Or would you like me to cure *that* bit of ignorance on your part as well?
Just say the word, I'm always happy to help!
>Any non-SBT theory has TWO bullets stopping inside Kennedy and
>obviously hitting SOMETHING to produce the 100% stoppage of said TWO
>bullets. Did they "collide" with each other? Hey, there's a brainstorm
>of a CT...try that one....but then, WHERE is the trace (lead) evidence
>INSIDE the body? It ain't there. Why not?
Actually, it is. You should go back and review the evidence.
>The 'Why Not?' also applies, of course, outside of my fictional "the
>bullets collided" joke....where is the lead INSIDE JFK's neck/back as a
>result of TWO missiles that hit something causing both bullets to stop
>forward progress?
When you propose a silly theory, you get a silly theory, nothing more.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "I think this guy gets paid by the tonnage, what a loon!"
>
>
>Nah...Vincent told me he was gonna pay me a small pct. of his book
>profits if I could scour the Internet world of kooks and find JUST ONE
>conspiracy theorist who could put forth a reasonable, sensible, and
>above all BELIEVABLE pro-conspiracy version of the events of 11/22/63
>(esp. with regard to the SBT).
>
>I haven't had any luck finding my elusive prey to date. You know where
>I could find such a CTer? (I'll give ya part of my profits if you help
>me out just this one time...thanks.)
>
>Anyway, that was a great retort you made there. That was a fabulous
>alternate theory to the SBT you posted in your last say-nothing reply.
>Want another crack at it?
>
>Why not start by telling the world WHY there would even have been a
>NEED to have three separate gunmen mow down President Kennedy ALL AT
>THE EXACT SAME 1-second or 2-second point in time when the SBT shot is
>occurring (I gave you an extra bit of time there, to even account for
>some "delayed reactions" by the victims, etc.)?
>
>Via almost every CT looney-toon theory I've read (save Robert "No Shots
>>From The SN" Groden's ultra-nonsensical variants), there would have
>been NO WAY in Hades that anyone but the "Oswald Look-alike" would have
>taken a shot THAT EARLY in the shooting timeline (i.e., several seconds
>prior to when the "necessary" head shot occurs, per CTers).
>
>And yet, via ANY non-SBT theory, the CTers NEED and HAVE to have THREE
>separate shooters plugging away at virtually the very same instant!
Amazing!! But don't worry, the Marine Corps performs this remarkable feat
virtually every day. We like to have a hundred or more shooters that *ALL SHOOT
WITHIN MERE SECONDS OF EACH OTHER*!
Amazing, isn't it? (All ready on the right? All ready on the left? ...)
That multiple shooters decided to shoot when the target appeared at the
appropriate place isn't really all that amazing... but merely another example of
the silliness that LNT'ers must contemplate.
>So, which theory do you want to accept? --
>
>The "No way any frontal shooter fires unless absolutely necessary"
>theory?
It *does* have the advantage of accounting for the evidence, doesn't it?
>Or:
>
>The "Everybody fires really EARLY in the assassination attempt to make
>sure the crime can't possibly be traced back to just one oddball in the
>TSBD" theory?*
The evidence *doesn't* support this silly idea. Simply read through the
eyewitness testimony, and look for descriptions of the shot pattern. The
overwhelming majority state one.......twothree, or one.....flurryofshots
Ignorance *can* be cured, simply read the 26 volumes.
>* = That last one can only succeed in a "Patsy" context, of course, if
>the three gunmen are all magician shooters and can somehow shoot three
>bullets into multiple victims (including an UNINTENDED TARGET) at just
>the proper angles to make it fool Specter, et al, into thinking that
>just maybe only one bullet did all the damage.
Specter wasn't fooled. He knew what he was doing. It was the only way to save
the idea that only two lone nuts were in Dallas that weekend.
>And, naturally, all the
>"real" bullets have to be of that special "Disappearing Before Any
>Non-Plotter Sees Them" brand of magic CT missiles.
The evidence is there. And well documented in recent posts...
>It's your choice....but neither is really any better than sticking your
>head in the toilet and giving it a quick flush.
Ignorance can't be cured this way... try simply reading the 26 volumes.
David VP
appropriate place isn't really all that amazing..."
And while they're performing this synchronized ballet of shots, they at
the same time are performing their amazing connect-the-wounds pattern
of holes in the two victims (one who is not even being aimed at) that
look remarkably like a straight-line path back to the SN window.
Truly Oscar-worthy, these shooters.
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >> "I think this guy gets paid by the tonnage, what a loon!"
>
>
> Nah...Vincent told me he was gonna pay me a small pct. of his book
> profits if I could scour the Internet world of kooks and find JUST ONE
> conspiracy theorist who could put forth a reasonable, sensible, and
> above all BELIEVABLE pro-conspiracy version of the events of 11/22/63
> (esp. with regard to the SBT).
> I haven't had any luck finding my elusive prey to date. You know where
> I could find such a CTer? (I'll give ya part of my profits if you help
> me out just this one time...thanks.)
hell, if you can't do THAT -- Vinnie is wasting bandwidth just talkin
to ya!
> Anyway, that was a great retort you made there. That was a fabulous
> alternate theory to the SBT you posted in your last say-nothing reply.
> Want another crack at it?
why bother -- you demonstrated, amply I migh add the extent of your
knowledge: NOT MUCH!
> Why not start by telling the world WHY there would even have been a
> NEED to have three separate gunmen mow down President Kennedy ALL AT
> THE EXACT SAME 1-second or 2-second point in time when the SBT shot is
> occurring (I gave you an extra bit of time there, to even account for
> some "delayed reactions" by the victims, etc.)?
Oh, silly guy -- shucking and jiving ain't gonna cut it here....
> Via almost every CT looney-toon theory I've read (save Robert "No Shots
> >From The SN" Groden's ultra-nonsensical variants), there would have
> been NO WAY in Hades that anyone but the "Oswald Look-alike" would have
> taken a shot THAT EARLY in the shooting timeline (i.e., several seconds
> prior to when the "necessary" head shot occurs, per CTers).
> And yet, via ANY non-SBT theory, the CTers NEED and HAVE to have THREE
> separate shooters plugging away at virtually the very same instant!
we do? what case are YOU reviewing?
> So, which theory do you want to accept? --
>
> The "No way any frontal shooter fires unless absolutely necessary"
> theory?
Be an upfront guy, give daBug his retainer back -- word tonnage,
unacceptable.
Close the door on your way out!
aeffects
All ready on the firing line... wasting your time Ben -- VonPain hasn't
a clue
Ben Holmes
couldn't answer.
I wouldn't want lurkers to think that your ignorance hasn't been cured:
In article <1143601448....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>Only an outright fool could believe in an "alternate" theory to the
>SBT.
Hmmm... that puts the Secret Service and FBI in the "fool" category - since
neither organization ever fell in line with the SBT. Both were proponents of
the "3 bullets, 3 strikes" theory.
>Let's face it, the shooting DID occur -- these men WERE injured --
>somebody WAS shooting at them.
Let's face it, the shooting DID occur -- these men WERE injured --
people WERE shooting at them.
>Lacking the SBT, WHAT IS THE CORRECT BULLET-BY-BULLET SCENARIO??
Six Seconds in Dallas presented one proposal... TKOAP presented another, if I
took more than 10 seconds to think about it, I could probably list other authors
that have likewise attempted a recreation that fits the known evidence.
>No CTer EVER wants to tackle THAT tiny little matter.
You see?? When you have to lie to make a point, you haven't said anything at
all, other than that you're willing to lie to make a point. You certainly
haven't *made* a point.
>Which says a lot...because NO CTer can do that without making a total goof
>out of themselves!
>
>Three bullets lining up to near SBT perfection?
The SBT is the "SINGLE bullet theory" - only the ignorant can try fitting three
bullets into a single bullet theory.
But that's okay - because this is the forum where the ignorant can come and be
cured of their ignorance.
>Three bullets magically "getting lost"?
Presumably, you're speaking of the other shots fired that day. Actually, it's
No mystery there...
Now... on to your rather severely snipped up response:
In article <1143648320.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> "TKOAP presented another {bullet-by-bullet version of the shooting}..."
>
>That's a howl!
What? That you were unaware of any CT'er versions that contradict the silly
SBT? And I provided two of them off the top of my head?
Ignorance *can* be cured...
>You know what Mr. Groden's proposal is in TKOAP, do you
>not? --- At least 8 shots fired (more probably 10, at least HALF are
>complete misses too!
Yep... there's eyewitness testimony to misses that day... as well as physical
marks showing where bullets hit.
Something that the WC's SBT can't explain.
>Might be six, in fact; I'll have to re-check that;
>but either figure is absurd; some great marksmen here in this theory,
>huh?)....
It's clear that you've not had much experience with shooting, or knowledge of
shooting expertise levels...
>from 4 gunmen....and Zero shots fired from the SN window,
>where Groden thinks the one patsy is being "framed" from!
Yep... LHO *was* framed. There's evidence that illustrates this, such as the
negative paraffin cheek caste, or the eyewitness accounts placing him on the 1st
or 2nd floor after noon.
>Yeah...I'd be proud at suggesting TKOAP to "prove" my point re. a
>"believable" shooting scenario. That's as rich as dark chocolate!
>Thanks.
Feel free, to point out any statement given regarding the proposed shooting
scheme - along with the EVIDENCE that contradicts it.
I suspect that your ignorance will forbid you from making such an attempt.
But don't worry... ignorance can be cured...
>> "If I took more than 10 seconds to think about it, I could probably list
>> other authors that have likewise attempted a recreation that fits the known
>> evidence."
>
>
>~~Ricky Ricardo Laugh Ensues With Vigor Here~~
>
>Please stop!
What? Listing facts contradictory to your ignorance? Sorry, your ignorance
wouldn't be cured if I didn't present information that you aren't aware of.
>"That fits the known evidence?" -- You mean like the "known evidence"
>in existence such as .... Only Oswald's gun & Oswald's
>bullets/fragments being found ANYWHERE within a country mile within the
>car, victims, and hospital?
Unfortunately, simply not true.
>And the only known shooter being located,
>and seen, firing from the 6th Floor of a brick building at 411 Elm?
Again, simply not true. You really should *read* the eyewitess testimony
contained in the 26 volumes, and pay attention. Then you would know that there
were more people seen than you think, and at more locations than you believe.
>THAT type of "known evidence"?
>
>Name one "Conspiracy" author who postulates ANYTHING
>reasonable/believable using THAT "known evidence". (Save John
>Canal....who's in a unique category all to himself.)
I already referenced several. It would be silly to compile a long list...
>> "Actually, it's not exactly common to be able to locate bullets fired."
>
>Even when TWO of them never exit a person's neck & back, per CTer
>accounts of JFK's neck/back wounding?
>
>Try again. Perhaps you can manage to look even more inept in your
>arguments with still more practice.
Perhaps you should pay more attention to the medical evidence. Then you'd know
about what was still in JFK's body after the autopsy.
Remember, ignorance *can* be cured.
Ben Holmes
says...
I was wondering if someone would catch that allusion... :)
Ben Holmes
Note to Lurkers... David was unable to respond to a majority of my post - so he
snipped to the only point he could reply to.
In article <1143650161.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> "That multiple shooters decided to shoot when the target appeared at the
>> appropriate place isn't really all that amazing..."
>
>And while they're performing this synchronized ballet of shots,
Again, what part of my answer did you fail to understand?
Did you suppose that Shooter 'A' decided to fire while the limo was on Houston
street, and Shoot 'B' decided to shoot when the limo was on Elm, and Shooter 'C'
decided to shoot when the limo was beyond the overpass?
How silly!
They all shot at roughly the same time BECAUSE THE TARGET WAS AT THE RIGHT
LOCATION AT THAT TIME.
Tis really quite simple, if you pause to give thought to it.
>they at
>the same time are performing their amazing connect-the-wounds pattern
>of holes in the two victims (one who is not even being aimed at) that
>look remarkably like a straight-line path back to the SN window.
Actually, it doesn't. Books have long detailed the strange flight of the
supposed SBT, and the way it has to change trajectories.
Since you start with bad and incorrect facts, you end up with bad and incorrect
conclusions.
But ignorance can be cured. Just keep posting, and I'll keep correcting your
ignorance to the best of my ability.
>Truly Oscar-worthy, these shooters.
tomnln
Pay yhe $2.00.
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e0eak...@drn.newsguy.com...
FXXXRVA, The Original Bastard
--
"Kick him when he's down, he's easier to reach."
---Scott Hall
#1 ranked poster in RSPW history....
.....NEVER SHIT A SHITTER!
******************************
Anthony Marsh
> Note to Lurkers... David was unable to respond to a majority of my post - so he
> snipped to the only point he could reply to.
>
>
>
> In article <1143650161.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
>>> "That multiple shooters decided to shoot when the target appeared at the
>>> appropriate place isn't really all that amazing..."
>> And while they're performing this synchronized ballet of shots,
>
> Again, what part of my answer did you fail to understand?
>
> Did you suppose that Shooter 'A' decided to fire while the limo was on Houston
> street, and Shoot 'B' decided to shoot when the limo was on Elm, and Shooter 'C'
> decided to shoot when the limo was beyond the overpass?
>
> How silly!
>
> They all shot at roughly the same time BECAUSE THE TARGET WAS AT THE RIGHT
> LOCATION AT THAT TIME.
>
No. There is no evidence of three shooters shooting at roughly the same
time. The evidence indicates a couple of rapid shots from one location,
then a pause of about 5 seconds before the grassy knoll shot.
> Tis really quite simple, if you pause to give thought to it.
>
>
>> they at
>> the same time are performing their amazing connect-the-wounds pattern
>> of holes in the two victims (one who is not even being aimed at) that
>> look remarkably like a straight-line path back to the SN window.
>
>
> Actually, it doesn't. Books have long detailed the strange flight of the
> supposed SBT, and the way it has to change trajectories.
>
> Since you start with bad and incorrect facts, you end up with bad and incorrect
> conclusions.
>
> But ignorance can be cured. Just keep posting, and I'll keep correcting your
> ignorance to the best of my ability.
>
>> Truly Oscar-worthy, these shooters.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
The ambush of Bonnie and Clyde for example. Not every bullet hit them.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <4429f6d4$0$24335$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>, Anthony Marsh
> says...
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <1143546357.4...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>>> says...
>>>>>> "It took huge balls to come up with that single-bullet theory."
>>>> It would have taken even larger 'nads (way larger!) for Arlen & Company
>>>> to have come up with anything OTHER than the logical (and
>>>> obviously-accurate) SBT.
>>> "Logical and obviously-accurate"??? How silly. It's not exactly a
>>> secret that the SBT was the only alternative to a finding of multiple
>>> assassins. And those who were there that day have little doubt.
>>>
>>> This explains the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses... no-one *wanted*
>>> the truth to come out.
>>>
>> And the Dallas cops within minutes.
>>
>>> All the eyewitnesses to extra bullet strikes were simply ignored.
>>> Photos in the newpaper showing a bullet being dug up were simply ignored.
>>> Tague was ignored until it became clear to the WC that he couldn't be.
>>>
>> What photo showing a bullet being dug up? You are confused.
>
>
> Why bother to lie, Tony? Many people are familiar with the photo. Even *you*
> have seen it many times.
>
Why do you bother to lie like this when anyone can see the photo for
themselves?
> Come on, Tony; let's hear you deny it. When you do, I'll cite it.
>
Come on, moron, let's head you deny that you used the word "dug."
The photo does not show or indicate anyone digging anything out of the
ground.
> Being a apologist for the WC is tiring, isn't it?
>
Aren't you ever tired of being an idiot?
Anthony Marsh
>>> "I think this guy gets paid by the tonnage, what a loon!"
>
>
> Nah...Vincent told me he was gonna pay me a small pct. of his book
> profits if I could scour the Internet world of kooks and find JUST ONE
> conspiracy theorist who could put forth a reasonable, sensible, and
> above all BELIEVABLE pro-conspiracy version of the events of 11/22/63
> (esp. with regard to the SBT).
>
> I haven't had any luck finding my elusive prey to date. You know where
> I could find such a CTer? (I'll give ya part of my profits if you help
> me out just this one time...thanks.)
>
> Anyway, that was a great retort you made there. That was a fabulous
> alternate theory to the SBT you posted in your last say-nothing reply.
> Want another crack at it?
>
> Why not start by telling the world WHY there would even have been a
> NEED to have three separate gunmen mow down President Kennedy ALL AT
> THE EXACT SAME 1-second or 2-second point in time when the SBT shot is
> occurring (I gave you an extra bit of time there, to even account for
> some "delayed reactions" by the victims, etc.)?
>
Of course there were not three separate gunmen firing a the exact same
time as your SBT, but there needs to be another gunman because your
shooter kept missing and JFK almost escaped alive.
> Via almost every CT looney-toon theory I've read (save Robert "No Shots
>>From The SN" Groden's ultra-nonsensical variants), there would have
> been NO WAY in Hades that anyone but the "Oswald Look-alike" would have
> taken a shot THAT EARLY in the shooting timeline (i.e., several seconds
> prior to when the "necessary" head shot occurs, per CTers).
>
Many WC defenders propose a very early first shot.
> And yet, via ANY non-SBT theory, the CTers NEED and HAVE to have THREE
> separate shooters plugging away at virtually the very same instant!
>
No, very few do. It was that 5 second lull that prompted the grassy
knoll shot.
> So, which theory do you want to accept? --
>
> The "No way any frontal shooter fires unless absolutely necessary"
> theory?
>
Correct. It is called the insurance shot.
> Or:
>
> The "Everybody fires really EARLY in the assassination attempt to make
> sure the crime can't possibly be traced back to just one oddball in the
> TSBD" theory?*
>
It doesn't matter how many shooters you have. With the government in
control of the evidence they will claim there was only one shooter and
people like you will shallow it.
> * = That last one can only succeed in a "Patsy" context, of course, if
> the three gunmen are all magician shooters and can somehow shoot three
> bullets into multiple victims (including an UNINTENDED TARGET) at just
> the proper angles to make it fool Specter, et al, into thinking that
> just maybe only one bullet did all the damage. And, naturally, all the
> "real" bullets have to be of that special "Disappearing Before Any
> Non-Plotter Sees Them" brand of magic CT missiles.
>
> It's your choice....but neither is really any better than sticking your
> head in the toilet and giving it a quick flush.
>
Ben Holmes
I don't. It's *YOU* that lied. I see you now remember the photo I'm speaking
of. Everyone can find it on page 68 of TKOAP, if I remember correctly.
Do you plan on explaining to lurkers why you tried to imply that this photo
doesn't exist?
>> Come on, Tony; let's hear you deny it. When you do, I'll cite it.
>>
>
>Come on, moron, let's head you deny that you used the word "dug."
Of course I did. Why would I deny what I clearly wrote?
>The photo does not show or indicate anyone digging anything out of the
>ground.
Yep... the bullet was just laying on top of the grass. Moron Tony has just told
us so.
At least Tony has finally figured out that the photo exists... that's a start.
Of course, he still seems oblivious to the fact that NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER
exists for his lie about Dr. Humes burning anything at all on Saturday morning.
>> Being a apologist for the WC is tiring, isn't it?
>
>Aren't you ever tired of being an idiot?
Why ask yourself that question? Don't you *know* the answer?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>Note to Lurkers... David was unable to respond to a majority of my post - so he
>> snipped to the only point he could reply to.
>>
>>
>>
>> In article <1143650161.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>>>> "That multiple shooters decided to shoot when the target appeared at the
>>>> appropriate place isn't really all that amazing..."
>>> And while they're performing this synchronized ballet of shots,
>>
>> Again, what part of my answer did you fail to understand?
>>
>> Did you suppose that Shooter 'A' decided to fire while the limo was
>> on Houston street, and Shoot 'B' decided to shoot when the limo was
>> on Elm, and Shooter 'C' decided to shoot when the limo was beyond the
>> overpass?
>>
>> How silly!
And yet, evidently, Tony is considering just such a scenario. He denies what is
so clearly the case below...
>> They all shot at roughly the same time BECAUSE THE TARGET WAS AT THE RIGHT
>> LOCATION AT THAT TIME.
>
>No. There is no evidence of three shooters shooting at roughly the same
>time.
Tony is too stupid to figure out that less than 10 seconds to the average person
is "roughly the same time"
Just as it would be an eternity to a physicist working on particle collisions.
Tony spouts off because he apparently thinks it makes him sound knowledgeable.
And yet, Tony, you merely look the fool.
Let's examine Tony's argument. JFK (and limo, of course), appear on Elm
street... he appears at the location that is best for shooting - triangulation
of fire by multiple shooters... but Tony will argue that no, they didn't use
this event to decide when to fire...
Do you suppose, Tony, that they all decided to fire at 12:30:00 ... and
someone's watch was not synchronized?
>The evidence indicates a couple of rapid shots from one location,
>then a pause of about 5 seconds before the grassy knoll shot.
Actually, once again, Tony merely lies to pass the time. He knows just as well
as most lurkers that the evidence is for precisely the *opposite* - one shot,
followed by a pause, then a flurry of at *least* two more shots.
Tony argues the opposite, knowing that the evidence for such is weak.
How silly!
>> Tis really quite simple, if you pause to give thought to it.
>>
>>
>>> they at
>>> the same time are performing their amazing connect-the-wounds pattern
>>> of holes in the two victims (one who is not even being aimed at) that
>>> look remarkably like a straight-line path back to the SN window.
>>
>>
>> Actually, it doesn't. Books have long detailed the strange flight of the
>> supposed SBT, and the way it has to change trajectories.
>>
>>Since you start with bad and incorrect facts, you end up with bad and incorrect
>> conclusions.
>>
>> But ignorance can be cured. Just keep posting, and I'll keep correcting your
>> ignorance to the best of my ability.
>>
>>> Truly Oscar-worthy, these shooters.
David VP
SBT? And I provided two of them off the top of my head?"
Jesus Horacio Christ. This is certainly a gag...can't be anything else.
You'd better go back to 1st grade and learn to read. I said provide a
CTer's "reasonable, sensible, and above all BELIEVABLE pro-conspiracy
version of the events of 11/22/63
(esp. with regard to the SBT)".
Key words: "Reasonable", "Sensible", and "Believable".
And you come back with TKOAP as a prime example of said CT theory. Holy
crap! That's funnier than the episode of "All In The Family" when
Cousin Oscar drops dead in the Bunker's attic! (And THAT was damn
funny.)
Once again (for emphasis) ... Robert J. Groden (long-time
"Assassination Expert Extraordinaire" and "Consultant to Oliver Stone
in 'JFK'") purports in TKOAP (1993) that at least 8 shots were fired in
DP, from up to 5 different gunmen (possibly up to 10 shots, with 5
total misses). Shot #6, fired just after the JFK head shot, hits
Connally in the wrist...making 2 hits, of course, on Connally....and,
naturally, adding yet ANOTHER "Mysterious Disappearing/Vanishing
Bullet" to the mix for the plotters to sort through later on at
Parkland.
So RJG has 5 total "hits", with FOUR bullets to just "replace" the one
bullet of the SBT....that's FIVE bullets and all related fragments that
hit victims that can NEVER be discovered, or the plot would be exposed
in a heartbeat!*
* = It's got to be five total bullets that HAVE to vanish, of course,
because Groden has JFK hit in the head from the front, like any
self-respecting CTer would propose. No way a CTer would ever trust a
little something like...say...the autopsy report signed by all three
autopsy doctors...or trust the later WC/HSCA testimony of all these
doctors...or trust the X-rays and photos which prove JFK was struck
from behind...or trust the HSCA photo experts who said the pics are
genuine.
No way any of THAT puny-ass stuff matters here...the only thing that
matters is selling that book and making the most outlandish conspiracy
claims imaginable to counter those utter incompetents that comprised
the WC and its crooked, "Let's Cover Up Everything" staff and counsel.
As long as a CT author doesn't have to actually use the EXISTING
EVIDENCE to create his/her scenarios (and none of them do, of
course)...everything is copacetic.
And I think it's quite interesting to note that even Oliver Stone
didn't buy into Groden's shooting scenario in the film 'JFK' (on which
Groden was a consultant even). Even amongst CTers, Bob seems to be a
bit of an outcast/loony toon.
I wonder how Groden explains the super-fast and obvious involuntary
"hat flip" that Connally does with his Stetson at Z226-Z232? Bob
doesn't think a bullet caused this reaction....must have been the
wind....maybe "just a shadow". Yeah, that's probably the answer. Mark
VII.
lazu...@webtv.net
Ben Holmes
couldn't answer.
I wouldn't want lurkers to think that your ignorance hasn't been cured:
(David had evidently read the LNT'ers manual, where it states that it's
adviseable to snip everything that you can't respond to.)
No mystery there...
It's interesting to note that you've not even *tried* to refute this, David.
Perhaps you took the time to look at the FBI's "re-creation" photos?
>yet another pro-CT piece of silliness to reconcile. Good luck
>with all of these sticky-wickets. But, as per the norm, we'll never,
>EVER hear even ONE CTer offer up a bullet-by-bullet BELIEVABLE scenario
>to take the SBT's place. But I'd love to see them at least TRY.)
It's been done a number of times. Ignorance *can* be cured.
Now... on to your rather severely snipped up response:
In article <1143648320.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> "TKOAP presented another {bullet-by-bullet version of the shooting}..."
>
>That's a howl!
What? That you were unaware of any CT'er versions that contradict the silly
SBT? And I provided two of them off the top of my head?
Ignorance *can* be cured...
Unfortunately, simply not true.
Now, for David's latest illustration of ignorance.
In article <1143693459.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> "What? That you were unaware of any CT'er versions that contradict the
>> silly SBT? And I provided two of them off the top of my head?"
>
>
>Jesus Horacio Christ. This is certainly a gag...can't be anything else.
>
>You'd better go back to 1st grade and learn to read. I said provide a
>CTer's "reasonable, sensible, and above all BELIEVABLE pro-conspiracy
>version of the events of 11/22/63
>(esp. with regard to the SBT)".
>
>Key words: "Reasonable", "Sensible", and "Believable".
I quite remember those words... for even though *YOU* snipped them, I didn't.
I also stated that: "Feel free, to point out any statement given regarding the
proposed shooting scheme - along with the EVIDENCE that contradicts it."
"I suspect that your ignorance will forbid you from making such an attempt."
And my crystal ball was accurate. You're merely asserting with no evidence
whatsoever that the scenarios I mentioned are "unreasonable, not "sensible", and
"unbelievable".
Lurkers don't need to wonder *why* you won't offer any evidence in support of
your silly allegation - you simply don't know enough about the evidence in this
case.
But that's okay... because if you stick around long enough, I can cure your
ignorance.
>And you come back with TKOAP as a prime example of said CT theory. Holy
>crap! That's funnier than the episode of "All In The Family" when
>Cousin Oscar drops dead in the Bunker's attic! (And THAT was damn
>funny.)
Sorry... Television show analogies aren't the same as providing evidence and
citations. Keep this in mind.
>Once again (for emphasis) ... Robert J. Groden (long-time
>"Assassination Expert Extraordinaire" and "Consultant to Oliver Stone
>in 'JFK'") purports in TKOAP (1993) that at least 8 shots were fired in
>DP, from up to 5 different gunmen (possibly up to 10 shots, with 5
>total misses).
There were certainly *more* than the three shots fired that the WC asserts.
This is beyond "reasonable" dispute.
But, you're free to offer evidence and cites.
>Shot #6, fired just after the JFK head shot, hits
>Connally in the wrist...making 2 hits, of course, on Connally....and,
>naturally, adding yet ANOTHER "Mysterious Disappearing/Vanishing
>Bullet" to the mix for the plotters to sort through later on at
>Parkland.
Actually, it was no doubt sorted out at the White House ... the limo was
immediately (and illegally) whisked out of the control of the jurisdiction where
the crime took place.
And there *is* evidence that Connally's wrist wound was done by a separate
bullet.
>So RJG has 5 total "hits", with FOUR bullets to just "replace" the one
>bullet of the SBT....that's FIVE bullets and all related fragments that
>hit victims that can NEVER be discovered, or the plot would be exposed
>in a heartbeat!*
When you control the investigation - you control what is "found".
Sometimes though, things get documented - seen by those not in on the coverup,
then you end up with things like the Minox camera.
>* = It's got to be five total bullets that HAVE to vanish, of course,
No, it doesn't. You make the layman's assumption that bullets are easily found.
>because Groden has JFK hit in the head from the front, like any
>self-respecting CTer would propose.
And like the evidence *shows*.
>No way a CTer would ever trust a
>little something like...say...the autopsy report signed by all three
>autopsy doctors...
You can't trust it either. You see, it *contradicts* the LNT'ers bible, where
it states that there was no large wound on the back of the head. It contradicts
the BOH photo. It even contradicts the current LNT'er position on where the
entry wound was located on the back of the head.
Most LNT'ers have learned to stay away from assertions that the autopsy report
can be trusted as an unbiased, and honest appraisal of JFK's condition. You
should learn to do so as well.
Just remember - ignorance CAN be cured.
>or trust the later WC/HSCA testimony of all these
>doctors...or trust the X-rays and photos which prove JFK was struck
>from behind...or trust the HSCA photo experts who said the pics are
>genuine.
You can't "trust" the testimony - for otherwise, you're going to be forced to
*accept* that testimony. Dr. Humes, for example, testifies that the shot
entered the back of JFK's head, AND EXITED THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD. Surely
you're not going to assert that you believe this.
The X-rays and photos don't "prove" that JFK was struck from behind - the
X-rays, in fact, show that JFK was struck *twice*, once from the front, and once
from behind - in the head.
The photos contradict the X-rays and testimony ...
Remember - ignorance *CAN* be cured... keep reading.
>No way any of THAT puny-ass stuff matters here...the only thing that
>matters is selling that book and making the most outlandish conspiracy
>claims imaginable to counter those utter incompetents that comprised
>the WC and its crooked, "Let's Cover Up Everything" staff and counsel.
No, actually it only matters to *show* the evidence, then develop a reasonable
theory that accounts for that evidence.
You see, EVIDENCE is the name of the game. Both the WC and the HSCA *lied*
about that evidence... but the truth doesn't need any lies to support it.
>As long as a CT author doesn't have to actually use the EXISTING
>EVIDENCE to create his/her scenarios (and none of them do, of
>course)...everything is copacetic.
And there you go... when you are forced to *lie* about something, you haven't
said anything except that you're willing to lie to make a dubious point.
Pick a CT author - name him and the book... and let's examine it to see if the
author uses *EVIDENCE* or not.
But, like before - I suspect that you will be dead silent on this...
Of course, if you don't *try*, your ignorance can't be cured.
>And I think it's quite interesting to note that even Oliver Stone
>didn't buy into Groden's shooting scenario in the film 'JFK' (on which
>Groden was a consultant even). Even amongst CTers, Bob seems to be a
>bit of an outcast/loony toon.
Using Oliver Stone's film in any but the most derogatory way is verboten for
LNT'ers in good standing. Please be careful, or LNT'ers will disown you.
>I wonder how Groden explains the super-fast and obvious involuntary
>"hat flip" that Connally does with his Stetson at Z226-Z232?
Presumably, you're trying to make the SBT 'work'... but even LNT'ers admit that
Connally apparently has a "delayed" reaction to the SBT shot.
>Bob doesn't think a bullet caused this reaction....
Neither does Connally. And he was there.
>must have been the wind....maybe "just a shadow". Yeah, that's probably
>the answer. Mark VII.
Each time you snip, David, I'm merely going to cut & paste, so that lurkers can
see just how little of my points you are able to respond to.
Remember, ignorance *can* be cured... but you have to try.
aeffects
I'd forget the Bugliosi and start worrying about maintaining your
McAdams issued certified Lone Neuter Card -- you're getting your ass
kicked here. Your destined to end up in this room all summer getting
you Neuter ducks in a row
We're enjoying the show anyway -- so please, press on.
Take it easy on him Ben, I think this Neuter actually believes his own
crapp.
David VP
adviseable to snip everything that you can't respond to. "
Oh, I forgot.....we have to follow the CT/Ben-boy "rules of CT fairy
tales" here, which says that if an LNer doesn't "respond" to each and
every already-debunked CT factoid put forth by the kook-ie monsters of
CT-Land, then the LNer in question is considered to have committed a
"foul" and the CTer gets to shoot two from the CT Free-Throw line (or
something equally as inane like that there).
But, back to reality......if you think it's worth any LNer's time
(whether they have it available to spare or not) responding to each and
every idiotic CT point made in each and every idiotic CT post --
you're...well...you must be a CTer!
It's particularly interesting to me that Ben chose Groden's TKOAP to
re-cycle as a valid CT argument (or is it even remotely valid,
Ben?).....due to the silliness of RG's theories.
And the rest of Ben's last blowhard post isn't worth...well...anything
at all. Nothing to respond to there at all. He didn't say a damn thing
worth reading.
And yet *I* am the one getting my "ass kicked here" (per AHoleEffects)?
It COULD be Effects actually believes that to be the case (he/she must
be related to Todd Teachout @ Lancer...a purebred loony-toon over there
indeed). I think the Ben-ster has some of Teachout's blood in him as
well. The same vast CT paranoia shows through quite nicely.
lazu...@webtv.net
a few myself. I guess Curt Jester gave up it was too easy.
Wanna hear a good one? The all knowing, all seeing Vince Bugliosi, is
actually dumber than old fudging Fuhrman. At least the latter hasn't
swallowed the SBT!
David VP
To be an "LNer" is to "swallow the SBT"...period. IMO, there is no way
to believe in LHO's solo guilt (with three shots) and NOT believe in
the obviously-accurate and undeniably-solid Single-Bullet Conclusion.
And I'm not quite sure why people here are saying that Mr. Fuhrman is
not an SBT believer. The pre-release review from Publisher's Weekly
certainly does NOT indicate that Fuhrman has abandoned the SBT in his
book "A Simple Act Of Murder"........
"...The recovered bullet fragments, the autopsy reports and the
legendary Zapruder film-leads him to adopt the lone gunman theory
(although he thinks that previous proponents of that position erred in
believing one of Lee Harvey Oswald's shots missed its mark)."
"Its mark" would indicate to me that Fuhrman thinks (for some reason)
that all 3 of Oswald's shots "hit JFK" (who was, after all, the one &
only "mark"; unless you want to think LHO was after both JFK and JBC).
Fuhrman's probably got ahold of Jim Bishop's theory of the first shot
striking pavement and "spraying" JFK in the face with concrete or
bullet fragments .... this could account, I suppose, for the reviewer's
remarks.
But, again, given the Z-Film timeline and a 3-Shot restriction for
Oswald (which there was), the "SBT" is required. There's no way you can
have Oswald as a lone 3-shot killer sans the SBT in this murder case.
The Z-Film supports the SBT ... the lack of limo damage supports the
SBT ... John Connally's overall testimony fully supports the SBT (even
if he didn't want to admit it) ... and the lack of bullets and bullet
DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck/back fully supports the first stages of
the SBT.
If Fuhrman claims the SBT is bunk, he's as loony as any of the
most-rabid CTers.
David VP
Name one such occasion. ("Wishful-thinking" ass-whippings
notwithstanding, that is.)
Ben Holmes
couldn't answer.
I wouldn't want lurkers to think that your ignorance hasn't been cured:
(David had evidently read the LNT'ers manual, where it states that it's
No mystery there...
What? That you were unaware of any CT'er versions that contradict the silly
SBT? And I provided two of them off the top of my head?
Ignorance *can* be cured...
Unfortunately, simply not true.
>> "What? That you were unaware of any CT'er versions that contradict the
>> silly SBT? And I provided two of them off the top of my head?"
>
>
>Jesus Horacio Christ. This is certainly a gag...can't be anything else.
>
>You'd better go back to 1st grade and learn to read. I said provide a
>CTer's "reasonable, sensible, and above all BELIEVABLE pro-conspiracy
>version of the events of 11/22/63
>(esp. with regard to the SBT)".
>
>Key words: "Reasonable", "Sensible", and "Believable".
I quite remember those words... for even though *YOU* snipped them, I didn't.
I also stated that: "Feel free, to point out any statement given regarding the
proposed shooting scheme - along with the EVIDENCE that contradicts it."
"I suspect that your ignorance will forbid you from making such an attempt."
And my crystal ball was accurate. You're merely asserting with no evidence
whatsoever that the scenarios I mentioned are "unreasonable, not "sensible", and
"unbelievable".
Lurkers don't need to wonder *why* you won't offer any evidence in support of
your silly allegation - you simply don't know enough about the evidence in this
case.
But that's okay... because if you stick around long enough, I can cure your
ignorance.
>And you come back with TKOAP as a prime example of said CT theory. Holy
>crap! That's funnier than the episode of "All In The Family" when
>Cousin Oscar drops dead in the Bunker's attic! (And THAT was damn
>funny.)
Sorry... Television show analogies aren't the same as providing evidence and
citations. Keep this in mind.
>Once again (for emphasis) ... Robert J. Groden (long-time
>"Assassination Expert Extraordinaire" and "Consultant to Oliver Stone
>in 'JFK'") purports in TKOAP (1993) that at least 8 shots were fired in
>DP, from up to 5 different gunmen (possibly up to 10 shots, with 5
>total misses).
There were certainly *more* than the three shots fired that the WC asserts.
This is beyond "reasonable" dispute.
But, you're free to offer evidence and cites.
>Shot #6, fired just after the JFK head shot, hits
>Connally in the wrist...making 2 hits, of course, on Connally....and,
>naturally, adding yet ANOTHER "Mysterious Disappearing/Vanishing
>Bullet" to the mix for the plotters to sort through later on at
>Parkland.
Actually, it was no doubt sorted out at the White House ... the limo was
immediately (and illegally) whisked out of the control of the jurisdiction where
the crime took place.
And there *is* evidence that Connally's wrist wound was done by a separate
bullet.
>So RJG has 5 total "hits", with FOUR bullets to just "replace" the one
>bullet of the SBT....that's FIVE bullets and all related fragments that
>hit victims that can NEVER be discovered, or the plot would be exposed
>in a heartbeat!*
When you control the investigation - you control what is "found".
Sometimes though, things get documented - seen by those not in on the coverup,
then you end up with things like the Minox camera.
>* = It's got to be five total bullets that HAVE to vanish, of course,
No, it doesn't. You make the layman's assumption that bullets are easily found.
>because Groden has JFK hit in the head from the front, like any
>self-respecting CTer would propose.
And like the evidence *shows*.
>No way a CTer would ever trust a
>little something like...say...the autopsy report signed by all three
>autopsy doctors...
You can't trust it either. You see, it *contradicts* the LNT'ers bible, where
it states that there was no large wound on the back of the head. It contradicts
the BOH photo. It even contradicts the current LNT'er position on where the
entry wound was located on the back of the head.
Most LNT'ers have learned to stay away from assertions that the autopsy report
can be trusted as an unbiased, and honest appraisal of JFK's condition. You
should learn to do so as well.
Just remember - ignorance CAN be cured.
>or trust the later WC/HSCA testimony of all these
>doctors...or trust the X-rays and photos which prove JFK was struck
>from behind...or trust the HSCA photo experts who said the pics are
>genuine.
You can't "trust" the testimony - for otherwise, you're going to be forced to
*accept* that testimony. Dr. Humes, for example, testifies that the shot
entered the back of JFK's head, AND EXITED THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD. Surely
you're not going to assert that you believe this.
The X-rays and photos don't "prove" that JFK was struck from behind - the
X-rays, in fact, show that JFK was struck *twice*, once from the front, and once
from behind - in the head.
The photos contradict the X-rays and testimony ...
Remember - ignorance *CAN* be cured... keep reading.
>No way any of THAT puny-ass stuff matters here...the only thing that
>matters is selling that book and making the most outlandish conspiracy
>claims imaginable to counter those utter incompetents that comprised
>the WC and its crooked, "Let's Cover Up Everything" staff and counsel.
No, actually it only matters to *show* the evidence, then develop a reasonable
theory that accounts for that evidence.
You see, EVIDENCE is the name of the game. Both the WC and the HSCA *lied*
about that evidence... but the truth doesn't need any lies to support it.
>As long as a CT author doesn't have to actually use the EXISTING
>EVIDENCE to create his/her scenarios (and none of them do, of
>course)...everything is copacetic.
And there you go... when you are forced to *lie* about something, you haven't
said anything except that you're willing to lie to make a dubious point.
Pick a CT author - name him and the book... and let's examine it to see if the
author uses *EVIDENCE* or not.
But, like before - I suspect that you will be dead silent on this...
Of course, if you don't *try*, your ignorance can't be cured.
>And I think it's quite interesting to note that even Oliver Stone
>didn't buy into Groden's shooting scenario in the film 'JFK' (on which
>Groden was a consultant even). Even amongst CTers, Bob seems to be a
>bit of an outcast/loony toon.
Using Oliver Stone's film in any but the most derogatory way is verboten for
LNT'ers in good standing. Please be careful, or LNT'ers will disown you.
>I wonder how Groden explains the super-fast and obvious involuntary
>"hat flip" that Connally does with his Stetson at Z226-Z232?
Presumably, you're trying to make the SBT 'work'... but even LNT'ers admit that
Connally apparently has a "delayed" reaction to the SBT shot.
>Bob doesn't think a bullet caused this reaction....
Neither does Connally. And he was there.
>must have been the wind....maybe "just a shadow". Yeah, that's probably
>the answer. Mark VII.
Each time you snip, David, I'm merely going to cut & paste, so that lurkers can
see just how little of my points you are able to respond to.
Remember, ignorance *can* be cured... but you have to try.
In article <1143774916....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> "David had evidently read the LNT'ers manual, where it states that it's
>> adviseable to snip everything that you can't respond to. "
>
>
>Oh, I forgot.....we have to follow the CT/Ben-boy "rules of CT fairy
>tales" here, which says that if an LNer doesn't "respond" to each and
>every already-debunked CT factoid put forth by the kook-ie monsters of
>CT-Land, then the LNer in question is considered to have committed a
>"foul" and the CTer gets to shoot two from the CT Free-Throw line (or
>something equally as inane like that there).
When you need to lie, then you haven't said anything, have you? You've referred
to my statements as "already-debunked CT factoids", yet you can't point to a
*single* statement of mine that you ignored above, and cite the relevant
evidence & testimony that makes it "debunked".
All you can do is *assert* that it's already been dealt with. Why not simply
provide a citation to someplace on the net where it *has* been "debunked"??
Your ignorance can't be cured if you don't work at it, Davy-boy.
>But, back to reality......if you think it's worth any LNer's time
>(whether they have it available to spare or not) responding to each and
>every idiotic CT point made in each and every idiotic CT post --
>you're...well...you must be a CTer!
The "each and every idiotic CT point" was made in response to each statement by
you. So what we have is "each and every ignorant factoid" being corrected, then
you refuse to respond or acknowledge being corrected.
That makes you a coward, Davy-boy...
>It's particularly interesting to me that Ben chose Groden's TKOAP to
>re-cycle as a valid CT argument (or is it even remotely valid,
>Ben?).....due to the silliness of RG's theories.
And yet, as pointed out above, in a part that was snipped by Davy-boy ... you
can't provide a *SINGLE* bit of evidence or testimony that contradicts *ANY* of
TKOAP's arguments.
I note as well that you've been virtually silent about SSID... does *that*
sequence of shots scare you?
>And the rest of Ben's last blowhard post isn't worth...well...anything
>at all. Nothing to respond to there at all. He didn't say a damn thing
>worth reading.
Just the refutation of your silly ignorant statements, is all...
>And yet *I* am the one getting my "ass kicked here" (per AHoleEffects)?
So it seems. When you can't respond, it certainly leaves that impression on
people, Davy-boy.
You see, excuses don't work on this newsgroup. Perhaps if you went back to the
censored group - they work over there, I wouldn't know.
>It COULD be Effects actually believes that to be the case (he/she must
>be related to Todd Teachout @ Lancer...a purebred loony-toon over there
>indeed). I think the Ben-ster has some of Teachout's blood in him as
>well. The same vast CT paranoia shows through quite nicely.
A coward and a liar... I wonder why so many LNT'ers can so quickly show
themselves to be cowards and liars?
Rare indeed is the LNT'er who has the facts at his/her disposal, and will calmly
reason each point made without ad hominem attacks, snipping, and outright lies.
Why is that, I wonder?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "At least {Fuhrman} hasn't swallowed the SBT!"
>
>
>To be an "LNer" is to "swallow the SBT"...period. IMO, there is no way
>to believe in LHO's solo guilt (with three shots) and NOT believe in
>the obviously-accurate and undeniably-solid Single-Bullet Conclusion.
Hmmm... this would mean that neither the FBI nor the Secret Service are
believers of two lone nuts...
Since neither organization believes in the SBT.
>And I'm not quite sure why people here are saying that Mr. Fuhrman is
>not an SBT believer. The pre-release review from Publisher's Weekly
>certainly does NOT indicate that Fuhrman has abandoned the SBT in his
>book "A Simple Act Of Murder"........
>
>"...The recovered bullet fragments, the autopsy reports and the
>legendary Zapruder film-leads him to adopt the lone gunman theory
>(although he thinks that previous proponents of that position erred in
>believing one of Lee Harvey Oswald's shots missed its mark)."
>
>"Its mark" would indicate to me that Fuhrman thinks (for some reason)
>that all 3 of Oswald's shots "hit JFK" (who was, after all, the one &
>only "mark"; unless you want to think LHO was after both JFK and JBC).
>
>Fuhrman's probably got ahold of Jim Bishop's theory of the first shot
>striking pavement and "spraying" JFK in the face with concrete or
>bullet fragments .... this could account, I suppose, for the reviewer's
>remarks.
>
>But, again, given the Z-Film timeline and a 3-Shot restriction for
>Oswald (which there was), the "SBT" is required. There's no way you can
>have Oswald as a lone 3-shot killer sans the SBT in this murder case.
Wow!!! An accurate admission by a LNT'er!
Interestingly to note, some LNT'ers have tried in the past to divorce the SBT
from being a LNT'er, but it can't be done. The LNT'ers silly theory lives or
dies on the truthfulness of the SBT.
This, of course, is the achilles heel of the LNT'er world.
>The Z-Film supports the SBT ... the lack of limo damage supports the
>SBT ... John Connally's overall testimony fully supports the SBT (even
>if he didn't want to admit it) ... and the lack of bullets and bullet
>DAMAGE inside Kennedy's neck/back fully supports the first stages of
>the SBT.
The Z-film can be *forced* to support the SBT.
The 'lack of limo damage' has nothing to do with the SBT
John Connally's testimony cannot be twisted to support the SBT
The medical evidence *CONTRADICTS* the SBT
The closest police eyewitness contradicts the SBT
>If Fuhrman claims the SBT is bunk, he's as loony as any of the
>most-rabid CTers.
LNT'ers eating other LNT'ers...
Ben Holmes
says...
Any time that you refuse to repond to my refutations of your silly ideas,
Davy-boy.
You see, lurkers aren't stupid, and I would be surprised indeed if they bought
your silly excuses for snipping virtually whole messages and not responding.
David VP
of all your continual space-hogging copy-&-pastes from previous pieces
of CT tripe you've chosen to burden the masses with. But continue to
C&P them if that's your wont.
Re. the SBT for a moment longer.......
As any objective researcher with common sense can readily see, the SBT
is almost assuredly the ONLY way the shooting occurred, or COULD have
occurred, on 11/22 (regardless of the obviously-rushed Dec. 9th, '63
FBI report).
Let me just pose a few basic Qs to a CTer and see if I can get an even
remotely-believable reply to each individual point........
If the SBT is false (as all CTers think it is), then.......
1.) WHERE DID THE THREE BULLETS GO THAT MUST REPLACE CE399 AND THE SBT
SCENARIO?
2.) WHY DID TWO BULLETS STOP INSIDE JFK'S NECK & BACK WITHOUT EXITING?
(TWO DUM-DUMS? TWO MISFIRES? OH, COME NOW!)
3.) IF A BULLET *DID* EMERGE FROM JFK'S NECK, WHERE DID IT GO, AND IF
IT DIDN'T GO INTO JBC, WHY WAS THERE NO INTERIOR LIMO DAMAGE IN THE
BACK-SEAT AREAS OF THE CAR?
4.) IF A CTer BELIEVES THAT SHOT #1 HIT JFK IN THE THROAT FROM THE
FRONT (AND MANY DO), PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS SILLY SHOT IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE WIDELY-BELIEVED "PATSY" SCENARIO, WHICH SHOULD ONLY HAVE HAD A
FRONTAL SHOT FIRED *AS A LAST RESORT*, CERTAINLY NOT AS A *FIRST-SHOT
RESORT*.
Have a go at those Qs for starters, and let's see if you can avoid
looking like a dang fool in the process (I'm doubtful that can be
achieved, however).
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>I am not required to "respond" to any of your silly posts, Ben.
Of course not. But it *does* illustrate your cowardice, Davy-boy...
>Least
>of all your continual space-hogging copy-&-pastes from previous pieces
>of CT tripe you've chosen to burden the masses with.
Can't answer it, can you, Davy-boy?
It would be completely honest to snip material *ONCE IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU DON'T
WISH TO RESPOND TO IT*, but rather dishonest to snip it before any lurker
notices that you can't respond...
So I merely repost it for lurkers to see what a coward you are, Davy-boy.
>But continue to
>C&P them if that's your wont.
Lurkers deserve no less...
>Re. the SBT for a moment longer.......
It matters little, since you'll snip my responses here too...
>As any objective researcher with common sense can readily see,
Ah! Defining your position as the only reasonable one. Why not *prove* that,
rather than merely assert it?
And doesn't it bother you that as much as 90% of the American population
believes in a conspiracy?
The SBT was created to *avoid* the necessity to find a conspiracy... if one is
proven, then the SBT is merely superfluous.
>the SBT is almost assuredly the ONLY way the shooting occurred, or COULD have
>occurred, on 11/22 (regardless of the obviously-rushed Dec. 9th, '63
>FBI report).
And yet, both the medical evidence and eyewitness evidence contradict it. In
fact, the *ONLY* thing that supports the SBT is the speculation that created it.
Nothing in the evidence *requires* the SBT. In fact, if you simply admit that
there were more than three shots, there isn't *anything* that is explained by
the SBT that is not *better* explained by additional shots.
Tell lurkers here what Chaney saw... if you dare.
>Let me just pose a few basic Qs to a CTer and see if I can get an even
>remotely-believable reply to each individual point........
Don't worry... the refutations I offer will be *SO* unbelievable, that you will
snip them, and refuse to respond to them. You see, I'm committing the
unpardonable LNT'er sin of actually referring to the evidence.
>If the SBT is false (as all CTers think it is), then.......
>
>1.) WHERE DID THE THREE BULLETS GO THAT MUST REPLACE CE399 AND THE SBT
>SCENARIO?
You start with a false premise... that CE399 is a legitimate piece of evidence.
You must surely already know that there's no legitimate chain of custody on
CE399, and those who held it describe a *different* bullet.
Where's the bullet that struck the curb and injured Tague? For if you can't
produce this bullet, why would you argue that others must "produce" other
bullets? Or are you going to argue that the FAILURE to produce the Tague bullet
or fragment is proof of the SBT? For if you do, then I hereby state that my
failure to produce other bullets *PROVES* the SBT false. (One stupidity
deserves another...)
We even have pictures (Tony's lies non-withstanding) of other bullets being dug
out of the grass... where did they go? Can you even produce the FBI or WC
questioning of those people involved?
Surely an investigation as extensive as what you'd claim must have seen the
photo in the Dallas newspaper, and wondered about a bullet that their theory
doesn't account for???
Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder never questioned? Could it
be because they knew he was going to offer statements that CONTRADICT THE SBT??
>2.) WHY DID TWO BULLETS STOP INSIDE JFK'S NECK & BACK WITHOUT EXITING?
>(TWO DUM-DUMS? TWO MISFIRES? OH, COME NOW!)
The bullet in the neck is undoubtably still in the body. You may review the
X-ray evidence to discover it... it ranged downward, causing a problems that the
doctors attempted to fix with chest tubal insertions.
I can't recall right off-hand where I can cite this - but presuming that you
don't snip this entire post, I'll be happy to do so.
The bullet in the back didn't go in more than an inch... this *was* the medical
evidence. Speculating that it went where the medical evidence doesn't show is
merely that... speculation.
In fact, Dr. Humes was apparently even unsure that this was a bullet entry -
since he asked Parkland if they'd "injured" JFK's back during treatment...
rather strange question...
>3.) IF A BULLET *DID* EMERGE FROM JFK'S NECK, WHERE DID IT GO, AND IF
>IT DIDN'T GO INTO JBC, WHY WAS THERE NO INTERIOR LIMO DAMAGE IN THE
>BACK-SEAT AREAS OF THE CAR?
The bullet ranged downward. This is what the Parkland doctors thought, I have
no reason to disagree with them.
I don't believe, and the evidence doesn't support, the idea that the neck wound
was an exit. So there's no reason to explain where it went.
>4.) IF A CTer BELIEVES THAT SHOT #1 HIT JFK IN THE THROAT FROM THE
>FRONT (AND MANY DO), PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS SILLY SHOT IN THE CONTEXT OF
>THE WIDELY-BELIEVED "PATSY" SCENARIO, WHICH SHOULD ONLY HAVE HAD A
>FRONTAL SHOT FIRED *AS A LAST RESORT*, CERTAINLY NOT AS A *FIRST-SHOT
>RESORT*.
When you control the evidence, you can make it appear to be anything you want.
My Judo instructor, for example, kept a bat near the front door of his
residence... not to beat an intruder with, but to place in his hand if he didn't
have any weapon.
What's silly, is to believe speculation over first-hand eyewitness testimony and
medical description.
Note also - the prosectors were forbidden to dissect the neck wound... can you
offer an explanation for this?
They *DID* dissect the incisions on the chest, although they *must* have known
what they were.
Can you explain this discrepancy? Do you even *recognize* this discrepancy?
And why were they forbidden to dissect the 'track' of the bullet?
>Have a go at those Qs for starters, and let's see if you can avoid
>looking like a dang fool in the process (I'm doubtful that can be
>achieved, however).
See if you can respond to my refutations without snipping anything at all... I'm
doubtful that a coward like you can do so, Davy-boy - but I have hope.
aeffects
shots- 3 hits scenario. Appears closest to what probably
happened...then, along came the Tague flesh wound.
For those that are serious (and I doubt you are Von Pein) might want
to look at the Tom Purvis threads/study re: Robert West-Surveyor
Dealey Plaza plat. (John Simkins; The Education Forum - JFK
Assassination)
West and another surveyor were officially hired in Dallas to work on
the "official" Elm Street positioning/recreation[s].
So listen-up guy -- all the yelling won't help your futile cause....
have "a go" at getting educated first
tomnln
Pay the $2.00
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e0joh...@drn.newsguy.com...
Anthony Marsh
> I am not required to "respond" to any of your silly posts, Ben. Least
> of all your continual space-hogging copy-&-pastes from previous pieces
> of CT tripe you've chosen to burden the masses with. But continue to
> C&P them if that's your wont.
>
> Re. the SBT for a moment longer.......
>
> As any objective researcher with common sense can readily see, the SBT
> is almost assuredly the ONLY way the shooting occurred, or COULD have
> occurred, on 11/22 (regardless of the obviously-rushed Dec. 9th, '63
> FBI report).
>
> Let me just pose a few basic Qs to a CTer and see if I can get an even
> remotely-believable reply to each individual point........
>
> If the SBT is false (as all CTers think it is), then.......
>
> 1.) WHERE DID THE THREE BULLETS GO THAT MUST REPLACE CE399 AND THE SBT
> SCENARIO?
Where did the bullet go which the WC said missed?
>
> 2.) WHY DID TWO BULLETS STOP INSIDE JFK'S NECK & BACK WITHOUT EXITING?
> (TWO DUM-DUMS? TWO MISFIRES? OH, COME NOW!)
>
Not possible in this case, but they are theorizing different types of
bullets. And yes some bullets can hit in the back and stop and hit in
the throat and stop. Especially .22s.
> 3.) IF A BULLET *DID* EMERGE FROM JFK'S NECK, WHERE DID IT GO, AND IF
> IT DIDN'T GO INTO JBC, WHY WAS THERE NO INTERIOR LIMO DAMAGE IN THE
> BACK-SEAT AREAS OF THE CAR?
>
How do you know there was no additional damage in the interior limo if
the reports were covered up? Not my particular theory, but you can't
even be sure that the bullet did not exit the throat and hit the chrome
topping.
Was there a hole in the floor?
> 4.) IF A CTer BELIEVES THAT SHOT #1 HIT JFK IN THE THROAT FROM THE
> FRONT (AND MANY DO), PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS SILLY SHOT IN THE CONTEXT OF
> THE WIDELY-BELIEVED "PATSY" SCENARIO, WHICH SHOULD ONLY HAVE HAD A
> FRONTAL SHOT FIRED *AS A LAST RESORT*, CERTAINLY NOT AS A *FIRST-SHOT
> RESORT*.
>
Not my theory, but others think such a shot went undetected, either
using silencers or darts.
> Have a go at those Qs for starters, and let's see if you can avoid
> looking like a dang fool in the process (I'm doubtful that can be
> achieved, however).
>
David VP
from rabid CTers?
>> "We even have pictures of other bullets being dug out of the grass...where did they go?"
Pitifully-weak argument! -- Because I'm not talking about MISSED SHOTS
(or CTer-perceived "missed" shots that supposedly hit all kinds of
turf, curbs, signs, and God knows what all on 11/22). It stands to
reason, you moron, that any "missed" shots are not likely to be
recovered. And one such miss wasn't recovered from Oswald's rifle that
struck Tague at about Z160.
But, quite obviously (as anyone with a brain would have realized right
off the bat), what I was talking about, instead, are the two bullets
that most CTers say went INTO A HUMAN BODY (JFK'S HUMAN BODY) AND
STOPPED, and then magically disappeared. Where are they? And saying the
back-wound bullet is "still in the body" is the height of absurdity.
Full-body X-rays were done of JFK, and there wasn't a bullet to be
seen. (All X-rays are faked, right? Humes is a lying crook, right?
Obviously, this has to be the CT retort...because lacking the bullets,
any "alternate" version of the SBT is doomed.)
Humes' WC remarks re. "missiles in body":
Commander HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made
X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper
portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower
extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray
examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays
are available.
Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the
possible presence of a missile in the President's body?
Commander HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the
President's body at any point. And these were examined by ourselves and
by the radiologist, who assisted us in this endeavor.
The new never-ending question to CTers should be ---
WHERE ARE THE BULLETS? WHERE ARE THE BULLETS?
Good golly, Mr. Groden has up to TEN bullets magically disappearing.
Ollie Stone has six (because we can't count CE399, of course...it was
"planted"). 6 to 10 bullets that just aren't there, when AT LEAST 4
should be, per CT versions that is (the ones that hit Kennedy and
Connally).
CTers actually believe that all 4 of these "real" bullets either just
got lost...or were immediately recoverable by ONLY covert "cover-up"
agents? Get real...and get a brain!
And the "pinky probe" done at autopsy was stupid, I'll readily admit.
And this, per CTers, indicates the wound couldn't be a T&T wound
through the throat. It means no such thing, of course, and Humes'
testimony says so. Humes said that any further probing of the wound
would have risked causing a false passage through the body. (Plus, the
"45-to-60 downward degree" angle of this perceived-to-be-shallow back
wound is utterly ridiculous in the first place. Where was the gunman
who caused this wound....in a 707 over Dealey Plaza?)
Plus....the idea that TWO missiles would have been fired at JFK via
low-powered weapons akin to BB guns is absurd on its face as well.
Makes no sense. These "pro" assassins strike with awesome force with
the head shot that destroys JFK's head, and they shoot Connally with a
high-powered round, per CTers, which is a shot that goes all the way
through him....
But when firing the FIRST TWO bullets into the ONE & ONLY
MUST-HAVE-DEAD TARGET of John Kennedy's body...what do these bonehead
shooters do? They fire two dud rounds, evidently, into him. Just as
warning shots of what's to come I guess. Two bullets that barely
penetrate JFK's body...with the back wound going in barely a pinky's
length! How much sense does this make in a pre-11/22 context? Answer --
It makes NO sense at all....which is one of the many reasons it's not
true....at all.
Obviously, Dr. Humes, et al, actually used something called "common
sense" when attempting to re-construct the event re. JFK's wounds. ....
1.) Humes, after talking to Perry on Sat. AM, realizes there's a wound
in the throat.
2.) There were no bullets in the body at all.
3.) And possibly MORE importantly, there was absolutely NO DAMAGE to
the interior portions of JFK's neck and upper back....which there most
certainly would have HAD to have been if two bullets had entered his
body and were stopped cold by SOMETHING!
Therefore, Humes' final report was perfectly sound and logical given
the above conditions......
"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the
neck.
This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The
missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
structures in its path through the body."
Nothing to date has undermined the above words from JFK's November 1963
autopsy report.
One more time for the hard-of-hearing:
WHERE ARE THE BULLETS??
Anthony Marsh
> In article <442b0a61$0$9579$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>, Anthony Marsh
> says...
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Note to Lurkers... David was unable to respond to a majority of my post - so he
>>> snipped to the only point he could reply to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In article <1143650161.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>>> says...
>>>>> "That multiple shooters decided to shoot when the target appeared at the
>>>>> appropriate place isn't really all that amazing..."
>>>> And while they're performing this synchronized ballet of shots,
>>> Again, what part of my answer did you fail to understand?
>>>
>>> Did you suppose that Shooter 'A' decided to fire while the limo was
>>> on Houston street, and Shoot 'B' decided to shoot when the limo was
>>> on Elm, and Shooter 'C' decided to shoot when the limo was beyond the
>>> overpass?
>>>
>>> How silly!
>
> And yet, evidently, Tony is considering just such a scenario. He denies what is
> so clearly the case below...
>
>
Not only did I not say what you suggest I am considering, but I never
implied such a thing. I fact I have said exactly the opposite. The plan
and the results are to shoot all shots while the limo is on Elm Street.
The insurance shot specifies that the target not get past that position
alive.
>>> They all shot at roughly the same time BECAUSE THE TARGET WAS AT THE RIGHT
>>> LOCATION AT THAT TIME.
>> No. There is no evidence of three shooters shooting at roughly the same
>> time.
>
>
> Tony is too stupid to figure out that less than 10 seconds to the average person
> is "roughly the same time"
>
You are too stupid to realize that 10 seconds in an assassination is not
roughly the same times. That is an eternity.
> Just as it would be an eternity to a physicist working on particle collisions.
>
> Tony spouts off because he apparently thinks it makes him sound knowledgeable.
>
> And yet, Tony, you merely look the fool.
>
Only because you constantly lie about what I have said.
>
>
> Let's examine Tony's argument. JFK (and limo, of course), appear on Elm
> street... he appears at the location that is best for shooting - triangulation
> of fire by multiple shooters... but Tony will argue that no, they didn't use
> this event to decide when to fire...
>
I have never said anything that you claim I have said. You are a liar.
> Do you suppose, Tony, that they all decided to fire at 12:30:00 ... and
> someone's watch was not synchronized?
>
>
>> The evidence indicates a couple of rapid shots from one location,
>> then a pause of about 5 seconds before the grassy knoll shot.
>
> Actually, once again, Tony merely lies to pass the time. He knows just as well
> as most lurkers that the evidence is for precisely the *opposite* - one shot,
> followed by a pause, then a flurry of at *least* two more shots.
>
Garbage. You are basing your arguments on only the witnesses you like to
cite. Weak evidence.
> Tony argues the opposite, knowing that the evidence for such is weak.
>
> How silly!
>
>
>>> Tis really quite simple, if you pause to give thought to it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> they at
>>>> the same time are performing their amazing connect-the-wounds pattern
>>>> of holes in the two victims (one who is not even being aimed at) that
>>>> look remarkably like a straight-line path back to the SN window.
>>>
>>> Actually, it doesn't. Books have long detailed the strange flight of the
>>> supposed SBT, and the way it has to change trajectories.
>>>
>>> Since you start with bad and incorrect facts, you end up with bad and incorrect
>>> conclusions.
>>>
>>> But ignorance can be cured. Just keep posting, and I'll keep correcting your
>>> ignorance to the best of my ability.
>>>
>>>> Truly Oscar-worthy, these shooters.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
You can't even be sure which photo, which page, which book.
> Do you plan on explaining to lurkers why you tried to imply that this photo
> doesn't exist?
>
Funny how we have talked about this before and I have always pointed out
this photo.
>
>>> Come on, Tony; let's hear you deny it. When you do, I'll cite it.
>>>
>> Come on, moron, let's head you deny that you used the word "dug."
>
>
> Of course I did. Why would I deny what I clearly wrote?
>
Because you won't admit that you lied.
>
>> The photo does not show or indicate anyone digging anything out of the
>> ground.
>
>
> Yep... the bullet was just laying on top of the grass. Moron Tony has just told
> us so.
>
I don't even claim that it was a bullet. That is what some photo
captions claim. Anyway, no one else in this universe had used the word
"dug" until you added it.
> At least Tony has finally figured out that the photo exists... that's a start.
>
I discussed it long before you became aware of it.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Pitifully-weak CT arguments re. the SBT. But...why expect anything more
>from rabid CTers?
So "pitifully-weak" that you were forced to snip *EVERYTHING* except for a
single sentence.
Rather cowardly, isn't it?
But just for lurkers, here's the post that Davy-boy couldn't answer:
****************************************************
In article <1143822155.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>I am not required to "respond" to any of your silly posts, Ben.
Of course not. But it *does* illustrate your cowardice, Davy-boy...
>Least
>of all your continual space-hogging copy-&-pastes from previous pieces
>of CT tripe you've chosen to burden the masses with.
Can't answer it, can you, Davy-boy?
It would be completely honest to snip material *ONCE IT'S CLEAR THAT YOU DON'T
WISH TO RESPOND TO IT*, but rather dishonest to snip it before any lurker
notices that you can't respond...
So I merely repost it for lurkers to see what a coward you are, Davy-boy.
>But continue to
>C&P them if that's your wont.
Lurkers deserve no less...
>Re. the SBT for a moment longer.......
It matters little, since you'll snip my responses here too...
>As any objective researcher with common sense can readily see,
Ah! Defining your position as the only reasonable one. Why not *prove* that,
rather than merely assert it?
And doesn't it bother you that as much as 90% of the American population
believes in a conspiracy?
The SBT was created to *avoid* the necessity to find a conspiracy... if one is
proven, then the SBT is merely superfluous.
>the SBT is almost assuredly the ONLY way the shooting occurred, or COULD have
>occurred, on 11/22 (regardless of the obviously-rushed Dec. 9th, '63
>FBI report).
And yet, both the medical evidence and eyewitness evidence contradict it. In
fact, the *ONLY* thing that supports the SBT is the speculation that created it.
Nothing in the evidence *requires* the SBT. In fact, if you simply admit that
there were more than three shots, there isn't *anything* that is explained by
the SBT that is not *better* explained by additional shots.
Tell lurkers here what Chaney saw... if you dare.
>Let me just pose a few basic Qs to a CTer and see if I can get an even
>remotely-believable reply to each individual point........
Don't worry... the refutations I offer will be *SO* unbelievable, that you will
snip them, and refuse to respond to them. You see, I'm committing the
unpardonable LNT'er sin of actually referring to the evidence.
>If the SBT is false (as all CTers think it is), then.......
>
>1.) WHERE DID THE THREE BULLETS GO THAT MUST REPLACE CE399 AND THE SBT
>SCENARIO?
You start with a false premise... that CE399 is a legitimate piece of evidence.
You must surely already know that there's no legitimate chain of custody on
CE399, and those who held it describe a *different* bullet.
Where's the bullet that struck the curb and injured Tague? For if you can't
produce this bullet, why would you argue that others must "produce" other
bullets? Or are you going to argue that the FAILURE to produce the Tague bullet
or fragment is proof of the SBT? For if you do, then I hereby state that my
failure to produce other bullets *PROVES* the SBT false. (One stupidity deserves
another...)
We even have pictures (Tony's lies non-withstanding) of other bullets being dug
out of the grass... where did they go? Can you even produce the FBI or WC
questioning of those people involved?
Surely an investigation as extensive as what you'd claim must have seen the
photo in the Dallas newspaper, and wondered about a bullet that their theory
doesn't account for???
Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder never questioned? Could it
be because they knew he was going to offer statements that CONTRADICT THE SBT??
>2.) WHY DID TWO BULLETS STOP INSIDE JFK'S NECK & BACK WITHOUT EXITING?
>(TWO DUM-DUMS? TWO MISFIRES? OH, COME NOW!)
The bullet in the neck is undoubtably still in the body. You may review the
X-ray evidence to discover it... it ranged downward, causing a problems that the
doctors attempted to fix with chest tubal insertions.
I can't recall right off-hand where I can cite this - but presuming that you
don't snip this entire post, I'll be happy to do so.
The bullet in the back didn't go in more than an inch... this *was* the medical
evidence. Speculating that it went where the medical evidence doesn't show is
merely that... speculation.
In fact, Dr. Humes was apparently even unsure that this was a bullet entry -
since he asked Parkland if they'd "injured" JFK's back during treatment...
rather strange question...
>3.) IF A BULLET *DID* EMERGE FROM JFK'S NECK, WHERE DID IT GO, AND IF
>IT DIDN'T GO INTO JBC, WHY WAS THERE NO INTERIOR LIMO DAMAGE IN THE
>BACK-SEAT AREAS OF THE CAR?
The bullet ranged downward. This is what the Parkland doctors thought, I have
no reason to disagree with them.
I don't believe, and the evidence doesn't support, the idea that the neck wound
was an exit. So there's no reason to explain where it went.
>4.) IF A CTer BELIEVES THAT SHOT #1 HIT JFK IN THE THROAT FROM THE
>FRONT (AND MANY DO), PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS SILLY SHOT IN THE CONTEXT OF
>THE WIDELY-BELIEVED "PATSY" SCENARIO, WHICH SHOULD ONLY HAVE HAD A
>FRONTAL SHOT FIRED *AS A LAST RESORT*, CERTAINLY NOT AS A *FIRST-SHOT
>RESORT*.
When you control the evidence, you can make it appear to be anything you want.
My Judo instructor, for example, kept a bat near the front door of his
residence... not to beat an intruder with, but to place in his hand if he didn't
have any weapon.
What's silly, is to believe speculation over first-hand eyewitness testimony and
medical description.
Note also - the prosectors were forbidden to dissect the neck wound... can you
offer an explanation for this?
They *DID* dissect the incisions on the chest, although they *must* have known
what they were.
Can you explain this discrepancy? Do you even *recognize* this discrepancy?
And why were they forbidden to dissect the 'track' of the bullet?
>Have a go at those Qs for starters, and let's see if you can avoid
>looking like a dang fool in the process (I'm doubtful that can be
>achieved, however).
See if you can respond to my refutations without snipping anything at all... I'm
doubtful that a coward like you can do so, Davy-boy - but I have hope.
****************************************************
And, as we can see, my crystal ball has been working overtime, and running 100%
correct. Davy-boy snipped the entire post, minus one sentence, and can't
respond to it.
Ignorance *can* be cured, but not if you aren't capable of reading.
>> "We even have pictures of other bullets being dug out of the grass...where
>> did they go?"
>
>Pitifully-weak argument!
And yet, *exactly* the same argument that you are making!
I'm glad that you recognize how pitifully weak your reliance on this sort of
argument is.
> -- Because I'm not talking about MISSED SHOTS
>(or CTer-perceived "missed" shots that supposedly hit all kinds of
>turf, curbs, signs, and God knows what all on 11/22). It stands to
>reason, you moron, that any "missed" shots are not likely to be
>recovered. And one such miss wasn't recovered from Oswald's rifle that
>struck Tague at about Z160.
Whether a shot 'missed' or 'hit' has nothing to do with whether it can be found
or not.
Tague's shot certainly was not a "miss", it hit a curb. Merely defining shots
as misses because you've decided what the target is can only be rhetoric.
>But, quite obviously (as anyone with a brain would have realized right
>off the bat), what I was talking about, instead, are the two bullets
>that most CTers say went INTO A HUMAN BODY (JFK'S HUMAN BODY) AND
>STOPPED, and then magically disappeared. Where are they?
Actually, I already answered this. One is still in the body, and the other fell
out, was recovered at Parkland (perhaps), and was swapped with a bullet that
matches LHO's rifle.
>And saying the
>back-wound bullet is "still in the body" is the height of absurdity.
Never said that. It's the bullet that entered the *throat* that might still be
in the body.
Can't read, I see. Perhaps this explains your ignorance... you've simply never
read the eyewitness testimony.
>Full-body X-rays were done of JFK, and there wasn't a bullet to be
>seen.
Actually, two were seen... a bit of metal low in the body - I seem to recall
Humes attributing it to birdshot, and of course the 6.5mm virtually round object
in the AP X-ray - although clearly related to a head shot.
>(All X-rays are faked, right?
No, just the AP, for sure, minor playing around with the laterals, and probably
the neck X-rays as well.
>Humes is a lying crook, right?
He told lies, yes. Even *YOU* can't believe everything he stated.
Or are you willing to state for the record that you believe everything he said
about the autopsy?
>Obviously, this has to be the CT retort...because lacking the bullets,
>any "alternate" version of the SBT is doomed.)
Simply not true. We *are* lacking bullets, and that hasn't stopped you from
asserting the truth of the SBT.
>Humes' WC remarks re. "missiles in body":
>
>Commander HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made
>X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper
>portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower
>extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray
>examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays
>are available.
>
>Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the
>possible presence of a missile in the President's body?
>
>Commander HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the
>President's body at any point. And these were examined by ourselves and
>by the radiologist, who assisted us in this endeavor.
Actually, the X-rays quite clearly *do* show a bullet. You may view it in the
AP X-ray.
Care to explain?
And, as Ebersole makes clear, there *is* another bit of metal that could be a
bullet - Ebersole believes it to be birdshot - but no-one knew anything about
this until the HSCA:
Dr. Ebersole. At the time of the autopsy I felt that this metallic fragment to
the right of the midline represented myelographic media. I think what this
really represents is a buckshot since it is well to the right of the canal.
This is the other possibility. It represents a buckshot or a myelographic
media. This can be positively identified as taken that night. This was the
rounded material. The myelographic media would be in or near the midline of the
spinal canal where this appears to be near the right. It could represent either
thing although I expect from its density and its rounded appearence it means
buckshot.
Dr. Wecht. What do you mean by buckshot there?
Dr. Ebersole. A pellet from the shell fired by a shotgun.
So here we have *TWO* bullets, or metal fragments that could be bullets, in
X-rays that you've just assured us that Humes stated doesn't contain them.
Ignorance *can* be cured... but you have to work at it.
>The new never-ending question to CTers should be ---
>
>WHERE ARE THE BULLETS? WHERE ARE THE BULLETS?
I asked you that question, and you couldn't answer it. Why not, Davy-boy?
Where *ARE* those bullets?
>Good golly, Mr. Groden has up to TEN bullets magically disappearing.
Yep... we even have a newspaper photo of one of them disappearing right before
your eyes.
But you couldn't respond... cowardly, wasn't it?
>Ollie Stone has six (because we can't count CE399, of course...it was
>"planted").
No, it was swapped.
>6 to 10 bullets that just aren't there, when AT LEAST 4
>should be, per CT versions that is (the ones that hit Kennedy and
>Connally).
You only have two bullets... where's the third?
Why can't you produce it?
>CTers actually believe that all 4 of these "real" bullets either just
>got lost...or were immediately recoverable by ONLY covert "cover-up"
>agents? Get real...and get a brain!
You should... but then you'd not be a LNT'er anymore.
>And the "pinky probe" done at autopsy was stupid, I'll readily admit.
>And this, per CTers, indicates the wound couldn't be a T&T wound
>through the throat.
No, it was the metal probes that proved that point.
>It means no such thing, of course, and Humes'
>testimony says so. Humes said that any further probing of the wound
>would have risked causing a false passage through the body. (Plus, the
>"45-to-60 downward degree" angle of this perceived-to-be-shallow back
>wound is utterly ridiculous in the first place. Where was the gunman
>who caused this wound....in a 707 over Dealey Plaza?)
You should think about this for a while. You might, zen-like, receive
enlightenment.
>Plus....the idea that TWO missiles would have been fired at JFK via
>low-powered weapons akin to BB guns is absurd on its face as well.
Yep... simply absurd that you wouldn't use the highest powered rifle you could
get... right? Something as silly as a child's .22 would be just silly...
Oops... a .22 is the favored weapon of many assassins. How absurd, right?
>Makes no sense. These "pro" assassins strike with awesome force with
>the head shot that destroys JFK's head, and they shoot Connally with a
>high-powered round, per CTers, which is a shot that goes all the way
>through him....
>
>But when firing the FIRST TWO bullets into the ONE & ONLY
>MUST-HAVE-DEAD TARGET of John Kennedy's body...what do these bonehead
>shooters do? They fire two dud rounds, evidently, into him. Just as
>warning shots of what's to come I guess. Two bullets that barely
>penetrate JFK's body...with the back wound going in barely a pinky's
>length! How much sense does this make in a pre-11/22 context? Answer --
>It makes NO sense at all....which is one of the many reasons it's not
>true....at all.
Yep... the medical and eyewitness evidence makes no sense - OFF WITH THEIR
HEADS.
And while doing so, take the queen's advice about believing in impossible
things...
>Obviously, Dr. Humes, et al, actually used something called "common
>sense" when attempting to re-construct the event re. JFK's wounds. ....
Yes... let's examine Dr. Humes' 'common sense', as you call it.
Mr. DULLES - Just one other question.
Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely
inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if the shot were
fired from in front or the side of the President: it had to be fired from behind
the President?
Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
Ah! Great common sense! Davy-boy, you've SOLVED THE CASE!!! JFK was hit in
the back of the head, and the bullet EXITED THE BACK OF THE HEAD!
Dr. Humes said so... and he's got *COMMON SENSE*!!
But you'll snip this... like you do everything else, Davy-boy... because you
don't have the intelligence or honesty to respond...
>1.) Humes, after talking to Perry on Sat. AM, realizes there's a wound
>in the throat.
Oh, he already knew about it.
>2.) There were no bullets in the body at all.
>3.) And possibly MORE importantly, there was absolutely NO DAMAGE to
>the interior portions of JFK's neck
Actually, simply untrue. As anyone who bothers to read the testimony can
quickly determine.
Dr. Humes " ... We examined in the region of this incised surgical wound which
was the tracheotomy wound and we saw that there was some bruising of the muscles
of the neck in the depths of this wound as well as laceration or defect in the
trachea.
At this point, of course, I am unable to say how much of the defect in the
trachea was made by the knife of the surgeon, and how much of the defect was
made by the missile wound. That would have to be ascertained from the surgeon
who actually did the tracheotomy.
There was, however, some ecchymosis or contusion, of the muscles of the right
anterior neck inferiorly, without, however, any disruption of the muscles or any
significant tearing of the muscles. ... "
You can also read Dr. Perry's comments: "... At that point the trachea was noted
to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the
exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.
I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right
side. ... "
The mere idea that there was no damage from the passage of a bullet is silly.
>and upper back....
There's *NO* evidence upon which you can base this statement. The prosectors
were *NOT ALLOWED* to dissect the track of this wound, and therefore COULD NOT
VIEW ANY DAMAGE OR LACK OF DAMAGE IN THE BACK WOUND.
But you're free to offer a citation if you can...
>which there most
>certainly would have HAD to have been if two bullets had entered his
>body and were stopped cold by SOMETHING!
Rather a silly argument... "there was no damage, so a bullet must have
transited."
>Therefore, Humes' final report was perfectly sound and logical given
>the above conditions......
Dr. Humes final report was based on speculation, and contradicted by his actual
examination.
>"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
>the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
>the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the
>neck.
>This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
>and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The
>missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
>damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
>the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
>structures in its path through the body."
And yet, as has been recently proven, this is not possible. A bullet going
through the body following the track laid out by the WC *ABSOLUTELY MUST GO
THOUGH A PORTION OF THE SPINE*
They didn't know this in 1963 - but today with CAT scans, it's possible to see
that the WC's speculation was simply impossible.
>Nothing to date has undermined the above words from JFK's November 1963
>autopsy report.
Once again, ignorance can be cured.
>One more time for the hard-of-hearing:
>
>WHERE ARE THE BULLETS??
I agree... where are they? Why can't you respond? Why did you snip the
question, and not answer it? Why are you planning to snip this post as well?
Coward, aren't you Davy-boy?
Ben Holmes
Liar, aren't you? I provided a citation you can't refute.
>> Do you plan on explaining to lurkers why you tried to imply that this photo
>> doesn't exist?
>>
>
>Funny how we have talked about this before and I have always pointed out
>this photo.
And yet, you denied it existed in this post... why is that, Tony?
>>>> Come on, Tony; let's hear you deny it. When you do, I'll cite it.
>>>>
>>> Come on, moron, let's head you deny that you used the word "dug."
>>
>>
>> Of course I did. Why would I deny what I clearly wrote?
>
>Because you won't admit that you lied.
I didn't lie. I'm not stupid enough to believe that a bullet was laying on the
grass.
Come on, Tony... tell the lurkers here that no "digging" was required, and they
merely plucked the bullet off the grass...
Play the fool all you want.
>>> The photo does not show or indicate anyone digging anything out of the
>>> ground.
>>
>>
>> Yep... the bullet was just laying on top of the grass. Moron Tony has
>> just told us so.
>>
>
>I don't even claim that it was a bullet. That is what some photo
>captions claim. Anyway, no one else in this universe had used the word
>"dug" until you added it.
"There's independently corroborated testimony that an "agent" dug a
whole bullet out of the grass and took it away, never to be seen again." Gert
Niewahr June 16th, 1992
"Note that there is a case to be made that the Big Cover-up did hide
a bullet dug out of the grass." Brent Buckner Feb 3rd, 1993
"How did they know an extra bullet wouldn't be dug out of the grass in Dealey
Plaza?" John McAdams April 19th, 1993
"Contemporary press accounts reported that a bullet was retrieved from the
dug-out hole in the grass near the manhole cover." Michael Griffith 1996
"Wasn't it also a sheriff's dept. man who was with the plain clothes blonde man
who supposedly dug the bullet out of the grass on the south side of Elm St.
which was also pocketed." Tony Pitman May 21st, 1998
"Photographers Jim Murray and Bill Allen took a famous sequence of pictures
showing Deputy Sheriff E. R. "Buddy" Walthers (in civilian clothes) and
watching a blond-haired man he believed to be an FBI agent point at the dug-out
spot on the ground just off Elm Street, bend over, scoop something up from the
turf, then put the item in his pocket." Dave Reitzes Nov 9th, 1998
"I never saw the bullet dug out of the ground but I heard a lot of people
talking about it." Vern Pascal, quoting Michael Benson's JFK Assassination
Encyclopedia Sep 3rd, 2003
Looks to me like you owe this newsgroup a retraction of your statement, Tony.
Do you have the honesty to provide it?
Or will you duck and run like normal??
>> At least Tony has finally figured out that the photo exists... that's a
>> start.
>>
>
>I discussed it long before you became aware of it.
Feel free to cite, Tony. You clearly haven't been very accurate so far.
You tried to deny the existence of this photo - you've tried to deny that others
have used the word "dug" in relation to this bullet.
>> Of course, he still seems oblivious to the fact that NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER
>> exists for his lie about Dr. Humes burning anything at all on Saturday
>> morning.
Dead silence... a known liar, is what you are, Tony.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <442b0a61$0$9579$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>, Anthony Marsh
>> says...
>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>Note to Lurkers... David was unable to respond to a majority of my post - so he
>>>> snipped to the only point he could reply to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article <1143650161.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>>>> says...
>>>>>> "That multiple shooters decided to shoot when the target appeared at the
>>>>>> appropriate place isn't really all that amazing..."
>>>>> And while they're performing this synchronized ballet of shots,
>>>> Again, what part of my answer did you fail to understand?
>>>>
>>>> Did you suppose that Shooter 'A' decided to fire while the limo was
>>>> on Houston street, and Shoot 'B' decided to shoot when the limo was
>>>> on Elm, and Shooter 'C' decided to shoot when the limo was beyond the
>>>> overpass?
>>>>
>>>> How silly!
>>
>>And yet, evidently, Tony is considering just such a scenario. He denies what is
>> so clearly the case below...
>>
>>
>
>Not only did I not say what you suggest I am considering, but I never
>implied such a thing.
Here it is again:
>>>> They all shot at roughly the same time BECAUSE THE TARGET WAS AT THE RIGHT
>>>> LOCATION AT THAT TIME.
>>> No. There is no evidence of three shooters shooting at roughly the same
>>> time.
Liar, aren't you, Tony? This really isn't rocket science.
>I fact I have said exactly the opposite.
Actually, no, you didn't. There it is, for everyone to see.
>The plan
>and the results are to shoot all shots while the limo is on Elm Street.
Yep... exactly as I stated, and you responded "No."
Liar, aren't you?
>The insurance shot specifies that the target not get past that position
>alive.
Who cares what a liar thinks?
>>>> They all shot at roughly the same time BECAUSE THE TARGET WAS AT THE RIGHT
>>>> LOCATION AT THAT TIME.
>>> No. There is no evidence of three shooters shooting at roughly the same
>>> time.
>>
>>
>> Tony is too stupid to figure out that less than 10 seconds to the average
>> person is "roughly the same time"
>>
>
>You are too stupid to realize that 10 seconds in an assassination is not
>roughly the same times. That is an eternity.
Yes... it is. Liar, aren't you?
>> Just as it would be an eternity to a physicist working on particle
>> collisions.
>>
>> Tony spouts off because he apparently thinks it makes him sound
>> knowledgeable.
>>
>> And yet, Tony, you merely look the fool.
>>
>
>Only because you constantly lie about what I have said.
I quote your *exact* words. Liar, aren't you?
>> Let's examine Tony's argument. JFK (and limo, of course), appear on Elm
>>street... he appears at the location that is best for shooting - triangulation
>> of fire by multiple shooters... but Tony will argue that no, they didn't use
>> this event to decide when to fire...
>
>I have never said anything that you claim I have said. You are a liar.
>>>> They all shot at roughly the same time BECAUSE THE TARGET WAS AT THE RIGHT
>>>> LOCATION AT THAT TIME.
>>> No. There is no evidence of three shooters shooting at roughly the same
>>> time.
Lied, didn't you?
>> Do you suppose, Tony, that they all decided to fire at 12:30:00 ... and
>> someone's watch was not synchronized?
>>
>>
>>> The evidence indicates a couple of rapid shots from one location,
>>> then a pause of about 5 seconds before the grassy knoll shot.
>>
>> Actually, once again, Tony merely lies to pass the time. He knows just
>> as well as most lurkers that the evidence is for precisely the *opposite*
>> - one shot, followed by a pause, then a flurry of at *least* two more shots.
>
>Garbage. You are basing your arguments on only the witnesses you like to
>cite. Weak evidence.
Liar, aren't you? You know just as well as anyone who's studied the evidence
that the overwhelming evidence CONTRADICTS your silly lie here...
>> Tony argues the opposite, knowing that the evidence for such is weak.
>>
>> How silly!
>>
>>
>>>> Tis really quite simple, if you pause to give thought to it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> they at
>>>>> the same time are performing their amazing connect-the-wounds pattern
>>>>> of holes in the two victims (one who is not even being aimed at) that
>>>>> look remarkably like a straight-line path back to the SN window.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it doesn't. Books have long detailed the strange flight of the
>>>> supposed SBT, and the way it has to change trajectories.
>>>>
>>>>Since you start with bad and incorrect facts, you end up with bad and incorrect
>>>> conclusions.
>>>>
>>>>But ignorance can be cured. Just keep posting, and I'll keep correcting your
>>>> ignorance to the best of my ability.
>>>>
>>>>> Truly Oscar-worthy, these shooters.
Bud
> In article <1143863723.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >Pitifully-weak CT arguments re. the SBT. But...why expect anything more
> >from rabid CTers?
>
>
> So "pitifully-weak" that you were forced to snip *EVERYTHING* except for a
> single sentence.
DVP was making the points he wished to make. It`sa very good
approach, that way the coversation doesn`t get bogged down while he
trys to correct all your misrepresentations of the evidence.
> Rather cowardly, isn't it?
Ben needs to narrowly discuss issues, and DVP is wasting his time
appealing to Ben to apply common sense to these issues. If he had any
common sense, he wouldn`t be a CT.
> But just for lurkers, here's the post that Davy-boy couldn't answer:
Anybody following the discussion should be able to track the issues.
Like when DVP asked for a reasonable CT alternative to the SBT. Ben
offered a few from crackpot conspiracy books, which DVP demolished, and
Ben didn`t even try to defend them. Why did Ben mention them if they
were so weak that he couldn`t defend them? Why, to lie about the CT`s
ability to produce a reasonable alternative to the SBT. In any case,
DVP isn`t allowing Ben to bog down the conversation with things Ben
sees as evidential problems (you`ll notice the CT approach, create as
much muddle as possible. You might think muddle would be the opposite
of what you want, but kooks think the existance of muddle justifies
their suspicions), he wants Ben to present a superior scenario to the
SBT. And the LN lurkers will understand that, even if the CT lurkers
need to be taken by the hand like they are retarded.
And DVP trying to get you to apply common sense to the evidence is a
lost cause also. If one doctor at one time said it appered the bullet
ranged downward, then that information, which makes to sense and is
obviously wrong, is the information that must be latched onto by the
true kook. That way muddle is produced, and suspicions are supported.
But, when DVP asks Ben for a scenario that includes a frontal, 45
degree downranging frontal shot that doesn`t transit the body, you get
squalking about nonissues instead. If the SBT is faulty, then CT can
produce a superior accounting of events, right? And, is there a
scenario that can satisfy all the medical evidence. Every utterance,
every witness, every x-ray? If no scenario can be produced that is not
above dispute with aspects of the medical evidence, does this mean
those men weren`t shot?
>
>
>
> >> "We even have pictures of other bullets being dug out of the grass...where
> >> did they go?"
> >
> >Pitifully-weak argument!
>
> And yet, *exactly* the same argument that you are making!
>
> I'm glad that you recognize how pitifully weak your reliance on this sort of
> argument is.
>
>
> > -- Because I'm not talking about MISSED SHOTS
> >(or CTer-perceived "missed" shots that supposedly hit all kinds of
> >turf, curbs, signs, and God knows what all on 11/22). It stands to
> >reason, you moron, that any "missed" shots are not likely to be
> >recovered. And one such miss wasn't recovered from Oswald's rifle that
> >struck Tague at about Z160.
>
> Whether a shot 'missed' or 'hit' has nothing to do with whether it can be found
> or not.
Bullshit. Common sense (if Ben had any) would tell youhat a shot
that hits a person increases the likelyhood it will be recovered.
> Tague's shot certainly was not a "miss", it hit a curb. Merely defining shots
> as misses because you've decided what the target is can only be rhetoric.
So, the shooter was trying to assassinate the curb?
> >But, quite obviously (as anyone with a brain would have realized right
> >off the bat), what I was talking about, instead, are the two bullets
> >that most CTers say went INTO A HUMAN BODY (JFK'S HUMAN BODY) AND
> >STOPPED, and then magically disappeared. Where are they?
>
> Actually, I already answered this. One is still in the body, and the other fell
> out, was recovered at Parkland (perhaps), and was swapped with a bullet that
> matches LHO's rifle.
This is how kooks get around the evidence they don`t like. The x-ray
showing the bullet was swapped, and the Parkland bullet was swapped. A
wide-ranging efort involving hundreds of people (x-ray techs to produce
x-rays showing no bullet, field operative to swith and plant, ect), and
all are quiet to this very day. Kooky.
> >And saying the
> >back-wound bullet is "still in the body" is the height of absurdity.
>
> Never said that. It's the bullet that entered the *throat* that might still be
> in the body.
What bone did it hit to stop it?
> Can't read, I see. Perhaps this explains your ignorance... you've simply never
> read the eyewitness testimony.
>
>
> >Full-body X-rays were done of JFK, and there wasn't a bullet to be
> >seen.
>
> Actually, two were seen... a bit of metal low in the body - I seem to recall
> Humes attributing it to birdshot, and of course the 6.5mm virtually round object
> in the AP X-ray - although clearly related to a head shot.
>
> >(All X-rays are faked, right?
>
>
> No, just the AP, for sure, minor playing around with the laterals, and probably
> the neck X-rays as well.
>
>
> >Humes is a lying crook, right?
>
> He told lies, yes. Even *YOU* can't believe everything he stated.
>
> Or are you willing to state for the record that you believe everything he said
> about the autopsy?
>
> >Obviously, this has to be the CT retort...because lacking the bullets,
> >any "alternate" version of the SBT is doomed.)
>
>
> Simply not true. We *are* lacking bullets, and that hasn't stopped you from
> asserting the truth of the SBT.
Plenty of bullet available to account for the SBT.
> >Humes' WC remarks re. "missiles in body":
> >
> >Commander HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made
> >X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper
> >portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower
> >extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray
> >examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays
> >are available.
> >
> >Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the
> >possible presence of a missile in the President's body?
> >
> >Commander HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the
> >President's body at any point. And these were examined by ourselves and
> >by the radiologist, who assisted us in this endeavor.
>
>
> Actually, the X-rays quite clearly *do* show a bullet. You may view it in the
> AP X-ray.
>
> Care to explain?
Yah, the head radiologist called the round circle an artifact.
> And, as Ebersole makes clear, there *is* another bit of metal that could be a
> bullet - Ebersole believes it to be birdshot - but no-one knew anything about
> this until the HSCA:
>
> Dr. Ebersole. At the time of the autopsy I felt that this metallic fragment to
> the right of the midline represented myelographic media. I think what this
> really represents is a buckshot since it is well to the right of the canal.
> This is the other possibility. It represents a buckshot or a myelographic
> media. This can be positively identified as taken that night. This was the
> rounded material. The myelographic media would be in or near the midline of the
> spinal canal where this appears to be near the right. It could represent either
> thing although I expect from its density and its rounded appearence it means
> buckshot.
> Dr. Wecht. What do you mean by buckshot there?
> Dr. Ebersole. A pellet from the shell fired by a shotgun.
>
> So here we have *TWO* bullets, or metal fragments that could be bullets, in
> X-rays that you've just assured us that Humes stated doesn't contain them.
Ben thinks there was an assassin with a BB gun now.
> Ignorance *can* be cured... but you have to work at it.
>
> >The new never-ending question to CTers should be ---
> >
> >WHERE ARE THE BULLETS? WHERE ARE THE BULLETS?
>
>
> I asked you that question, and you couldn't answer it. Why not, Davy-boy?
> Where *ARE* those bullets?
>
>
> >Good golly, Mr. Groden has up to TEN bullets magically disappearing.
>
> Yep... we even have a newspaper photo of one of them disappearing right before
> your eyes.
Does Ben claim he can see a bullet in that photo?
> But you couldn't respond... cowardly, wasn't it?
>
>
> >Ollie Stone has six (because we can't count CE399, of course...it was
> >"planted").
>
> No, it was swapped.
>
> >6 to 10 bullets that just aren't there, when AT LEAST 4
> >should be, per CT versions that is (the ones that hit Kennedy and
> >Connally).
>
> You only have two bullets... where's the third?
>
> Why can't you produce it?
For bullets to leave evidence in people, it has to hit people.
> >CTers actually believe that all 4 of these "real" bullets either just
> >got lost...or were immediately recoverable by ONLY covert "cover-up"
> >agents? Get real...and get a brain!
>
>
> You should... but then you'd not be a LNT'er anymore.
>
>
> >And the "pinky probe" done at autopsy was stupid, I'll readily admit.
> >And this, per CTers, indicates the wound couldn't be a T&T wound
> >through the throat.
>
> No, it was the metal probes that proved that point.
>
> >It means no such thing, of course, and Humes'
> >testimony says so. Humes said that any further probing of the wound
> >would have risked causing a false passage through the body. (Plus, the
> >"45-to-60 downward degree" angle of this perceived-to-be-shallow back
> >wound is utterly ridiculous in the first place. Where was the gunman
> >who caused this wound....in a 707 over Dealey Plaza?)
>
> You should think about this for a while. You might, zen-like, receive
> enlightenment.
The sewer!
> >Plus....the idea that TWO missiles would have been fired at JFK via
> >low-powered weapons akin to BB guns is absurd on its face as well.
>
> Yep... simply absurd that you wouldn't use the highest powered rifle you could
> get... right? Something as silly as a child's .22 would be just silly...
>
> Oops... a .22 is the favored weapon of many assassins. How absurd, right?
Is this really Ben`s defense for his belief that two bullets didn`t
transit? The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-letehal, 1 inch
deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble
him to death by ducks?
> >Makes no sense. These "pro" assassins strike with awesome force with
> >the head shot that destroys JFK's head, and they shoot Connally with a
> >high-powered round, per CTers, which is a shot that goes all the way
> >through him....
> >
> >But when firing the FIRST TWO bullets into the ONE & ONLY
> >MUST-HAVE-DEAD TARGET of John Kennedy's body...what do these bonehead
> >shooters do? They fire two dud rounds, evidently, into him. Just as
> >warning shots of what's to come I guess. Two bullets that barely
> >penetrate JFK's body...with the back wound going in barely a pinky's
> >length! How much sense does this make in a pre-11/22 context? Answer --
> >It makes NO sense at all....which is one of the many reasons it's not
> >true....at all.
>
>
> Yep... the medical and eyewitness evidence makes no sense - OFF WITH THEIR
> HEADS.
Again, DVP is wasting his time appealing to CT common sense. Of
course CT can`t produce reasonable scenarios using their reading of the
evidence. Because they aren`t trying to produce scenarios of what
happened, they are only using it to attack the existing scenarios. The
don`t want explainations, muddle is fine with them. With muddle comes
suspicion. They aren`t trying to take all these things they assert and
see how the can be combined to form an explaination. Only that they can
be used to dispute the SBT is important.
> And while doing so, take the queen's advice about believing in impossible
> things...
Like hundreds of people working to commit this deed all keeping
quiet for decades?
> >Obviously, Dr. Humes, et al, actually used something called "common
> >sense" when attempting to re-construct the event re. JFK's wounds. ....
>
> Yes... let's examine Dr. Humes' 'common sense', as you call it.
No, lets examine yours. Stop creating muddle and give your
explaination.
> Mr. DULLES - Just one other question.
> Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely
> inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if the shot were
> fired from in front or the side of the President: it had to be fired from behind
> the President?
> Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
> fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
>
> Ah! Great common sense! Davy-boy, you've SOLVED THE CASE!!! JFK was hit in
> the back of the head, and the bullet EXITED THE BACK OF THE HEAD!
>
> Dr. Humes said so... and he's got *COMMON SENSE*!!
This is not to say he can`t poorly word something, confuse his
answer, or think he gave a clear answer when to an observer he didn`t.
Interesting though is that kooks will always latch on the poorly
worded, ambiguous phrasing, even when it is obviously wrong. I`ve seen
this portion of testimony quoted by CT a few times, which shows their
preference for muddled testimony. Again, if *any* conclusions about the
wounds on these two men can be argued against using select portions of
the medical evidence, what value does it have?
Not his argument. The argument was that there was nothing struck to
stop a bullet.
> >Therefore, Humes' final report was perfectly sound and logical given
> >the above conditions......
>
>
> Dr. Humes final report was based on speculation, and contradicted by his actual
> examination.
>
>
> >"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
> >the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
> >the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the
> >neck.
> >This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
> >and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The
> >missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
> >damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
> >the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
> >structures in its path through the body."
>
>
> And yet, as has been recently proven, this is not possible. A bullet going
> through the body following the track laid out by the WC *ABSOLUTELY MUST GO
> THOUGH A PORTION OF THE SPINE*
>
> They didn't know this in 1963 - but today with CAT scans, it's possible to see
> that the WC's speculation was simply impossible.
>
>
>
> >Nothing to date has undermined the above words from JFK's November 1963
> >autopsy report.
>
>
> Once again, ignorance can be cured.
Monumental stupidity is tougher.
> >One more time for the hard-of-hearing:
> >
> >WHERE ARE THE BULLETS??
>
> I agree... where are they? Why can't you respond? Why did you snip the
> question, and not answer it? Why are you planning to snip this post as well?
>
> Coward, aren't you Davy-boy?
Kook, aren`t you Benny-boy?
aeffects
ahhh, dudster -- there is no more reasonable excuse for conspiracy than
what one can find, or NOT find [which SHOULD be], in the WCR --
A-huffin and a-puffin ain't gonna change that... Von Pain is the
perfect example of 'hopin and 'prayin that the 1964 report status quo
can be maintained -- it's over Dudes and/or Dudettes -- we were fed a
line, for WHATEVER resason!
David VP
Precisely....exactly....if TWO bullets were FORCED to stop dead inside
JFK, there WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL VISIBLE DAMAGE. It wouldn't be QUITE so
ridiculous a CTer claim if it were just ONE single
mysteriously-stopping-dead bullet....but you guys have got TWO of these
crazy disappearing missiles going into JFK and not causing a single
boken bone or any other substantial injuries where there oughta be
some! Just...nutty!
Instead, we have a "bruised" lung and slight trachea damage where the
bullet exited. But no broken bones and no other significant damage. To
think that two bullets just stopped and caused no major damage inside
JFK is to believe a fantasy (IOW, it is to be a rabid CTer who can't
explain the lack of bodily damage AND bullets inside JFK).
Just to be able to reasonably explain ONE of those two snafus would be
remarkable on a CTer's part -- but to explain (believably) BOTH of
those implausibilities (lack of injuries PLUS the disappearance of TWO
bullets that supposedly entered and never exited two separate areas of
JFK's body) would be a task that only God Himself could tackle (mainly
because it's not possible in this Earthly world we live in).
>> "I agree... where are they {the bullets}? Why can't you respond?"
What the hell?! Are you high on CTer Kooky Gas again?? I know where the
"Bullet" (singular) is ... the one and only required SBT bullet is,
quite obviously, CE399. 399 was connected to Oswald's rifle...the rifle
was found in a building from where shots were fired when JFK drove
by...399 was found in the hospital where the victims were taken...and
fragments "most likely" from 399 were plucked from Governor Connally.
And the bullet path/track through both victims aligns perfectly to
Oswald's SN window. Plus, there's no way Oswald hits Connally in the
back where he was hit without first striking JFK with the very same
bullet.
I wonder why a college degree is necessary to figure out the
obviousness of the above....which is stuff that actually fits the
EVIDENCE in the case (which is unlike CTers' "alternate" theories, with
those CT variants coming straight from the anal region of a CTer,
without a scrap of physical evidence to back them up).
The 399/LHO/SBT/TSBD scenario fits like a well-oiled machine.....a
machine with various running parts that would have all had to be
manufactured by conspirators if the SBT is actually false. .....
The plotters need to "create" from whole cloth "CE399", planting it in
the hospital at a ludicrous point in time (prior to 2 PM Dallas time on
the 22nd)....
The plotters then need to erase from view (immediately) ALL other
bullets associated with the "real assassins". A remarkable effort by
the plotters there (esp. considering that one or more of the "real"
bullets went into an unintended victim; but, no worries, these ace
plotters are up to any cover-up assignment, so they'll manage to dig
out the Connally bullet(s) too and hide those from all
non-henchmen)....
The real assassins have to shoot JFK & JBC at an identical time (based
on the Z-Film observations of both victims)....
The plotters have to (somehow) make sure that not too many lead
fragments are seen or recovered from either of the victims. And they
have to (somehow) make sure that the lead composition and
characteristics of the one "planted" bullet match very, very closely to
the lead fragments removed from John Connally's wrist (fragments which,
per all CT accounts, did not come from 399 and probably did not even
come from an MC/WCC bullet at all....at least a whole bunch of CTers
are in this camp, because those kooks don't think C2766 was even being
fired on 11/22, by anybody).
Short of performing this amazing hunk of "bullet composition magic",
the plotters would have to buy or bribe or coerce or threaten the life
of Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, and get this guy to testify for the rest of
his life that his NAA analysis produced a result on the Connally
fragments that made them "most likely" to have come from bullet 399, in
his "bought"/"coerced" opinion.
And the biggie, of course -- The plotters/shooters have to somehow
shoot Kennedy & Connally in such a way so that the pattern of bullet
holes in the men (coming from both rear and FRONT, mind you) can later
be deemed acceptable for the adoption of the SBT by an official
Government panel of investigators.
Whew! What a task indeed.....and all totally silly and needless too.
These "plotters" (whoever they were) could have unquestionably done
away with Mr. Kennedy in a much-less-nutty and quieter fashion. They
could have had him shot dead (in private) in Washington someplace. No
witnesses at all (except a few "plotters" of course). Or, even better
of course, they could have simply rigged the election in '64, and
gotten rid of their unwanted President in that non-lethal fashion.
But what do these plotters do instead? -- They organize, somehow, the
craziest, looniest, multi-gun, "let's-frame-a-patsy-named-Oswald" plot
that has ever been dreamed up by any group of morons in history....and
they go about the task of assassinating a U.S. President under the
noontime sun in a large U.S. city, in front of 250+ witnesses, and in
front of more than A DOZEN cameras!
And to complicate things even more (just so that the
"after-the-shooting cover-up guys" can get in a little extra work) --
they decide -- per some CT versions of the shooting -- NOT to shoot the
one target with the patsy's gun, plus they decide they'll make framing
the one patsy even more impossible by plugging JFK from multiple angles
in DP too.
What a great plan that was!
I can certainly see why so many conspiracists believe that type of
realistic, believable, based-on-hard-evidence-and-common-sense
scenario. It's hard not to buy into that kind of pristine,
well-thought-out logic, I'll admit.
But, I guess I'm just a silly fool who can't/won't see the obvious
accuracy of the above CT-favoring idiocy I've spelled out above.
Because after considering such hogwash (for about two minutes
altogether), I think I'd rather stick with Mr. Bugliosi. But thanks
anyway for the hogwash. (And Vince thanks the rabid CTers
too....they've provided him with an extra 300 pages {easy} of loopy
theories for him to debunk in his book.)
"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- Vince
Bugliosi
David VP
deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble
him to death by ducks?"
Where's that big ol' "LOL" icon when I need it??
This was Classic, Bud! I couldn't agree more. Esp. when considering the
CT kook's supposed "timing" of these two "nibble him to death" shots --
the FIRST TWO SHOTS FIRED (per many theorist's account anyway)...or at
the very least, 2 of the first THREE (of 177) shots fired...and
certainly the FIRST TWO SHOTS that (supposedly) hit any victim.
So, this way, with just the non-lethal "nibbling" going on, this gives
the Must-Have-Dead victim ample time (at least 4.86 seconds until the
time of the fatal head shot) to avoid getting killed with the
(evidently) only high-powered rifle these "pro" hit men could afford
for this biggest-of-all assassinations they will ever attempt.
Yeah...makes sense to me.
And let's not forgot the equally-absurd "Shoot Him In The Neck With A
Low-Powered Umbrella Dart To Paralyze The Victim" theory. That's part
of the overall "nibble him to death" scenario too.
Thanks, Bud. I still can't stop nibbling...er...I mean laughing. ;)
>> "Again, DVP is wasting his time appealing to CT common sense."
Yeah, you are so right about this, Bud. I've realized this for quite
some time now. But...it's worth a try once in a while. Perhaps at least
a lurker or two will be able to see the silliness in some of the CT
versions vs. the logicality of the LN position.
Two more examples of the "CT mindset of isolating evidence", instead of
using common sense to figure out the whole nine yards of the
story.......
CTers will argue that Oswald never entered the TSBD with a "bulky
package" of some ilk. The CT argument is -- No way he could have had a
big bag with him...somebody would have seen him with it...and Dougherty
never saw it, did he?
But, the CTers refuse to "bridge" the obviously-bridgeable gap between
pieces of evidence that make it 100% CERTAIN that Oswald entered the
building with that bag. The two ends of the bridge being -- Wesley
Frazier seeing Oswald walk into the TSBD back door carrying the
bag.....
"I saw him {Lee Oswald} go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the
building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm."
-- W. Frazier affidavit; 11/22/63
.....And the fact that a very similar bag, WITH OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT
(matching the precise way Frazier said LHO was holding the bag,
"cupped" in his right hand), was found in the Sniper's Nest after the
shooting.
The bag was "planted", right? (The standard CT comeback of course.)
Well, just like every other piece of evidence leading straight to
Oswald's murdering hands, the CTers think the bag was phony in some way
too. Well, I say -- Prove it!
And while you're at it, find a way for the "planters" to have "planted"
a fiber from the Paine-garage blanket in that bag too. Crying "It's All
Fake" just is NOT going to cut it in a court of law....and Vince
Bugliosi will be telling us all WHY this is in his upcoming book,
"Final Verdict".
So, if a person can avoid using the words "It's A Fake" for just two
seconds, you can easily see that the "paper bag bridge" has been
crossed, and that gap has been filled in with common sense. It doesn't
matter if Oswald wasn't physically SEEN with the bag after he got
inside the Depository....because common sense, Wes Frazier, and
Oswald's prints on a very similar bag found in the SN after the
shooting are all things that are telling us that Oswald DID take that
bulky paper package into that building on November 22nd.
Another example of "bridging" a gap that CTers say cannot be
bridged.......
The 25 to 30 minutes (or so) when Lee Oswald was not seen by anyone
after he killed J.D. Tippit at approx. 1:14 PM. Oswald is next seen
lurking in Johnny Brewer's shoe-store entrance on Jefferson Blvd. at
about 1:40 PM or so.
Now, some CTers I've talked with in the past seem to think this was in
some way "odd", or "impossible". They are equating Oswald's not being
seen for half-an-hour after the Tippit murder to some kind of proof
that leads away from his guilt in the Tippit slaying.
This is just silly talk, however. Because that gap of time is totally
immaterial, but CTers want to muddy the waters with meaningless drivel.
.......
1.) The evidence clearly shows where Oswald was at about 1:14 PM and a
couple minutes after that -- he was killing Officer Tippit and fleeing
on foot, gun in hand.
2.) The evidence further shows, beyond ALL reasonable doubt, that
Oswald shed his jacket someplace between 10th Street and the Texas
Theater on Jefferson (a light jacket was found at the Texaco station
nearby).
3.) We know beyond ALL doubt where Oswald was at about 1:40 PM -- he
was seen by Johnny Brewer, Julia Postal, and Butch Burroughs going into
the Texas Theater on Jefferson Blvd.
Now...can someone (anyone) tell me WHY it's necessary to know where
Oswald was, and what he was doing, in between these two events (between
1:14 and 1:40)? Why is this info relevant to the facts in the case?
Would Oswald be any LESS guilty of killing Tippit (or JFK) if we could
prove where Lee was (exactly) at 1:31 PM on November 22nd? Would ALL of
the vast amount of evidence that shows Oswald to be guilty of murdering
J.D. Tippit CEASE to exist if this "time gap" of half-an-hour could be
magically filled in? I'd like to know how it would change anything with
respect to any of the substantive facts and evidence in this case.
But, amazingly, I've been told by some rabid "Let's Free Oswald" CTers
that those 30 or so minutes on Nov. 22nd MUST be filled in with 100%
accuracy re. Oswald's whereabouts in order for a prosecution of Oswald
for Tippit's murder to be successful.
CTers! What are ya gonna do with them? Can't shoot 'em. (You'd be
called a "Warrenatti Cover-Up Agent" if you tried that; so that's out.)
.... And it's sure hard to "reason" with a lot of 'em. (You're laughed
at and told to "think outside the WC/LN/SBT/LHO box" if you ever try
that.)
So....I guess I'll just have to use my old stand-by adage.......
"Leave It To Vince."
He'll have to be their Savior. (And will be, in many instances...I'm
nearly sure of that.)
"{It's} easier and more romantic to believe in conspiracy. My book will
show otherwise. Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the
intellectual palate at first glance, but they do violence to all
notions of common sense." -- Vince Bugliosi (1997)
Ben Holmes
Snipping like crazy, Davy-boy has been running from virtually every refutation I
provide.
Wonder why?
*****************************************
In article <1143863723.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>Pitifully-weak CT arguments re. the SBT. But...why expect anything more
>from rabid CTers?
So "pitifully-weak" that you were forced to snip *EVERYTHING* except for a
single sentence.
Rather cowardly, isn't it?
But just for lurkers, here's the post that Davy-boy couldn't answer:
****************************************************
Lurkers deserve no less...
****************************************************
>> "We even have pictures of other bullets being dug out of the grass...where
>> did they go?"
>
>Pitifully-weak argument!
And yet, *exactly* the same argument that you are making!
I'm glad that you recognize how pitifully weak your reliance on this sort of
argument is.
> -- Because I'm not talking about MISSED SHOTS
>(or CTer-perceived "missed" shots that supposedly hit all kinds of
>turf, curbs, signs, and God knows what all on 11/22). It stands to
>reason, you moron, that any "missed" shots are not likely to be
>recovered. And one such miss wasn't recovered from Oswald's rifle that
>struck Tague at about Z160.
Whether a shot 'missed' or 'hit' has nothing to do with whether it can be found
or not.
Tague's shot certainly was not a "miss", it hit a curb. Merely defining shots
as misses because you've decided what the target is can only be rhetoric.
>But, quite obviously (as anyone with a brain would have realized right
>off the bat), what I was talking about, instead, are the two bullets
>that most CTers say went INTO A HUMAN BODY (JFK'S HUMAN BODY) AND
>STOPPED, and then magically disappeared. Where are they?
Actually, I already answered this. One is still in the body, and the other fell
out, was recovered at Parkland (perhaps), and was swapped with a bullet that
matches LHO's rifle.
>And saying the
>back-wound bullet is "still in the body" is the height of absurdity.
Never said that. It's the bullet that entered the *throat* that might still be
in the body.
Can't read, I see. Perhaps this explains your ignorance... you've simply never
read the eyewitness testimony.
>Full-body X-rays were done of JFK, and there wasn't a bullet to be
>seen.
Actually, two were seen... a bit of metal low in the body - I seem to recall
Humes attributing it to birdshot, and of course the 6.5mm virtually round object
in the AP X-ray - although clearly related to a head shot.
>(All X-rays are faked, right?
No, just the AP, for sure, minor playing around with the laterals, and probably
the neck X-rays as well.
>Humes is a lying crook, right?
He told lies, yes. Even *YOU* can't believe everything he stated.
Or are you willing to state for the record that you believe everything he said
about the autopsy?
>Obviously, this has to be the CT retort...because lacking the bullets,
>any "alternate" version of the SBT is doomed.)
Simply not true. We *are* lacking bullets, and that hasn't stopped you from
asserting the truth of the SBT.
>Humes' WC remarks re. "missiles in body":
>
>Commander HUMES - Before the arrival of Colonel Finck we had made
>X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper
>portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower
>extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray
>examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays
>are available.
>
>Mr. SPECTER - What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the
>possible presence of a missile in the President's body?
>
>Commander HUMES - They showed no evidence of a missile in the
>President's body at any point. And these were examined by ourselves and
>by the radiologist, who assisted us in this endeavor.
Actually, the X-rays quite clearly *do* show a bullet. You may view it in the
AP X-ray.
Care to explain?
And, as Ebersole makes clear, there *is* another bit of metal that could be a
bullet - Ebersole believes it to be birdshot - but no-one knew anything about
this until the HSCA:
Dr. Ebersole. At the time of the autopsy I felt that this metallic fragment to
the right of the midline represented myelographic media. I think what this
really represents is a buckshot since it is well to the right of the canal.
This is the other possibility. It represents a buckshot or a myelographic
media. This can be positively identified as taken that night. This was the
rounded material. The myelographic media would be in or near the midline of the
spinal canal where this appears to be near the right. It could represent either
thing although I expect from its density and its rounded appearence it means
buckshot.
Dr. Wecht. What do you mean by buckshot there?
Dr. Ebersole. A pellet from the shell fired by a shotgun.
So here we have *TWO* bullets, or metal fragments that could be bullets, in
X-rays that you've just assured us that Humes stated doesn't contain them.
Ignorance *can* be cured... but you have to work at it.
>The new never-ending question to CTers should be ---
>
>WHERE ARE THE BULLETS? WHERE ARE THE BULLETS?
I asked you that question, and you couldn't answer it. Why not, Davy-boy?
Where *ARE* those bullets?
>Good golly, Mr. Groden has up to TEN bullets magically disappearing.
Yep... we even have a newspaper photo of one of them disappearing right before
your eyes.
But you couldn't respond... cowardly, wasn't it?
>Ollie Stone has six (because we can't count CE399, of course...it was
>"planted").
No, it was swapped.
>6 to 10 bullets that just aren't there, when AT LEAST 4
>should be, per CT versions that is (the ones that hit Kennedy and
>Connally).
You only have two bullets... where's the third?
Why can't you produce it?
>CTers actually believe that all 4 of these "real" bullets either just
>got lost...or were immediately recoverable by ONLY covert "cover-up"
>agents? Get real...and get a brain!
You should... but then you'd not be a LNT'er anymore.
>And the "pinky probe" done at autopsy was stupid, I'll readily admit.
>And this, per CTers, indicates the wound couldn't be a T&T wound
>through the throat.
No, it was the metal probes that proved that point.
>It means no such thing, of course, and Humes'
>testimony says so. Humes said that any further probing of the wound
>would have risked causing a false passage through the body. (Plus, the
>"45-to-60 downward degree" angle of this perceived-to-be-shallow back
>wound is utterly ridiculous in the first place. Where was the gunman
>who caused this wound....in a 707 over Dealey Plaza?)
You should think about this for a while. You might, zen-like, receive
enlightenment.
>Plus....the idea that TWO missiles would have been fired at JFK via
>low-powered weapons akin to BB guns is absurd on its face as well.
Yep... simply absurd that you wouldn't use the highest powered rifle you could
get... right? Something as silly as a child's .22 would be just silly...
Oops... a .22 is the favored weapon of many assassins. How absurd, right?
>Makes no sense. These "pro" assassins strike with awesome force with
>the head shot that destroys JFK's head, and they shoot Connally with a
>high-powered round, per CTers, which is a shot that goes all the way
>through him....
>
>But when firing the FIRST TWO bullets into the ONE & ONLY
>MUST-HAVE-DEAD TARGET of John Kennedy's body...what do these bonehead
>shooters do? They fire two dud rounds, evidently, into him. Just as
>warning shots of what's to come I guess. Two bullets that barely
>penetrate JFK's body...with the back wound going in barely a pinky's
>length! How much sense does this make in a pre-11/22 context? Answer --
>It makes NO sense at all....which is one of the many reasons it's not
>true....at all.
Yep... the medical and eyewitness evidence makes no sense - OFF WITH THEIR
HEADS.
And while doing so, take the queen's advice about believing in impossible
things...
>Obviously, Dr. Humes, et al, actually used something called "common
>sense" when attempting to re-construct the event re. JFK's wounds. ....
Yes... let's examine Dr. Humes' 'common sense', as you call it.
Mr. DULLES - Just one other question.
Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely
inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if the shot were
fired from in front or the side of the President: it had to be fired from behind
the President?
Commander HUMES - Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been
fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
Ah! Great common sense! Davy-boy, you've SOLVED THE CASE!!! JFK was hit in
the back of the head, and the bullet EXITED THE BACK OF THE HEAD!
Dr. Humes said so... and he's got *COMMON SENSE*!!
But you'll snip this... like you do everything else, Davy-boy... because you
>and upper back....
Rather a silly argument... "there was no damage, so a bullet must have
transited."
>Therefore, Humes' final report was perfectly sound and logical given
>the above conditions......
Dr. Humes final report was based on speculation, and contradicted by his actual
examination.
>"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above
>the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and
>the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the
>neck.
>This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura
>and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The
>missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
>damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
>the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony
>structures in its path through the body."
And yet, as has been recently proven, this is not possible. A bullet going
through the body following the track laid out by the WC *ABSOLUTELY MUST GO
THOUGH A PORTION OF THE SPINE*
They didn't know this in 1963 - but today with CAT scans, it's possible to see
that the WC's speculation was simply impossible.
>Nothing to date has undermined the above words from JFK's November 1963
>autopsy report.
Once again, ignorance can be cured.
>One more time for the hard-of-hearing:
>
>WHERE ARE THE BULLETS??
I agree... where are they? Why can't you respond? Why did you snip the
question, and not answer it? Why are you planning to snip this post as well?
Coward, aren't you Davy-boy?
*****************************************
In article <1143970311.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>>> "...There was no damage, so a bullet must have transited"."
>
>
>Precisely....exactly....if TWO bullets were FORCED to stop dead inside
>JFK, there WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL VISIBLE DAMAGE. It wouldn't be QUITE so
>ridiculous a CTer claim if it were just ONE single
>mysteriously-stopping-dead bullet....but you guys have got TWO of these
>crazy disappearing missiles going into JFK and not causing a single
>boken bone or any other substantial injuries where there oughta be
>some! Just...nutty!
Rather silly nonsense you're spouting, Davy-boy. Trying to argue *what must
have been* instead of the facts will get you into trouble every single time.
Perhaps *this* is the root cause of your snipping cowardice...
>Instead, we have a "bruised" lung and slight trachea damage where the
>bullet exited. But no broken bones and no other significant damage. To
>think that two bullets just stopped and caused no major damage inside
>JFK is to believe a fantasy (IOW, it is to be a rabid CTer who can't
>explain the lack of bodily damage AND bullets inside JFK).
Why bother to lie, Davy-boy? Everyone can read it in the parts you snipped.
>Just to be able to reasonably explain ONE of those two snafus would be
>remarkable on a CTer's part -- but to explain (believably) BOTH of
>those implausibilities (lack of injuries PLUS the disappearance of TWO
>bullets that supposedly entered and never exited two separate areas of
>JFK's body) would be a task that only God Himself could tackle (mainly
>because it's not possible in this Earthly world we live in).
Oh, LNT'ers tackle such 'impossibilities' all the time. As I repeatedly point
out.
>> "I agree... where are they {the bullets}? Why can't you respond?"
>
>
>
>What the hell?! Are you high on CTer Kooky Gas again?? I know where the
>"Bullet" (singular) is ... the one and only required SBT bullet is,
>quite obviously, CE399.
Now, why don't you go back and answer the question I asked?
Or is your ignorance so immense that you can't figure it out?
>399 was connected to Oswald's rifle...the rifle
>was found in a building from where shots were fired when JFK drove
>by...399 was found in the hospital where the victims were taken...and
>fragments "most likely" from 399 were plucked from Governor Connally.
>And the bullet path/track through both victims aligns perfectly to
>Oswald's SN window. Plus, there's no way Oswald hits Connally in the
>back where he was hit without first striking JFK with the very same
>bullet.
Making all these silly assertions without providing a shred of evidence or
citation is merely the LNT'ers way of talking without saying anything...
>I wonder why a college degree is necessary to figure out the
>obviousness of the above....which is stuff that actually fits the
>EVIDENCE in the case (which is unlike CTers' "alternate" theories, with
>those CT variants coming straight from the anal region of a CTer,
>without a scrap of physical evidence to back them up).
Considering that it's the LNT'er side that keeps snipping without responding,
your assertion that we don't have "a scrap of physical evidence" is amusing!
LOL!
>The 399/LHO/SBT/TSBD scenario fits like a well-oiled machine.....a
>machine with various running parts that would have all had to be
>manufactured by conspirators if the SBT is actually false. .....
Too bad as much as 90% of America disagrees with you.
>The plotters need to "create" from whole cloth "CE399", planting it in
>the hospital at a ludicrous point in time (prior to 2 PM Dallas time on
>the 22nd)....
Nope... that isn't what the evidence shows.
>The plotters then need to erase from view (immediately) ALL other
>bullets associated with the "real assassins".
They did. A few newspaper accounts, and eyewitness statements are all thats
left.
>A remarkable effort by
>the plotters there (esp. considering that one or more of the "real"
>bullets went into an unintended victim; but, no worries, these ace
>plotters are up to any cover-up assignment, so they'll manage to dig
>out the Connally bullet(s) too and hide those from all
>non-henchmen)....
>
>The real assassins have to shoot JFK & JBC at an identical time (based
>on the Z-Film observations of both victims)....
No... they don't.
>The plotters have to (somehow) make sure that not too many lead
>fragments are seen or recovered from either of the victims.
When you're the one in charge of the investigation, that's quite simple.
>And they
>have to (somehow) make sure that the lead composition and
>characteristics of the one "planted" bullet match very, very closely to
>the lead fragments removed from John Connally's wrist
So "closely" that the WC refused to release the NAA results. LOL!!
>(fragments which,
>per all CT accounts, did not come from 399 and probably did not even
>come from an MC/WCC bullet at all....at least a whole bunch of CTers
>are in this camp, because those kooks don't think C2766 was even being
>fired on 11/22, by anybody).
>
>Short of performing this amazing hunk of "bullet composition magic",
>the plotters would have to buy or bribe or coerce or threaten the life
>of Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, and get this guy to testify for the rest of
>his life that his NAA analysis produced a result on the Connally
>fragments that made them "most likely" to have come from bullet 399, in
>his "bought"/"coerced" opinion.
The results speak for themselves.
>And the biggie, of course -- The plotters/shooters have to somehow
>shoot Kennedy & Connally in such a way so that the pattern of bullet
>holes in the men (coming from both rear and FRONT, mind you) can later
>be deemed acceptable for the adoption of the SBT by an official
>Government panel of investigators.
How silly!
>Whew! What a task indeed.....and all totally silly and needless too.
>These "plotters" (whoever they were) could have unquestionably done
>away with Mr. Kennedy in a much-less-nutty and quieter fashion. They
>could have had him shot dead (in private) in Washington someplace. No
>witnesses at all (except a few "plotters" of course). Or, even better
>of course, they could have simply rigged the election in '64, and
>gotten rid of their unwanted President in that non-lethal fashion.
Is speculation all you have?
>But what do these plotters do instead? -- They organize, somehow, the
>craziest, looniest, multi-gun, "let's-frame-a-patsy-named-Oswald" plot
>that has ever been dreamed up by any group of morons in history....and
>they go about the task of assassinating a U.S. President under the
>noontime sun in a large U.S. city, in front of 250+ witnesses, and in
>front of more than A DOZEN cameras!
Of course, you can't explain the strange last-minute change in the press vehicle
location... can you?
Nah... you'll snip everything again, as usual.
Perhaps you simply don't *want* your ignorance cured...
>And to complicate things even more (just so that the
>"after-the-shooting cover-up guys" can get in a little extra work) --
>they decide -- per some CT versions of the shooting -- NOT to shoot the
>one target with the patsy's gun, plus they decide they'll make framing
>the one patsy even more impossible by plugging JFK from multiple angles
>in DP too.
>
>What a great plan that was!
>
>I can certainly see why so many conspiracists believe that type of
>realistic, believable, based-on-hard-evidence-and-common-sense
>scenario. It's hard not to buy into that kind of pristine,
>well-thought-out logic, I'll admit.
>
>But, I guess I'm just a silly fool who can't/won't see the obvious
>accuracy of the above CT-favoring idiocy I've spelled out above.
>Because after considering such hogwash (for about two minutes
>altogether), I think I'd rather stick with Mr. Bugliosi. But thanks
>anyway for the hogwash.
Yep... it was such "hogwash" that you were forced to snip virtually all of it,
and can't respond.
That's okay... the 26 volumes are available for *anyone* to read. Publishing
them was the biggest mistake of the conspiracy.
>(And Vince thanks the rabid CTers
>too....they've provided him with an extra 300 pages {easy} of loopy
>theories for him to debunk in his book.)
Aren't you going to feel stupid at how easy it's going to be to debunk Bugliosi
when he comes out with his book... *IF* he comes out with his book?
>"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
>other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
>fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- Vince
>Bugliosi
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e0q3o...@drn.newsguy.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
they can dish it out, but they can't take it.
David VP
speculation and skewing of actual evidence...such as the autopsy
report, which he refuses to place an ounce of faith in. Evidently every
single thing about the final report turned in by Humes (and SIGNED by
Humes, Finck, and Boswell) is one great-big lie from start to finish.
But what PROOF does he have to support the idea that it's a big fat
lie? Answer: None.
Let's examine just a sampling of Ben's paranoia here......
>>> "Tague's shot certainly was not a "miss", it hit a curb. Merely defining shots as misses because you've decided what the target is can only be rhetoric." <<<
Perhaps I should repeat the above Ben quote in big, bold, red
letters....to see if it seems any LESS stupid than when I printed it
out, regular-style, above. But I doubt it could be any less
silly-sounding however.
As Bud pointed out in an earlier post of his, I guess Ben must think
that either Tague was a "target" of that gunman's bullet -- or the
killer was seeking revenge on the Dallas Dept. Of Highways for placing
that curbstone where it was.
And, quite obviously, a "miss" (in the context of this case, or any
other) would equate to a bullet that did not GO INTO a victim, with
such a "miss" resulting in an unrecoverable bullet.
Ben can place whatever CT label he wants to on the Tague bullet....it's
still a "miss" in my dictionary.
>>> "One {bullet} is still in the body {of JFK}, and the other fell out, was recovered at Parkland (perhaps), and was swapped with a bullet that matches LHO's rifle." <<<
I love unsupportable CT speculation...don't you? And I love it when
CTers spew forth junk that is in direct opposition to the verified
reports and witness testimony (just in order to glue their
pre-conceived notion of "Conspiracy At All Costs" together).
Ben has no choice but to believe, via that brilliant comment of his,
that Humes and all the radiologists who examined the X-rays of JFK are
ALL liars when they said that NO bullets were located inside Kennedy's
body anywhere.
And Ben has also said he likes the word "replaced" to describe CE399
now, rather than "planted". Obviously, he still means that 399 was
"planted", but in changing the words around a little bit, perhaps he's
trying to fool some poor newbie just looking in.
Of course, in reality, there's not a single piece of proof to show that
CE399 was anything other than what it seems to be -- i.e., a bullet
from Oswald's gun that absolutely, positively, without doubt HAD to
have entered Parkland Hospital by way of one of the victims who was
wounded in Dealey Plaza, a Plaza where (coincidentally) the gun which
fired bullet 399 was located by police 52 minutes after the shooting.
ANY other scenario other than the above conclusion is pure CTer
guesswork....guesswork that leaves behind many more unresolved
common-sense questions than it answers (e.g., Why plant a bullet before
2 PM when it could be an unneeded bullet? ... Why not plant a beat-up
bullet, since it supposedly just did a bunch of damage to 2 people? ...
And: Where did the plotters GET this bullet to plant before 2 PM on
11/22?).
>>> "What's silly, is to believe speculation over first-hand eyewitness testimony and medical description." <<<
Anybody seen the pot and the kettle lately? Oh, there's the pot! Ben's
waving it high over his head right now.
Here, Ben must be talking about his willingness to "believe" in such
"medical description" as the Official JFK Autopsy Report, and the three
autopsy doctors' unwavering belief (via their testimony for decades on
end) that JFK was shot just twice and only from the rear.
Right, Ben? THAT type of "first-hand eyewitness testimony and medical
description" should be worthy of "belief", shouldn't it? Or is it only
the stuff that supports the CT POV that is worthy of being believed?*
* = And, yes, I know a similar argument can be thrown back in my
LN-favoring face re. the "BOH wound" witnesses. And, as I've said
before, I am indeed perplexed by those witnesses' observations. BUT --
The X-rays, the autopsy photos, the Z-Film, and the AUTOPSY REPORT *DO*
still exist as well. Those things exist in addition to the CTer's
precious BOH witnesses. Is ALL of that other OFFICIAL stuff supposed to
be dropped in the nearest trash can because the witnesses say so? You
can drop all of that in the garbage if you so desire...but I choose not
to, thanks.
Let me again repeat Ben's above comment, a comment that only a CTer
with gonads the size of King Kong could possibly have the gall to utter
in a forum like this one......
"What's silly, is to believe speculation over first-hand eyewitness
testimony and medical description." -- Ben "Foot-In-Mouth" Holmes
Truly...spectacular...hypocrisy.
>>> "When you control the evidence, you can make it appear to be anything you want." <<<
Nothing like being a devout CTer is there? Where "everything is
possible" (within a pro-CT framework, that is).
And, I suppose, this means that even if many different Parkland
employees had seen (and maybe even handled) all of these various
bullets that went into JFK & JBC from obvious-non-Oswald locations, the
"cover-uppers" would have been able to "control" all of this non-LHO
evidence still? Correct?
In the favorite CT version of the shooting, JFK and JBC are struck by
at LEAST 4 separate bullets.....any or all of which could have been
seen and recovered IMMEDIATELY by non-plotters such as Dr. Perry, Dr.
McClelland, Dr. Carrico, Dr. Peters, or tons of other Parkland
employees.
The shooters just LUCKED OUT then, huh? Four bullets funnelled down
into just TWO (total)...the TWO that Oswald could have fired. Right?
This multi-shooter plot was (evidently) an awesome combination of ---
1.) Sheer luck.
2.) Prescience.
3.) Incredible skill by the many shooters (re. the SBT "alignment" of
wounds in particular).
4.) Expert guile, planning, and devilishly-clever Patsy-creating
brilliance.
5.) And -- Pure stupidity (for even wanting/attempting to shoot JFK
from many angles inside the confines of a "One-Patsy" plot).
>>> "The bullet ranged downward. This is what the Parkland doctors thought, I have no reason to disagree with them." <<<
What Ben actually means here is -- When it suits him and his pro-CT
views, he has no reason to disagree with or disbelieve anything said by
a doctor or someone in "officialdom".
But when it comes to believing the same Dr. Malcolm Perry when he said
to the WC that the wound in JFK's throat could have been "either" an
entry wound OR an exit wound -- a CTer's confidence in the Parkland
doctors (et al) wanes to nothing. Correct?
And when it comes to believing ANYTHING said by Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell,
or Dr. Finck -- forget it! No way they've ever said a truthful thing in
their lives re. this case. EXCEPT --- When you think it "fits" your CT
views (e.g., Boswell's moving around the "dots" on the silly stick-man
figures over the years....or the obvious misstep made by Humes when he
claimed the back wound on JFK was at a "45-to-60-degree" angle to the
body....or Humes' obvious misstatement when he said the JFK head-wound
bullet could only have entered from the rear AND exited from the rear).
To anyone with a brain, Humes' "Entered in the rear AND exited in the
rear" comment was obviously a simple innocent misstatement (which makes
NO sense at all, of course, and one that wasn't even "corrected" and
pointed out to Humes by Arlen Specter...leading me to think that it was
possibly the error of the stenographer who took down Humes' words).
But, to a rabid CTer looking for ANYTHING at all to further the notion
of complicity in the assassination of John Kennedy, Humes' error was
not just an innocent verbal mistake...it was THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH re.
the BOH wound location!
But CTers fail to see the "logic" of ever placing such a
Jekyll-&-Hyde-type comment by Humes into the Final Warren Report in the
first place. How could such an error slip by the shrewd Warren boys and
into the finished product?
>>> "I don't believe, and the evidence doesn't support, the idea that the neck wound was an exit. So there's no reason to explain where it went." <<<
What Ben really means here is -- His own personal CT brand of
"evidence" doesn't support the idea that the neck wound was an
exit....so he has decided to ignore the common-sense factor in all of
this, which is obvious to a 5-year-old. Common-sense stuff like -- No
bullets in JFK's body...No major damage done inside his body...No other
bullets recovered anywhere, except 399, that could be associated with
this SBT-like shooting.
And, of course, Ben will totally ignore the autopsy report which states
that the bullet "made its exit" through the wound seen by Dr. Perry at
Parkland on November 22nd.
Let me ask Ben this --- Even if you think the "evidence" (your CT brand
of course) doesn't support the idea of just one bullet whizzing through
JFK's body.....doesn't ordinary "common sense" tend to support it
nonetheless? (Occam's should apply here, without question.)
http://webster.com/dictionary/occam's
>>> "The bullet in the back didn't go in more than an inch... this WAS the medical evidence. Speculating that it went where the medical evidence doesn't show is merely that...speculation." <<<
I defer to Occam's once more....plus the common-sense factor. .... No
bullets in body; No significant damage whatever to Kennedy's innards in
the neck region; and no POSSIBLE shooting location available in Dealey
Plaza to accommodate a bullet that would have produced up to a
"60-degree downward angle" into Mr. Kennedy's back (or even a mere "45
degrees").
Doesn't that last little snafu produce at least a slightly-raised
eyebrow in a CTer's head/mind? If JFK really had a steep downward wound
like that...where in the hell was this assassin shooting from? Did
Jackie whip out a pistol and pump some lead into her husband's back at
that steep angle?
Use your brain! Such a crazy-angled wound never happened. Humes goofed.
And he KNEW he had goofed. That's obvious by what is contained in his
FINAL autopsy report -- "The missile contused the strap muscles of the
right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through
the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this
missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."
>>> "Where's the bullet that struck the curb and injured Tague? For if you can't produce this bullet, why would you argue that others must "produce" other bullets?"
Is Ben really serious here? Somebody tell me he's not this stupid.
Quick! Before I start believing he is.
The Tague bullet GLANCED off a curb and then GLANCED off of (not into)
James T. Tague. Whereas, in contrast, all of these "other" bullets that
CTers think are GOING INTO bodies in the limousine aren't just glancing
off of human bodies. They are supposedly penetrating two men...and then
getting themselves lost.
(Was Ben REALLY serious here? I'm not always sure when dealing with
people who live in Conspiracyville.)
>>> "You see, I'm committing the unpardonable LNT'er sin of actually referring to the evidence." <<<
You mean the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (which all spells "Oswald")? Or are you
talking about "evidence" like the Autopsy Report (which spells "Two
Hits From The Rear; No Frontal Hits To JFK")? Or are you possibly
referring to Oswald's LIVE-ON-TELEVISION "evidence" of one lie after
another? Such as these provable LHO lies:
"I didn't shoot anyone, no sir."
"They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet
Union."
"I emphatically deny these charges."
"I don't know what I am here for."
No....Ben was obviously only "referring to the evidence" which suits
the CT cause best....which, of course, leaves ALL of the physical
evidence of guns, bullets, prints, and fibers out in the dust and
unusable from a pro-CT POV (unless it was all "faked"). And it leaves
the autopsy report out in the cold too (unless it was "faked" too). And
it leaves the vast majority of witness testimony out in the
unusable-by-CTers wilderness as well (unless somebody managed to get a
huge portion of the witnesses, including EVERY single news reporter I
can think of who transmitted the early 11/22 reports of the shooting to
the world, to lie and just "pretend" they heard only 3 shots precisely;
with well over 50% of these witnesses claiming that gunshots came from
just one "rear" location).
Nice try (I guess), Ben. But any "lurker" who visits here and comes
across your craziness containing false evidence and
conveniently-"replaced" bullets and a belief that ALL THREE autopsy
doctors were lying, miserable crooks, can only conclude (unless said
lurker is a rabid CTer himself) that Ben-boy is living in a CT fantasy
world....a world where absolutely NOTHING is what it seems to be.
(Apply Occam's again with respect to my last comment there. See if
anything becomes any clearer then.)
I truly cannot fathom how the "JFK Conspiracy Club" even manages to
stay open at all when such outright speculation and unsupportable
guesswork with respect to practically ALL of the evidence in this
murder case are engaged in and given as much serious consideration as
they apparently are given by its CT-club membership.
Vince Bugliosi would have had a field day in a courtroom with every
single one of Ben's "CT points" above. (Vince would also have had a
good laugh, to boot, when seeing how utterly foolish all of these CT
arguments truly are when put up against the ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in
the Kennedy case.)
aeffects
my-oh-my.... "...whizzing through his body..." ooh-wee!
Von Pain, you've reached heights only stoic Lone Neuter's achieve;
you've become more important than real or imagined conspiracy
participants -or- confirming the WCR.
Whose paying you by-the-word, DavidVonPain? You're attracting much
attention.
David VP
Mr. Bugliosi has promised me a tidy sum if I can find just one CTer who
can come remotely close to debunking VB's "Final Verdict". So far, it
appears that I'll not be receiving that tidy sum. :(
(And the Government has offered up a Miami beachfront condo if I'll
agree to go onto several forums and "spread our continued WC-favoring
lies". They'll only give me the keys, though, if I say the words "Arlen
Specter Was Right" a minimum of 795 times per day. So far, I'm running
a little behind on my "Specter" quota. Sorry, Arlen. I'll try to do
better soon.) ;)
BTW -- If anyone were to pay Bob Harris "by the word", he would almost
certainly be a billionaire by now. Because he starts up more threads
here than any other five members combined. (Must be that "Steve fetish"
he seems to have. Never have figured out that bit as yet. I'm not
really sure I want to, though, come to think of it.)
I find it interesting that many CTers think it utterly impossible for a
dreaded "LNer" to actually want to talk about their miserable
LN/SBT/LHO case for free (sans any payola from any number of sources,
per the CTers). That's just one of the many ways that CTers reveal
their built-in paranoia.
It couldn't be, could it, that a person would actually use some CS&L
(instead of having to be bribed by a third party) to arrive at the LN
conclusion? Nah...forget that idea. That could never happen.
www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0393045250
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=31246
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=30215
lazu...@webtv.net
advocate the obvious conspiracy-yet look at the people you admire,
defend or hey it's fine and dandy whatever they have pulled- a load of
toilet cloggers-Mailer, Myers,Posner, LBJ, Hoover, Angleton, Dulles,
Holland,, Ruby, Helms, I just try and be the plunger once in awhile.
David VP
I find it interesting you didn't place Moore, Sturdivan, and (above
all) Bugliosi on your "toilet-cloggers" list. Perhaps you just ran out
of "gas" near your toilet there.
>> "I just try and be the plunger once in awhile."
Good idea. I've found that it's always a wise move to be near a toilet
when talking about conspiracy theories, or Mr. Garrison, or Mr. Stone's
fantasy film, or Bob Groden's stomach-churning 10-Shot/5-Miss/0-SN
oddball theory.
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
>
>That old saying Ben, modified for lone nutters is never more apropos-
>they can dish it out, but they can't take it.
I prefer to paraphrase Larry Elder, who would say: 'Facts to LNT'ers is like
Kryptonite to Superman."
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Ben's last (repeated) post is riddled with the usual amount of
>speculation and skewing of actual evidence...such as the autopsy
>report, which he refuses to place an ounce of faith in.
Davy-boy, the gutless coward, snipped virtually everything again - showing how
much faith he's capable of putting in the evidence.
I've defied Davey-boy to actually *believe* the autopsy report - HE CANNOT DO
IT! It's rather funny that he wants others to "place an ounce of faith" in
something THAT HE CANNOT!!
>Evidently every
>single thing about the final report turned in by Humes (and SIGNED by
>Humes, Finck, and Boswell) is one great-big lie from start to finish.
Actually, as I've already illustrated, and you refuse to refute - you wouldn't
be too far from the truth.
>But what PROOF does he have to support the idea that it's a big fat
>lie? Answer: None.
Answer: All the material that you were forced to snip, and not respond to.
That makes you a gutless lying coward, doesn't it?
>Let's examine just a sampling of Ben's paranoia here......
>
>
>> "Tague's shot certainly was not a "miss", it hit a curb. Merely defining
>> shots as misses because you've decided what the target is can only be
>> rhetoric."
Seems pretty simple to me. That bullet certainly struck *something*... And the
fact that YOU cannot produce it shows how silly your hypothesis is.
>Perhaps I should repeat the above Ben quote in big, bold, red
>letters....to see if it seems any LESS stupid than when I printed it
>out, regular-style, above. But I doubt it could be any less
>silly-sounding however.
Nah... what's silly is defining bullets that hit JFK as "findable", and bullets
that hit anything else as "expendable, and not worthy of any effort".
>As Bud pointed out in an earlier post of his,
I stopped reading what Bud had to say a while back... but you go right ahead and
keep me informed if he says anything worth listening to...
>I guess Ben must think
>that either Tague was a "target" of that gunman's bullet -- or the
>killer was seeking revenge on the Dallas Dept. Of Highways for placing
>that curbstone where it was.
Oops... "worth listening to" was the criteria... please pay attention...
>And, quite obviously, a "miss" (in the context of this case, or any
>other) would equate to a bullet that did not GO INTO a victim, with
>such a "miss" resulting in an unrecoverable bullet.
*ALL* of the bullets were misses... LHO hated Kellerman with a passion, and was
trying to kill him.
See where speculation can go?
>Ben can place whatever CT label he wants to on the Tague bullet....it's
>still a "miss" in my dictionary.
And you're a gutless coward who can't answer a post without snipping it up.
>> "One {bullet} is still in the body {of JFK}, and the other fell out, was
>> recovered at Parkland (perhaps), and was swapped with a bullet that matched
>> LHO's rifle."
>
>
>I love unsupportable CT speculation...don't you?
Both statements are supported by the evidence. One much stronger than the
other, to be sure... but *both* have facts behind them.
Is this why you snip? So no one can see the facts I list?
>And I love it when
>CTers spew forth junk that is in direct opposition to the verified
>reports and witness testimony
Why bother to lie, Davy-boy? I've repeatedly challenged LNT'ers to QUOTE any
words of mine that cannot be supported by the evidence, and I keep getting dead
silence.
>(just in order to glue their
>pre-conceived notion of "Conspiracy At All Costs" together).
Actually, it's "facts at all costs".
This is why we don't have to snip...
>Ben has no choice but to believe, via that brilliant comment of his,
>that Humes and all the radiologists who examined the X-rays of JFK are
>ALL liars when they said that NO bullets were located inside Kennedy's
>body anywhere.
And quite clearly, Davy-boy must call the radiologist a liar... since I *quoted*
his testimony regarding metal still found in the body.
He must likewise call Humes, Boswell, Finck, AND Ebersole liars because they
state that the 6.5mm virtually round object was not seen on the night of the
autopsy.
But LNT'ers won't touch this topic with a 10 foot pole, so it's easy to predict
that Davy-boy will snip this too...
>And Ben has also said he likes the word "replaced" to describe CE399
>now, rather than "planted". Obviously, he still means that 399 was
>"planted", but in changing the words around a little bit, perhaps he's
>trying to fool some poor newbie just looking in.
Nope... just accurately describe the evidence. I'd offer some cites if I didn't
think you'd just snip 'em.
Lurkers can email me directly if interested.
>Of course, in reality, there's not a single piece of proof to show that
>CE399 was anything other than what it seems to be
When you must lie to make a point... you haven't made one, have you?
> -- i.e., a bullet
>from Oswald's gun that absolutely, positively, without doubt HAD to
>have entered Parkland Hospital by way of one of the victims who was
>wounded in Dealey Plaza, a Plaza where (coincidentally) the gun which
>fired bullet 399 was located by police 52 minutes after the shooting.
Even Tomlinson, who found it, had doubts... but you don't! How interesting!
>ANY other scenario other than the above conclusion is pure CTer
>guesswork....guesswork that leaves behind many more unresolved
>common-sense questions than it answers (e.g., Why plant a bullet before
>2 PM when it could be an unneeded bullet?
Keep fighting the strawman... Be sure that you don't dare touch the more
realistic scenario - and one that is *SUPPORTED* by FBI reports... that CE399
was swapped.
>... Why not plant a beat-up
>bullet, since it supposedly just did a bunch of damage to 2 people? ...
The *original* thought, no doubt, was that this bullet struck JFK in the back,
and worked its way back out. Only Tague forced a change to this scenario.
The bullet that was *FOUND* didn't have significant damage...
>And: Where did the plotters GET this bullet to plant before 2 PM on
>11/22?).
They didn't.
How silly to argue strawmen...
>> "What's silly, is to believe speculation over first-hand eyewitness
>> testimony and medical description."
Yep... tis true.
>Anybody seen the pot and the kettle lately? Oh, there's the pot! Ben's
>waving it high over his head right now.
And yet, Davey-boy has to snip all the eyewitness testimony and medical
discussion without responding to it.
Wonder why?
>Here, Ben must be talking about his willingness to "believe" in such
>"medical description" as the Official JFK Autopsy Report, and the three
>autopsy doctors' unwavering belief (via their testimony for decades on
>end) that JFK was shot just twice and only from the rear.
And yet, you're too gutless to profess your own belief in the Autopsy Report...
I'm sure you know that you can't defend it.
>Right, Ben? THAT type of "first-hand eyewitness testimony and medical
>description" should be worthy of "belief", shouldn't it? Or is it only
>the stuff that supports the CT POV that is worthy of being believed?*
Unlike gutless liars, I recognize that there are contradictions in the evidence.
Gutless Davey-boy won't admit this.
>* = And, yes, I know a similar argument can be thrown back in my
>LN-favoring face re. the "BOH wound" witnesses.
I'm surprised! Gutless Davey-boy *will* admit this! Of course, it undercuts
his own argument.
>And, as I've said
>before, I am indeed perplexed by those witnesses' observations.
Nah, you aren't. For if you *were*, you'd figure it out.
>BUT --
>The X-rays, the autopsy photos, the Z-Film, and the AUTOPSY REPORT *DO*
>still exist as well. Those things exist in addition to the CTer's
>precious BOH witnesses. Is ALL of that other OFFICIAL stuff supposed to
>be dropped in the nearest trash can because the witnesses say so? You
>can drop all of that in the garbage if you so desire...but I choose not
>to, thanks.
Actually, the American judicial system has long ago figured out that evidence
can be contradictory, and that people can lie - and they have a pretty good
system for figuring out the truth. One that you can't deal with, evidently.
>Let me again repeat Ben's above comment, a comment that only a CTer
>with gonads the size of King Kong could possibly have the gall to utter
>in a forum like this one......
Let's review: "What's silly, is to believe speculation over first-hand
eyewitness testimony and medical description."
>"What's silly, is to believe speculation over first-hand eyewitness
>testimony and medical description." -- Ben "Foot-In-Mouth" Holmes
>
>Truly...spectacular...hypocrisy.
And amazing that you'd dispute it... But then again, LNT'ers have to believe in
the improbable or impossible all the time.
And Davey-boy can't quote A SINGLE STATEMENT of mine that is not citable and
supportable.
>> "When you control the evidence, you can make it appear to be anything you
>> want."
A simple statement of fact... supported by the evidence.
>Nothing like being a devout CTer is there? Where "everything is
>possible" (within a pro-CT framework, that is).
Certainly... as long as there's facts to support it.
>And, I suppose, this means that even if many different Parkland
>employees had seen (and maybe even handled) all of these various
>bullets that went into JFK & JBC from obvious-non-Oswald locations, the
>"cover-uppers" would have been able to "control" all of this non-LHO
>evidence still? Correct?
Tell us what the FBI told Tomlinson. That is, if you have the guts...
>In the favorite CT version of the shooting, JFK and JBC are struck by
>at LEAST 4 separate bullets.....any or all of which could have been
>seen and recovered IMMEDIATELY by non-plotters such as Dr. Perry, Dr.
>McClelland, Dr. Carrico, Dr. Peters, or tons of other Parkland
>employees.
And yet, you can't produce a bullet. Silly, aren't you?
>The shooters just LUCKED OUT then, huh? Four bullets funnelled down
>into just TWO (total)...the TWO that Oswald could have fired. Right?
That *is* what the evidence shows... that LHO only fired two shots.
>This multi-shooter plot was (evidently) an awesome combination of ---
>1.) Sheer luck.
>2.) Prescience.
>3.) Incredible skill by the many shooters (re. the SBT "alignment" of
>wounds in particular).
>4.) Expert guile, planning, and devilishly-clever Patsy-creating
>brilliance.
>5.) And -- Pure stupidity (for even wanting/attempting to shoot JFK
>from many angles inside the confines of a "One-Patsy" plot).
Amazing, isn't it, what can be achieved by fighting strawmen?
>> "The bullet ranged downward. This is what the Parkland doctors thought, I
>> have no reason to disagree with them." <<<
>
>
>What Ben actually means here is -- When it suits him and his pro-CT
>views, he has no reason to disagree with or disbelieve anything said by
>a doctor or someone in "officialdom".
And what Davey-boy is saying, is that the doctors who actually were *there*,
were liars.
>But when it comes to believing the same Dr. Malcolm Perry when he said
>to the WC that the wound in JFK's throat could have been "either" an
>entry wound OR an exit wound -- a CTer's confidence in the Parkland
>doctors (et al) wanes to nothing. Correct?
Nope. Merely goes to show that anyone can be threatened.
You might recall that this retraction of Perry's was gotten by means of a lie.
>And when it comes to believing ANYTHING said by Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell,
>or Dr. Finck -- forget it! No way they've ever said a truthful thing in
>their lives re. this case.
And yet, *YOU* can't believe them.
>EXCEPT --- When you think it "fits" your CT
>views (e.g., Boswell's moving around the "dots" on the silly stick-man
>figures over the years....or the obvious misstep made by Humes when he
>claimed the back wound on JFK was at a "45-to-60-degree" angle to the
>body....or Humes' obvious misstatement when he said the JFK head-wound
>bullet could only have entered from the rear AND exited from the rear).
And this is just a small handful of the statements that you cannot accept.
>To anyone with a brain, Humes' "Entered in the rear AND exited in the
>rear" comment was obviously a simple innocent misstatement (which makes
>NO sense at all, of course, and one that wasn't even "corrected" and
>pointed out to Humes by Arlen Specter...leading me to think that it was
>possibly the error of the stenographer who took down Humes' words).
LOL!!
>But, to a rabid CTer looking for ANYTHING at all to further the notion
>of complicity in the assassination of John Kennedy, Humes' error was
>not just an innocent verbal mistake...it was THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH re.
>the BOH wound location!
The BOH wound is a certainty. You'll have to learn to deal with it, as will
Bugliosi.
>But CTers fail to see the "logic" of ever placing such a
>Jekyll-&-Hyde-type comment by Humes into the Final Warren Report in the
>first place. How could such an error slip by the shrewd Warren boys and
>into the finished product?
Many errors slipped by. The Minox camera was a good one, for example.
>> "I don't believe, and the evidence doesn't support, the idea that the neck
>> wound was an exit. So there's no reason to explain where it went."
>
>
>What Ben really means here is
No, I actually *said* what I meant. What *YOU* mean is that you aren't going to
discuss the evidence, again...
> -- His own personal CT brand of
>"evidence" doesn't support the idea that the neck wound was an
>exit....
Can you *list* the "evidence" that the neck wound was an exit?
That way, lurkers will know what you're talking about...
Of course, you'll snip this, since you know just as well as I do, that there
*IS* no evidence that the neck wound was an exit... other than sheer
speculation. All the *EVIDENCE* was that it was an entry wound.
>so he has decided to ignore the common-sense factor in all of
>this, which is obvious to a 5-year-old. Common-sense stuff like -- No
>bullets in JFK's body...No major damage done inside his body...No other
>bullets recovered anywhere, except 399, that could be associated with
>this SBT-like shooting.
>
>And, of course, Ben will totally ignore the autopsy report which states
>that the bullet "made its exit" through the wound seen by Dr. Perry at
>Parkland on November 22nd.
As do you. But, gutless coward that you are, you won't admit that you can't
believe the autopsy report either.
>Let me ask Ben this --- Even if you think the "evidence" (your CT brand
>of course) doesn't support the idea of just one bullet whizzing through
>JFK's body.....
I don't "think".... I know. And the fact that you refuse to refute the points I
make, shows just how strong the case is.
>doesn't ordinary "common sense" tend to support it
>nonetheless? (Occam's should apply here, without question.)
>
>http://webster.com/dictionary/occam's
It *does* apply. This is another argument in favor of what the eyewitnesses
said.
>> "The bullet in the back didn't go in more than an inch... this WAS the
>> medical evidence. Speculating that it went where the medical evidence
>> doesn't show is merely that...speculation."
>
>
>I defer to Occam's once more....
No you don't.
>plus the common-sense factor. .... No
>bullets in body; No significant damage whatever to Kennedy's innards in
>the neck region;
Which, of course, is *IMPOSSIBLE* for a transiting bullet. As Dr. Mantik
confirms.
>and no POSSIBLE shooting location available in Dealey
>Plaza to accommodate a bullet that would have produced up to a
>"60-degree downward angle" into Mr. Kennedy's back (or even a mere "45
>degrees").
Sure there was... Why lie about it?
>Doesn't that last little snafu produce at least a slightly-raised
>eyebrow in a CTer's head/mind? If JFK really had a steep downward wound
>like that...where in the hell was this assassin shooting from?
Probably the roof of the TSBD.
>Did Jackie whip out a pistol and pump some lead into her husband's back at
>that steep angle?
No, Greer did. Check with Ritchie Linton...
>Use your brain!
I do. This is why you have to snip everything... and can't refute me.
>Such a crazy-angled wound never happened. Humes goofed.
>And he KNEW he had goofed. That's obvious by what is contained in his
>FINAL autopsy report -- "The missile contused the strap muscles of the
>right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through
>the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this
>missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."
Lied... didn't he?
>> "Where's the bullet that struck the curb and injured Tague? For if you
>> can't produce this bullet, why would you argue that others must "produce"
>> other bullets?"
>
>
>Is Ben really serious here? Somebody tell me he's not this stupid.
>Quick! Before I start believing he is.
Can't refute it, can you?
>The Tague bullet GLANCED off a curb and then GLANCED off of (not into)
>James T. Tague.
Yep... it *hit* something.
>Whereas, in contrast, all of these "other" bullets that
>CTers think are GOING INTO bodies in the limousine aren't just glancing
>off of human bodies. They are supposedly penetrating two men...
Yep... they *hit* something.
>and then getting themselves lost.
>
>(Was Ben REALLY serious here? I'm not always sure when dealing with
>people who live in Conspiracyville.)
You demonstrate your hypocrisy... don't you?
>> "You see, I'm committing the unpardonable LNT'er sin of actually referring
>> to the evidence."
I'm surprised that you'd mention this statement...
>You mean the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (which all spells "Oswald")?
Ah, but it *doesn't*. When you need to lie to make a point, you haven't made
one, have you?
>Or are you
>talking about "evidence" like the Autopsy Report (which spells "Two
>Hits From The Rear; No Frontal Hits To JFK")?
Which, as I've pointed out, YOU can't believe.
>Or are you possibly
>referring to Oswald's LIVE-ON-TELEVISION "evidence" of one lie after
>another? Such as these provable LHO lies:
>
>"I didn't shoot anyone, no sir."
Not provable... and in 40+ years, *still* hasn't been proven.
>"They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet
>Union."
A reasonable suggestion...
>"I emphatically deny these charges."
He *DID* 'emphatically deny' the charges... Where's the "lie"?
>"I don't know what I am here for."
He didn't. He had not been charged yet.
>No....Ben was obviously only "referring to the evidence" which suits
>the CT cause best....which, of course, leaves ALL of the physical
>evidence of guns, bullets, prints, and fibers out in the dust and
>unusable from a pro-CT POV (unless it was all "faked"). And it leaves
>the autopsy report out in the cold too (unless it was "faked" too). And
>it leaves the vast majority of witness testimony out in the
>unusable-by-CTers wilderness as well (unless somebody managed to get a
>huge portion of the witnesses, including EVERY single news reporter I
>can think of who transmitted the early 11/22 reports of the shooting to
>the world, to lie and just "pretend" they heard only 3 shots precisely;
>with well over 50% of these witnesses claiming that gunshots came from
>just one "rear" location).
Hmmm... that means that 50% of the witnesses were lying... how convenient for
you that there were so many liars that day...
>Nice try (I guess), Ben. But any "lurker" who visits here and comes
>across your craziness containing false evidence
I defy you to QUOTE a *SINGLE* statment of "false evidence".
Gutless coward that you are, you won't.
>and
>conveniently-"replaced" bullets
That *is* what the evidence shows... learn to live with it.
>and a belief that ALL THREE autopsy
>doctors were lying, miserable crooks,
*YOU* have to believe that... how sad, isn't it?
>can only conclude (unless said
>lurker is a rabid CTer himself) that Ben-boy is living in a CT fantasy
>world....a world where absolutely NOTHING is what it seems to be.
>(Apply Occam's again with respect to my last comment there. See if
>anything becomes any clearer then.)
>
>I truly cannot fathom how the "JFK Conspiracy Club" even manages to
>stay open at all when such outright speculation and unsupportable
>guesswork with respect to practically ALL of the evidence in this
>murder case are engaged in and given as much serious consideration as
>they apparently are given by its CT-club membership.
I'm sure that you can't understand why so many others are against you. But it's
not really paranoia if they really *are* out to get you, is it, Davey-boy?
>Vince Bugliosi would have had a field day in a courtroom with every
>single one of Ben's "CT points" above.
Oh, we'll have the opportunity to see, should his book ever see the light of
day. Then you can let everyone know what crow tastes like...
>(Vince would also have had a
>good laugh, to boot, when seeing how utterly foolish all of these CT
>arguments truly are when put up against the ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in
>the Kennedy case.)
The *ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE* is what I argue... and you snip.
David VP
Oh, is this a reprise of your false belief that the doctors REALLY
described a "BOH" wound in the autopsy report? Is that it? Was that
you, Ben-boy? Or was that another CT screwball I was talking to re. the
autopsy report....where the kook was trying to tell me that the doctors
REALLY MEANT that JFK had a hole at the BACK of his head due to the
phrase in the Report of "extending somewhat into the occipital". Sounds
like you. If not, I apologize.
>> "All the material that you were forced to snip, and not respond to. That makes you a gutless lying coward, doesn't it?"
What IS it with you rabid CTers? If EVERY last piece of glorious CT
nonsense isn't SPECIFICALLY addressed in detail, it makes the responder
a "gutless lying coward"? Jesus H. Christ, what a pack of loons we've
got in this asylum. Hilarious.
>> "And Davey-boy can't quote A SINGLE STATEMENT of mine that is not citable and
supportable."
LOL (a hundred LOLs apply here actually)!!
You must mean "supportable" evidence like a bullet lodging in JFK that
is still there as we speak...right?
Or the "supportable" evidence of the grandiose "bullet-switching"
scheme @ Parkland?
Or maybe you mean the "supportable" evidence of virtually EVERYONE
connected with officialdom being a bald-faced liar and cover-up agent
in wake of the events of 11/22/63. Yeah, that's the best one yet.
And you've got "support" and "citations" for all of these claims of
lying and the bastardization of evidence...correct? (Why of course you
do. You wouldn't say it if you didn't, right?)
You're in a CT bubble my friend. And Vince is a-comin' with a big ol'
pin, and a CT-destroyin' grin on his face. Better get out of the way.
>> "No significant damage whatever to Kennedy's innards in the neck region."
>> "Which, of course, is *IMPOSSIBLE* for a transiting bullet."
Oh, but TWO whole bullets which FAIL TO EXIT (having obviously been
stopped by something inside JFK's innards) COULD conceivably produce NO
INTERIOR DAMAGE WHATSOEVER? Is this the CT situation as she exists in
your loopy head at the moment, Ben-boy?
Nice being a CT kook/screwball, isn't it? You never need to use common
sense....just use your CT-finding divining rod. That rod will lead you
to the stinky BS every time. Always has till now anyway.
>> "Hmmm... that means that 50% of the witnesses were lying."
What an idiot. None of the DP witnesses was/were "lying". The Knoll
witnesses were almost certainly simply mistaken. (Otherwise, WAY, WAY
more than 4.8% of the total witnesses would have heard shots from
multiple locations.)
Would you call Austin Miller a "liar" when he claimed he heard shots
coming ONLY from "right there in the {President's} car"?
Austin's not a liar either...but he was wrong nonetheless.
NOTE: Since I "snipped" (a favorite CT words these days here) most of
Ben's silly answers in his last tirade-filled post, I wonder if I'll
hear the Wrath Of Ben-Kanobi yet again. (Anybody wanna give me odds?)
"Snip & You're A Wimp" might be his next witticism.
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144054800....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
head Blown Out.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144082271.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> "I've defied Davey-boy to actually *believe* the autopsy report - HE CANNOT
>> DO IT! It's rather funny that he wants others to "place an ounce of faith"
>> in something THAT HE CANNOT!!"
>
>Oh, is this a reprise of your false belief that the doctors REALLY
>described a "BOH" wound in the autopsy report?
What part of occipital don't you understand?
>Is that it? Was that
>you, Ben-boy? Or was that another CT screwball I was talking to re. the
>autopsy report....where the kook was trying to tell me that the doctors
>REALLY MEANT that JFK had a hole at the BACK of his head due to the
>phrase in the Report of "extending somewhat into the occipital".
And yet, you can't believe that this is true, since the BOH photo shows no such
thing. You *do* know where the occipital is, don't you? Is there *ANY PART OF
THE OCCIPITAL* whatsoever that cannot be seen in the BOH photo? Can you point
out the defect, devoid of bone and scalp?
>Sounds like you. If not, I apologize.
It could have been any real CT'er... we all look at the actual evidence and
testimony.
The fact that the Autopsy Report and the photos contradict each other is
meaningless to you, since you won't admit that they *do* contradict each other.
>> "All the material that you were forced to snip, and not respond to. That
>> makes you a gutless lying coward, doesn't it?"
>
>
>What IS it with you rabid CTers?
Just pointing out the facts... bugs you, doesn't it?
>If EVERY last piece of glorious CT
>nonsense isn't SPECIFICALLY addressed in detail, it makes the responder
>a "gutless lying coward"?
Nah, merely people who make assertions that they cannot defend.
>Jesus H. Christ, what a pack of loons we've
>got in this asylum. Hilarious.
Coward, aren't you?
>> "And Davey-boy can't quote A SINGLE STATEMENT of mine that is not citable
>> and supportable."
>
>
>LOL (a hundred LOLs apply here actually)!!
By all means, go right ahead and do so...
>You must mean "supportable" evidence like a bullet lodging in JFK that
>is still there as we speak...right?
You mean you can't read Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA that I quoted? You
can't read? You forgot? You're merely lying again?
Which is it?
>Or the "supportable" evidence of the grandiose "bullet-switching"
>scheme @ Parkland?
If you aren't aware of the description of the bullet that Tomlinson gave, or the
fact that no-one in the "chain of evidence" will admit that the current CE399 is
what they held, then your ignorance is simple to repair.
>Or maybe you mean the "supportable" evidence of virtually EVERYONE
>connected with officialdom being a bald-faced liar and cover-up agent
>in wake of the events of 11/22/63. Yeah, that's the best one yet.
Feel free to cite for your beliefs... I do.
>And you've got "support" and "citations" for all of these claims of
>lying and the bastardization of evidence...correct? (Why of course you
>do. You wouldn't say it if you didn't, right?)
Pick one, QUOTE IT, and I'll be happy to cite.
But the fact that you've rather cowardly refused to do so speaks volumes...
>You're in a CT bubble my friend. And Vince is a-comin' with a big ol'
>pin, and a CT-destroyin' grin on his face. Better get out of the way.
Bugliosi won't have anything to say that I've not heard before... and that
hasn't already been refuted.
I hereby predict it.
>>> "No significant damage whatever to Kennedy's innards in the neck region."
>> "Which, of course, is *IMPOSSIBLE* for a transiting bullet."
>
>
>Oh, but TWO whole bullets which FAIL TO EXIT (having obviously been
>stopped by something inside JFK's innards) COULD conceivably produce NO
>INTERIOR DAMAGE WHATSOEVER? Is this the CT situation as she exists in
>your loopy head at the moment, Ben-boy?
Your argument is nonsense, since even *ONE* transiting bullet must have left
damage that is *NOT* seen. This is merely a fact, supported by CT scans.
>Nice being a CT kook/screwball, isn't it? You never need to use common
>sense....just use your CT-finding divining rod. That rod will lead you
>to the stinky BS every time. Always has till now anyway.
"Common Sense" vs Facts... (Actually, "Speculation" vs Facts) Sorry, I'll take
the evidence and eyewitness testimony every time.
>> "Hmmm... that means that 50% of the witnesses were lying."
>
>
>What an idiot.
If only 50% of the eyewitnesses told "the truth" according to you, then the
other 50% were lying. What's difficult to understand about that?
If you can't defend *YOUR* statments, why make them?
>None of the DP witnesses was/were "lying". The Knoll
>witnesses were almost certainly simply mistaken. (Otherwise, WAY, WAY
>more than 4.8% of the total witnesses would have heard shots from
>multiple locations.)
"mistaken"... hmmm... must be the new LNT'er mantra.
>Would you call Austin Miller a "liar" when he claimed he heard shots
>coming ONLY from "right there in the {President's} car"?
No, he probably *DID* only hear shots coming from the Grassy Knoll...
>Austin's not a liar either...but he was wrong nonetheless.
>
>NOTE: Since I "snipped" (a favorite CT words these days here) most of
>Ben's silly answers in his last tirade-filled post, I wonder if I'll
>hear the Wrath Of Ben-Kanobi yet again. (Anybody wanna give me odds?)
Oh, I'll just keep pointing out your cowardice, nothing more.
>"Snip & You're A Wimp" might be his next witticism.
No, "gutless coward" is good enough for you...
Ben Holmes
>
>David MUST neglect the Dr. McClelland Drawing showing the whole back of the
>head Blown Out.
He must neglect *ALL* the eyewitness testmony, as well as the autopsy report.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1144082271.4...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
>>> "I've defied Davey-boy to actually *believe* the autopsy report - HE CANNOT
>>> DO IT! It's rather funny that he wants others to "place an ounce of faith"
>>> in something THAT HE CANNOT!!"
>> Oh, is this a reprise of your false belief that the doctors REALLY
>> described a "BOH" wound in the autopsy report?
>
> What part of occipital don't you understand?
>
What YOU mean by occipital. You seem to think it means only the
occipital bone. The original use was about the occipital region, the
general area of the back of the head.
Anthony Marsh
> David MUST neglect the Dr. McClelland Drawing showing the whole back of the
> head Blown Out.
>
>
Very misleading. That drawing, the one from Six Seconds in Dallas, was
not drawn by Dr. McClelland. It was drawn by a conspiracy theorist. The
actual drawing that Dr. McClelland made on camera shows the wound on the
right side of the head.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:44317c62$0$28337$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com...
> tomnln wrote:
>> David MUST neglect the Dr. McClelland Drawing showing the whole back of
>> the head Blown Out.
>>
>>
> Very misleading. That drawing, the one from Six Seconds in Dallas, was not
> drawn by Dr. McClelland. It was drawn by a conspiracy theorist. The actual
> drawing that Dr. McClelland made on camera shows the wound on the right
> side of the head.
MARSH;
You got caught Lying Again.
McClelland Confirms that drawing and Signed it on Jan 24. 1994.
I will post it on McAdams group Labelled "McClelland Drawing".
=========================================================================
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Just like Howard Brennan demanding "Immunity" to testify before the HSCA.
Seems prudent.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Just like Howard Brennan demanding "Immunity" to testify before the HSCA.
Seems prudent.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Just like Howard Brennan demanding "Immunity" to testify before the HSCA.
Seems prudent.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Just like Howard Brennan demanding "Immunity" to testify before the HSCA.
Seems prudent.
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Just like Howard Brennan demanding "Immunity" to testify before the HSCA.
Seems prudent.
tomnln
Talk about Stuttering.
FIVE (5) repeated posts.
Are all you WC Supporters sleeping together?
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1144101387.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
**************************************************************************
> tomnln wrote:
>> Just like Howard Brennan demanding "Immunity" to testify before the HSCA.
> Seems prudent.
"Immunity" is Always "prudent" for those who Lie Under Oath.
*****************************************************************************
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:44317c62$0$28337$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com...
>> tomnln wrote:
>>> David MUST neglect the Dr. McClelland Drawing showing the whole back of
>>> the head Blown Out.
>>>
>>>
>=========================================================================
>> Very misleading. That drawing, the one from Six Seconds in Dallas, was not
>> drawn by Dr. McClelland. It was drawn by a conspiracy theorist. The actual
>> drawing that Dr. McClelland made on camera shows the wound on the right
>> side of the head.
>
>MARSH;
>You got caught Lying Again.
>McClelland Confirms that drawing and Signed it on Jan 24. 1994.
>
>I will post it on McAdams group Labelled "McClelland Drawing".
Tony is in the LNT'er camp on where the wound was located. He isn't interested
in the eyewitness testimony or Autopsy Report...
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> Holy Smokes !
>
> Talk about Stuttering.
> FIVE (5) repeated posts.
Yah, Google musta really liked it.
> Are all you WC Supporters sleeping together?
Do such thoughts excite you, you old deviant?
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:1144101387.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> **************************************************************************
> > tomnln wrote:
> >> Just like Howard Brennan demanding "Immunity" to testify before the HSCA.
>
> > Seems prudent.
> "Immunity" is Always "prudent" for those who Lie Under Oath.
Also good to have against governmental witch hunts. Who wants to go
bankrupt with lawyer fees because of some politician trying to make a
name for himself thinks you aren`t being truthful?
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1144106044.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> Holy Smokes !
>>
>> Talk about Stuttering.
>> FIVE (5) repeated posts.
>
> Yah, Google musta really liked it.
>
>> Are all you WC Supporters sleeping together?
>
> Do such thoughts excite you, you old deviant?
>
>> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1144101387.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> **************************************************************************
>> > tomnln wrote:
>> >> Just like Howard Brennan demanding "Immunity" to testify before the
>> >> HSCA.
>>
>> > Seems prudent.
>> "Immunity" is Always "prudent" for those who Lie Under Oath.
>
> Also good to have against governmental witch hunts. Who wants to go
> bankrupt with lawyer fees because of some politician trying to make a
> name for himself thinks you aren`t being truthful?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You BIG Dummy;
START
Immunity has Nothing to do with "Legal Costs".
HERE
Immunity is "Against Prosecution" for Illegal Acts.
BUD
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bud
So you think lawyers represent you for free, eh? All it would take
is for members of the HSCA to think he wasn`t being truthful, and he
could find the entire weight of the US judicial system, with it`s
unlimited resources, bearing against him. And what did he have to gain
by appearing? He knew who shot JFK, and he knew that person was dead.
If people didn`t want to believe that, why should it matter to him?
> HERE
>
> Immunity is "Against Prosecution" for Illegal Acts.
Immunity can also be useful to ensure that you don`t need to pay
lawyers later to defend you against charges you are innocent of. In
other words, no charges can be brought against you if you have
immunity. Or are you naive enough to think charges are only brought
against guilty people? I`m sure that if Brennan consulted any lawyer
worth his salt, he would have been advised to demand immunity.
Bud
Yah, I thought it was interesting that when you asked for a CT
"bullet-by-bullet" scenario, Ben offered this. Is this really what
kooks want to replace the WC findings with?
Bud
It hasn`t been established that Tague was hit by a bullet.
> >Perhaps I should repeat the above Ben quote in big, bold, red
> >letters....to see if it seems any LESS stupid than when I printed it
> >out, regular-style, above. But I doubt it could be any less
> >silly-sounding however.
>
>
> Nah... what's silly is defining bullets that hit JFK as "findable", and bullets
> that hit anything else as "expendable, and not worthy of any effort".
>
>
> >As Bud pointed out in an earlier post of his,
>
> I stopped reading what Bud had to say a while back...
A wise policy. I stopped months before Ben did.
> but you go right ahead and
> keep me informed if he says anything worth listening to...
>
>
> >I guess Ben must think
> >that either Tague was a "target" of that gunman's bullet -- or the
> >killer was seeking revenge on the Dallas Dept. Of Highways for placing
> >that curbstone where it was.
>
>
> Oops... "worth listening to" was the criteria... please pay attention...
<snicker> Ben the Kook thinks he is having a conversation. Just so
you know, the criteria you set won`t be acknowledged by DVP until next
post, if then. In any case, I remember Mr VP set the criteria of asking
BEN to supply a reasonable CT explaination to knock the SBT out of
contention, and Ben only offered crackpot drivel.
I guess he wasn`t paying attention.
> >And, quite obviously, a "miss" (in the context of this case, or any
> >other) would equate to a bullet that did not GO INTO a victim, with
> >such a "miss" resulting in an unrecoverable bullet.
>
> *ALL* of the bullets were misses... LHO hated Kellerman with a passion, and was
> trying to kill him.
>
>
> See where speculation can go?
>
So, LHO missed his intended target, and killed someone else instead.
Whatever his intentions, the resullt was murder.
A BB? Was there an entry wound?
> He must likewise call Humes, Boswell, Finck, AND Ebersole liars because they
> state that the 6.5mm virtually round object was not seen on the night of the
> autopsy.
>
The guy who took the x-rays brought it to Ebersole`s attention. He
said Ebersole told him it was an artifact. If Ebersole told the
autopists the same thing, they may very well have ignored it.
> But LNT'ers won't touch this topic with a 10 foot pole, so it's easy to predict
> that Davy-boy will snip this too...
>
>
> >And Ben has also said he likes the word "replaced" to describe CE399
> >now, rather than "planted". Obviously, he still means that 399 was
> >"planted", but in changing the words around a little bit, perhaps he's
> >trying to fool some poor newbie just looking in.
>
>
> Nope... just accurately describe the evidence. I'd offer some cites if I didn't
> think you'd just snip 'em.
Yah, there seems to be two kook camps on this issue. One has the
bullet being planted at Parkland, the other has the bullet being
switched sometime after it`s discovery. Neither happened, it`s just
what kooks do.
> Lurkers can email me directly if interested.
If you do, refer to him as Ben the Kook. He likes it.
> >Of course, in reality, there's not a single piece of proof to show that
> >CE399 was anything other than what it seems to be
>
>
> When you must lie to make a point... you haven't made one, have you?
>
>
> > -- i.e., a bullet
> >from Oswald's gun that absolutely, positively, without doubt HAD to
> >have entered Parkland Hospital by way of one of the victims who was
> >wounded in Dealey Plaza, a Plaza where (coincidentally) the gun which
> >fired bullet 399 was located by police 52 minutes after the shooting.
>
>
> Even Tomlinson, who found it, had doubts... but you don't! How interesting!
Did he? Here is an interview of Tomlinson by Raymond Marcus in 1966,
provided by
Jean Davison over on the moderated board.
<q-on>
Marcus: Did anyone show you the bullet after the time you found it,
and after the time you gave it to Mr Wright?
Tomlinson: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr Shanklin
from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personel with Mr
Wright there when they called me in.
M: When Mr Shanklin and Mr wright called you in at that time, did
they show you the bullet?
T: Yes.
M: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?
T: Yes, I believe they did.
M: And as far as you could tell -- of course, you weren`t making a
ballistics test of it -- but as far as you could tell, did it look like
the same one to you?
T: Yes, it appeared to be the same one.
<q-off>
> >ANY other scenario other than the above conclusion is pure CTer
> >guesswork....guesswork that leaves behind many more unresolved
> >common-sense questions than it answers (e.g., Why plant a bullet before
> >2 PM when it could be an unneeded bullet?
>
> Keep fighting the strawman... Be sure that you don't dare touch the more
> realistic scenario - and one that is *SUPPORTED* by FBI reports... that CE399
> was swapped.
Nothing but a kook wet dream.
> >... Why not plant a beat-up
> >bullet, since it supposedly just did a bunch of damage to 2 people? ...
>
> The *original* thought, no doubt, was that this bullet struck JFK in the back,
> and worked its way back out. Only Tague forced a change to this scenario.
>
> The bullet that was *FOUND* didn't have significant damage...
The second bullet didn`t. Leaving the first and third as possibly
causing Tague`s wounds.
> >And: Where did the plotters GET this bullet to plant before 2 PM on
> >11/22?).
>
>
> They didn't.
>
> How silly to argue strawmen...
No, the kooks think that Oz`s rifle was taken, a bullet fired from
it, recovered, and inserted into the evidence. And they are so close
to proving it, only a few million light years or so.
> >> "What's silly, is to believe speculation over first-hand eyewitness
> >> testimony and medical description."
>
>
> Yep... tis true.
>
>
>
> >Anybody seen the pot and the kettle lately? Oh, there's the pot! Ben's
> >waving it high over his head right now.
>
> And yet, Davey-boy has to snip all the eyewitness testimony and medical
> discussion without responding to it.
>
> Wonder why?
I wonder what good it is, when any possible explaination of the
shooting can be argued against using portions of it.
> >Here, Ben must be talking about his willingness to "believe" in such
> >"medical description" as the Official JFK Autopsy Report, and the three
> >autopsy doctors' unwavering belief (via their testimony for decades on
> >end) that JFK was shot just twice and only from the rear.
>
> And yet, you're too gutless to profess your own belief in the Autopsy Report...
> I'm sure you know that you can't defend it.
>
>
> >Right, Ben? THAT type of "first-hand eyewitness testimony and medical
> >description" should be worthy of "belief", shouldn't it? Or is it only
> >the stuff that supports the CT POV that is worthy of being believed?*
>
> Unlike gutless liars, I recognize that there are contradictions in the evidence.
>
> Gutless Davey-boy won't admit this.
>
>
> >* = And, yes, I know a similar argument can be thrown back in my
> >LN-favoring face re. the "BOH wound" witnesses.
>
> I'm surprised! Gutless Davey-boy *will* admit this! Of course, it undercuts
> his own argument.
>
> >And, as I've said
> >before, I am indeed perplexed by those witnesses' observations.
>
> Nah, you aren't. For if you *were*, you'd figure it out.
Surely the context of their observations goes a long way to explain
many of them.
> >BUT --
> >The X-rays, the autopsy photos, the Z-Film, and the AUTOPSY REPORT *DO*
> >still exist as well. Those things exist in addition to the CTer's
> >precious BOH witnesses. Is ALL of that other OFFICIAL stuff supposed to
> >be dropped in the nearest trash can because the witnesses say so? You
> >can drop all of that in the garbage if you so desire...but I choose not
> >to, thanks.
>
>
> Actually, the American judicial system has long ago figured out that evidence
> can be contradictory, and that people can lie - and they have a pretty good
> system for figuring out the truth. One that you can't deal with, evidently.
The physical evidence that kooks claim is swithed, planted,
manufactured, ect?
> >Let me again repeat Ben's above comment, a comment that only a CTer
> >with gonads the size of King Kong could possibly have the gall to utter
> >in a forum like this one......
>
>
> Let's review: "What's silly, is to believe speculation over first-hand
> eyewitness testimony and medical description."
>
>
>
> >"What's silly, is to believe speculation over first-hand eyewitness
> >testimony and medical description." -- Ben "Foot-In-Mouth" Holmes
> >
> >Truly...spectacular...hypocrisy.
>
>
> And amazing that you'd dispute it... But then again, LNT'ers have to believe in
> the improbable or impossible all the time.
>
> And Davey-boy can't quote A SINGLE STATEMENT of mine that is not citable and
> supportable.
>
>
> >> "When you control the evidence, you can make it appear to be anything you
> >> want."
>
> A simple statement of fact... supported by the evidence.
>
>
>
> >Nothing like being a devout CTer is there? Where "everything is
> >possible" (within a pro-CT framework, that is).
>
>
> Certainly... as long as there's facts to support it.
Or at least suspicions.
> >And, I suppose, this means that even if many different Parkland
> >employees had seen (and maybe even handled) all of these various
> >bullets that went into JFK & JBC from obvious-non-Oswald locations, the
> >"cover-uppers" would have been able to "control" all of this non-LHO
> >evidence still? Correct?
>
>
> Tell us what the FBI told Tomlinson. That is, if you have the guts...
You tell us, Ben. As I remember, he didn`t say what was said to
him.
> >In the favorite CT version of the shooting, JFK and JBC are struck by
> >at LEAST 4 separate bullets.....any or all of which could have been
> >seen and recovered IMMEDIATELY by non-plotters such as Dr. Perry, Dr.
> >McClelland, Dr. Carrico, Dr. Peters, or tons of other Parkland
> >employees.
>
>
> And yet, you can't produce a bullet. Silly, aren't you?
>
>
> >The shooters just LUCKED OUT then, huh? Four bullets funnelled down
> >into just TWO (total)...the TWO that Oswald could have fired. Right?
>
>
> That *is* what the evidence shows... that LHO only fired two shots.
Is Ben admitting Lee Harvey took some shots at the motorcade?
That`ll get you thrown out of the kook club.
> >This multi-shooter plot was (evidently) an awesome combination of ---
> >1.) Sheer luck.
> >2.) Prescience.
> >3.) Incredible skill by the many shooters (re. the SBT "alignment" of
> >wounds in particular).
> >4.) Expert guile, planning, and devilishly-clever Patsy-creating
> >brilliance.
> >5.) And -- Pure stupidity (for even wanting/attempting to shoot JFK
> >from many angles inside the confines of a "One-Patsy" plot).
>
>
> Amazing, isn't it, what can be achieved by fighting strawmen?
You wouldn`t recognize the application of common sense to your
position. There are ramifications for the things you claim and the
theories you advance. DVP is only keeping your blatherings in the
context of a pre-planned event.
> >> "The bullet ranged downward. This is what the Parkland doctors thought, I
> >> have no reason to disagree with them." <<<
Marina thought Oz tried to kill Walker. I have no reason to
disbelieve her.
> >
> >
> >What Ben actually means here is -- When it suits him and his pro-CT
> >views, he has no reason to disagree with or disbelieve anything said by
> >a doctor or someone in "officialdom".
>
>
> And what Davey-boy is saying, is that the doctors who actually were *there*,
> were liars.
<snicker> Now Ben believes Fritz and people who interrogated Oz.
They were *there* after all. Brennan too, he was *there*. Mrs Markham,
also *there*.
> >But when it comes to believing the same Dr. Malcolm Perry when he said
> >to the WC that the wound in JFK's throat could have been "either" an
> >entry wound OR an exit wound -- a CTer's confidence in the Parkland
> >doctors (et al) wanes to nothing. Correct?
>
>
> Nope. Merely goes to show that anyone can be threatened.
>
> You might recall that this retraction of Perry's was gotten by means of a lie.
Kooks call "no take-backs". Clarifications and corrections are not
allowed, they thrive on mistakes.
> >And when it comes to believing ANYTHING said by Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell,
> >or Dr. Finck -- forget it! No way they've ever said a truthful thing in
> >their lives re. this case.
>
> And yet, *YOU* can't believe them.
>
>
> >EXCEPT --- When you think it "fits" your CT
> >views (e.g., Boswell's moving around the "dots" on the silly stick-man
> >figures over the years....or the obvious misstep made by Humes when he
> >claimed the back wound on JFK was at a "45-to-60-degree" angle to the
> >body....or Humes' obvious misstatement when he said the JFK head-wound
> >bullet could only have entered from the rear AND exited from the rear).
>
>
> And this is just a small handful of the statements that you cannot accept.
>
>
> >To anyone with a brain, Humes' "Entered in the rear AND exited in the
> >rear" comment was obviously a simple innocent misstatement (which makes
> >NO sense at all, of course, and one that wasn't even "corrected" and
> >pointed out to Humes by Arlen Specter...leading me to think that it was
> >possibly the error of the stenographer who took down Humes' words).
>
>
> LOL!!
A good example of a kook rejecting a reasonable explaination in
order to keep the issue clouded in perpetuity. I wonder what he thinks
Humes was trying to say?
> >But, to a rabid CTer looking for ANYTHING at all to further the notion
> >of complicity in the assassination of John Kennedy, Humes' error was
> >not just an innocent verbal mistake...it was THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH re.
> >the BOH wound location!
>
>
> The BOH wound is a certainty. You'll have to learn to deal with it, as will
> Bugliosi.
>
>
> >But CTers fail to see the "logic" of ever placing such a
> >Jekyll-&-Hyde-type comment by Humes into the Final Warren Report in the
> >first place. How could such an error slip by the shrewd Warren boys and
> >into the finished product?
>
>
> Many errors slipped by. The Minox camera was a good one, for example.
Another issue that Jean directed Ben to a reasonable explaination
for. Kook prefer the muddle, they think it justifies theri suspicions.
Shooting bullets that barely penetrate, even when they strike no
bone? And the shooter doesn`t scare the pigeons until after he fires?
Kooks will believe anything as long as they can knock the official
version.
> >Did Jackie whip out a pistol and pump some lead into her husband's back at
> >that steep angle?
>
> No, Greer did. Check with Ritchie Linton...
>
>
> >Use your brain!
>
>
> I do. This is why you have to snip everything... and can't refute me.
>
>
> >Such a crazy-angled wound never happened. Humes goofed.
> >And he KNEW he had goofed. That's obvious by what is contained in his
> >FINAL autopsy report -- "The missile contused the strap muscles of the
> >right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through
> >the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this
> >missile struck no bony structures in its path through the body."
>
> Lied... didn't he?
>
> >> "Where's the bullet that struck the curb and injured Tague? For if you
> >> can't produce this bullet, why would you argue that others must "produce"
> >> other bullets?"
> >
> >
> >Is Ben really serious here? Somebody tell me he's not this stupid.
> >Quick! Before I start believing he is.
>
>
> Can't refute it, can you?
>
>
> >The Tague bullet GLANCED off a curb and then GLANCED off of (not into)
> >James T. Tague.
>
> Yep... it *hit* something.
Something caused a slight wound on Tague`s face at some point during
this ordeal. Tague wasn`t sure when or how he got the wound, so
therefore, kooks are.
> >Whereas, in contrast, all of these "other" bullets that
> >CTers think are GOING INTO bodies in the limousine aren't just glancing
> >off of human bodies. They are supposedly penetrating two men...
>
> Yep... they *hit* something.
>
>
> >and then getting themselves lost.
> >
> >(Was Ben REALLY serious here? I'm not always sure when dealing with
> >people who live in Conspiracyville.)
>
> You demonstrate your hypocrisy... don't you?
>
>
> >> "You see, I'm committing the unpardonable LNT'er sin of actually referring
> >> to the evidence."
>
>
> I'm surprised that you'd mention this statement...
>
>
> >You mean the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (which all spells "Oswald")?
>
> Ah, but it *doesn't*. When you need to lie to make a point, you haven't made
> one, have you?
>
>
> >Or are you
> >talking about "evidence" like the Autopsy Report (which spells "Two
> >Hits From The Rear; No Frontal Hits To JFK")?
>
>
> Which, as I've pointed out, YOU can't believe.
I can. Two hits from the rear, no shots from any other source sounds
right to me.
> >Or are you possibly
> >referring to Oswald's LIVE-ON-TELEVISION "evidence" of one lie after
> >another? Such as these provable LHO lies:
> >
> >"I didn't shoot anyone, no sir."
>
> Not provable... and in 40+ years, *still* hasn't been proven.
True, it hasn`t been proven that he didn`t shoot anyone. An alibi
would do, but Oz doesn`t have one for either murder. In fact, witnesses
(those people CT *can`t* believe) said they saw him committing these
murders.
> >"They've taken me in because of the fact I've lived in the Soviet
> >Union."
>
> A reasonable suggestion...
>
> >"I emphatically deny these charges."
>
> He *DID* 'emphatically deny' the charges... Where's the "lie"?
That they took him in because he lived in the Soviet Union. I`ve
never seen any support for this utterance, Cops were called to the
theater because of Oz`s suspicious behavior. He then tried to kill the
responding officers. That is why he was "taken in".
> >"I don't know what I am here for."
>
> He didn't. He had not been charged yet.
Are you saying he wasn`t aware he killed people?
> >No....Ben was obviously only "referring to the evidence" which suits
> >the CT cause best....which, of course, leaves ALL of the physical
> >evidence of guns, bullets, prints, and fibers out in the dust and
> >unusable from a pro-CT POV (unless it was all "faked"). And it leaves
> >the autopsy report out in the cold too (unless it was "faked" too). And
> >it leaves the vast majority of witness testimony out in the
> >unusable-by-CTers wilderness as well (unless somebody managed to get a
> >huge portion of the witnesses, including EVERY single news reporter I
> >can think of who transmitted the early 11/22 reports of the shooting to
> >the world, to lie and just "pretend" they heard only 3 shots precisely;
> >with well over 50% of these witnesses claiming that gunshots came from
> >just one "rear" location).
>
>
> Hmmm... that means that 50% of the witnesses were lying... how convenient for
> you that there were so many liars that day...
<snicker> Ben labels more people liars in this case than anyone else,
yet it`s always him who is pushing the idea that it`s LN who are
calling people liars.
> >Nice try (I guess), Ben. But any "lurker" who visits here and comes
> >across your craziness containing false evidence
>
> I defy you to QUOTE a *SINGLE* statment of "false evidence".
>
> Gutless coward that you are, you won't.
>
> >and
> >conveniently-"replaced" bullets
>
> That *is* what the evidence shows... learn to live with it.
>
>
> >and a belief that ALL THREE autopsy
> >doctors were lying, miserable crooks,
>
> *YOU* have to believe that... how sad, isn't it?
>
>
> >can only conclude (unless said
> >lurker is a rabid CTer himself) that Ben-boy is living in a CT fantasy
> >world....a world where absolutely NOTHING is what it seems to be.
> >(Apply Occam's again with respect to my last comment there. See if
> >anything becomes any clearer then.)
> >
> >I truly cannot fathom how the "JFK Conspiracy Club" even manages to
> >stay open at all when such outright speculation and unsupportable
> >guesswork with respect to practically ALL of the evidence in this
> >murder case are engaged in and given as much serious consideration as
> >they apparently are given by its CT-club membership.
>
>
> I'm sure that you can't understand why so many others are against you. But it's
> not really paranoia if they really *are* out to get you, is it, Davey-boy?
It is if *they* don`t exist.
Robert Harris
Mailer was not such a bad guy. He was wrong of course, but he at
least, was honest enough to admit that Ruby was forced by the mob to
shoot Oswald.
And why is Holland on that list:-)
Robert Harris
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
curtj...@webtv.net
> Ben Holmes has kicked VP's ass I don't know how many times. I've done it
> a few myself. I guess Curt Jester gave up it was too easy.
>
LOL...I have a saying, I may be cheap, but my time's expensive. When
they get into selective answering back...well, I don't feel like there
is a debate anymore.
> Wanna hear a good one? The all knowing, all seeing Vince Bugliosi, is
> actually dumber than old fudging Fuhrman. At least the latter hasn't
> swallowed the SBT!
David VP
consecutively. Upon doing so, then come back here and tell the world
you can honestly say with certainty that both JFK & JBC aren't reacting
to being hit by a bullet at precisely the same moment in time (give or
take a billionth of a second or so). .......
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
lazu...@webtv.net
Trail Of The Assassins'Jim Garrison's book presents the most powerful
detailed case yet made that President's Kennedy's assassination was the
product of a conspiracy, and that the plotters and key operators came
not from the mob, but the CIA". He seems to have forgot that entirely
when him and Larry Schiller Scavengers Of The Warren Report( attacking
the WR critics) got a huge advance to work on Oswald's Tale. Mailer went
to Russia, instead of Dallas, NO, Fla, or Wash.Iif he really wanted the
truth and interview key witnessess, which he could have done on the
advance from Random House, rather than finesse and pretend to know
psychologically what was behind Oswald's actions, which with Posner's
book dealt a huge blow to the conspiracy cause in the elites view. He
also,I don't think told his readers in his massive book that he had
donated financially to the FPFCC. RE: Holland- there was an exchange in
the letters section recently of the Nation, that made Holland look
foolish. I think you can access it on Simkin's board.
lazu...@webtv.net
hooked up with Sy Hersh too?
blaz...@gmail.com
> Not that iot rally matters, but Is Schiller still alive? Wasn't he
> hooked up with Sy Hersh too?