Why Does The "Provable Lies" Series Frighten So Many People?
Ben Holmes
LNT'ers are refusing to defend the WC... trolls are refusing to defend the WC,
even "CT'ers" who make the silly claim that I defend the WC are snipping and
running away from this series...
What's so frightening about it?
Why can't anyone refute these facts?
And if the WCR's theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "Lone Assassin" of the
President, WHY DID THE WARREN COMMISSION PROVABLY LIE ABOUT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE?
Real CT'ers already know the answer to that question...
Fake CT'ers are snipping and running away... or refusing to answer...
Amusing, is it not?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Rob Caprio
> LNT'ers are refusing to defend the WC... trolls are refusing to defend the WC,
> even "CT'ers" who make the silly claim that I defend the WC are snipping and
> running away from this series...
All I care about is YOUR lies and slander about me...I am NOT a troll
and YOU have said so, yet you keep on listing me as one anyway. Stop
doing it and I won't bother your series again.
Deal? If not, then you have no one to blame but YOURSELF May.
mainframetech
> even "CT'ers" who make the silly claim that I defend the WC are snipping and
> running away from this series...
>
> What's so frightening about it?
>
> Why can't anyone refute these facts?
>
> And if the WCR's theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "Lone Assassin" of the
> President, WHY DID THE WARREN COMMISSION PROVABLY LIE ABOUT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE?
>
> Real CT'ers already know the answer to that question...
>
> Fake CT'ers are snipping and running away... or refusing to answer...
>
> Amusing, is it not?
>
yours Benny...they're not very scary...:) But I certainly will snip
so that a post or discussion doesn't have to be dumped into a
netherland to be popped out constantly though.
Let's go back to your statement " Why can't anyone refute these
facts?" When we look before that statement there aren't any facts to
be refuted. Maybe you SNIPPED them and ran? Maybe you were slipping
and forgot what facts?
As a favorite troll, I certainly refuse to defend the WC...they
began the process that has caused many Americans to have to deal with
foolishness, uncertainty, false information, and a wealth of grief
that still pervades the subject, even though we basically know what
happened.
Chris
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bennie is not going to like this 'insurgency'. He likes his big
labels to anyone who disagrees with him. Actually, it is a little bit
of a form of amusement, I must admit..:)
CJ
timstter
Amusing that you can't see any responses, skulking behind your
killfilter.
Your blind without a cane unless Healy bounces in with some expletive
riddled response, Yellow Pants.
Hell of a way to run a railroad.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
mainframetech
>
> Bennie is not going to like this 'insurgency'. He likes his big
> labels to anyone who disagrees with him. Actually, it is a little bit
> of a form of amusement, I must admit..:)
>
monitors, anyone can post anything and so it's called 'tough turtle
titties' to the poor unfortunates that are unhappy with other
posts...They can howl and belch at the moon and whine and squawk, but
not really do anything about it...:)
Good Luck,
Chris
Bud
> LNT'ers are refusing to defend the WC... trolls are refusing to defend the WC,
> even "CT'ers" who make the silly claim that I defend the WC are snipping and
> running away from this series...
>
> What's so frightening about it?
>
> Why can't anyone refute these facts?
Why are you afraid to defend your ideas in an open forum?
> And if the WCR's theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "Lone Assassin" of the
> President, WHY DID THE WARREN COMMISSION PROVABLY LIE ABOUT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE?
>
> Real CT'ers already know the answer to that question...
>
> Fake CT'ers are snipping and running away... or refusing to answer...
>
> Amusing, is it not?
Retarded, are you not?
David Von Pein
aeffects
the skank-roid re-surfaces..... hey Peinster, you ready for the
upcoming, Bugliosi Reclaiming History review? Right here on our very
own ACJ.... stand-by moron!
timstter
Who is writing this? You and tomnln? There's hardly a JFK-CT on this
board who can cobble together a three line post, let alone some in
depth critique. Should be a REAL barnburner, LOL!
LMFAO Regards,
aeffects
> On May 19, 6:28 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 6:43 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > the skank-roid re-surfaces..... hey Peinster, you ready for the
> > upcoming, Bugliosi Reclaiming History review? Right here on our very
> > own ACJ.... stand-by moron!
>
> Who is writing this? You and tomnln? There's hardly a JFK-CT on this
> board who can cobble together a three line post, let alone some in
> depth critique. Should be a REAL barnburner, LOL!
aeffects at your service bigbelly.... so you just maintain holding
that codpiece of yours, that's about the ONLY thing you have going for
you Fats.... see here
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Codpiece3.jpeg Remarkable
resemblance, eh?
I pull the string, you ask how high I want you to jump..... ROTFLMFAO!
Now if you'd only read the WCR.....
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On May 19, 1:14=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 19, 6:28=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 18, 6:43=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > the skank-roid re-surfaces..... hey Peinster, you ready for the
>> > upcoming, Bugliosi Reclaiming History review? Right here on our very
>> > own ACJ.... stand-by moron!
>>
>> Who is writing this? You and tomnln? There's hardly a JFK-CT on this
>> board who can cobble together a three line post, let alone some in
>> depth critique. Should be a REAL barnburner, LOL!
One example has already been posted. Rather dead silence on that one.
>aeffects at your service bigbelly.... so you just maintain holding
>that codpiece of yours, that's about the ONLY thing you have going for
>you Fats.... see here
>
>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Codpiece3.jpeg Remarkable
>resemblance, eh?
>
>I pull the string, you ask how high I want you to jump..... ROTFLMFAO!
>Now if you'd only read the WCR.....
>
>> LMFAO Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
Ben Holmes
>
>In article <ca5bf014-4cb0-4e9c...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
>aeffects says...
>>
>>On May 19, 1:14=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 19, 6:28=A0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On May 18, 6:43=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > the skank-roid re-surfaces..... hey Peinster, you ready for the
>>> > upcoming, Bugliosi Reclaiming History review? Right here on our very
>>> > own ACJ.... stand-by moron!
>>>
>>> Who is writing this? You and tomnln? There's hardly a JFK-CT on this
>>> board who can cobble together a three line post, let alone some in
>>> depth critique. Should be a REAL barnburner, LOL!
>
>
>One example has already been posted. Rather dead silence on that one.
Couple of days later... *still* dead silence.
timstter
> In article <ir4eph0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <ca5bf014-4cb0-4e9c-9627-57a8b0189...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Hmm, where is your example? I don't recall seeing it. If you think
it's so important why don't you simply repost it?
Curious Regards,
aeffects
fats the point is, you shitheads ran from it as you do all things
concerning the evidence -- which means you're a .john troll-wanker....
clear enough so even a moron like you can understand?
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On May 23, 1:25=A0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 1:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <ir4eph0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>ups.com>,
>> > >aeffects says...
>>
>> > >>On May 19, 1:14=3DA0pm, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>> On May 19, 6:28=3DA0pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> > On May 18, 6:43=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > >>> > the skank-roid re-surfaces..... hey Peinster, you ready for the
>ery
>> > >>> > own ACJ.... stand-by moron!
>>
>s
>> > >>> board who can cobble together a three line post, let alone some in
>> > >>> depth critique. Should be a REAL barnburner, LOL!
>>
>> > >One example has already been posted. Rather dead silence on that one.
>>
>> > Couple of days later... *still* dead silence.
>>
>> > >>aeffects at your service bigbelly.... so you just maintain holding
>r
>> > >>you Fats.... =A0see here
>>
>> > >>http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Codpiece3.jpeg=A0=A0Remarkabl=
>e
>> > >>resemblance, eh?
>>
>> > >>I pull the string, you ask how high I want you to jump..... ROTFLMFAO=
>!
>> > >>Now if you'd only read the WCR.....
>>
>> > >>> LMFAO Regards,
>>
>> > >>> Tim Brennan
>> > >>> Sydney, Australia
>> > >>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
Do you expect anyone to *believe* that?
I posted it several times... over a period of a week or two...
>> If you think
>> it's so important why don't you simply repost it?
Tell you what, troll... it's quite clear that you're too lazy to simply look it
up... "Bugliosi lied" along with my name... as the very first thread contains
it.
So because you're too lazy, I'll post it here...
And I'll make a prediction - YOU'LL RUN AWAY AGAIN!
**************************************************************************
Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
this anywhere?
What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged", or you
can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
Which will it be?
**********************************************************************
Gutless coward as "Tim" is, he'll refuse to admit that Bugliosi has been nailed
in an obvious lie about the evidence, and instead will run away, or engage in ad
hominem attacks...
Remember folks, I'm predicting it right here and now...
>fats the point is, you shitheads ran from it as you do all things
>concerning the evidence -- which means you're a .john troll-wanker....
>clear enough so even a moron like you can understand?
And, of course, "Tim" will run from it again. Just as he did the first time.
>> Curious Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Ben Holmes
Just a short addition to this... if anyone cares to look up the thread, they'll
find "Tim" responding to it. So his assertion that he doesn't remember holds
very little credibility...
And he *DID* run the first time...
aeffects
> In article <ireu6h01...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <95d2b6a0-5b34-4136-99c0-4e4d65ce8...@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
and again this time, as predicted!
timstter
> In article <95d2b6a0-5b34-4136-99c0-4e4d65ce8...@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Probably it was too mundane to recall.
> I posted it several times... over a period of a week or two...
>
So what. Just because YOU posted it doesn't mean it is important.
> >> If you think
> >> it's so important why don't you simply repost it?
>
> Tell you what, troll... it's quite clear that you're too lazy to simply look it
Lapsing into ad hominen for no reason.
> up... "Bugliosi lied" along with my name... as the very first thread contains
> it.
>
Atta boy! You've coughed up!
> So because you're too lazy, I'll post it here...
>
More ad hominen...
> And I'll make a prediction - YOU'LL RUN AWAY AGAIN!
>
Huh? But I'm right here. Let's not forget who ran over Z 369, Benny.
(Calling you *Benny* back then was ad hominen, right? LOL!
> **************************************************************************
> Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
> this anywhere?
>
> What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>
> Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged", or you
> can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>
> Which will it be?
> **********************************************************************
>
Bugliosi supports his claim with a note, # 202. Why don't you cite the
note?
> Gutless coward as "Tim" is, he'll refuse to admit that Bugliosi has been nailed
More ad hominen...
> in an obvious lie about the evidence, and instead will run away, or engage in ad
> hominem attacks...
>
You mean just like you?
> Remember folks, I'm predicting it right here and now...
>
Looks like you're wrong, so far, except if you count calling you
*Benny* as an ad hominen attack. Oh, wait, you DO, LOL!
> >fats the point is, you shitheads ran from it as you do all things
> >concerning the evidence -- which means you're a .john troll-wanker....
> >clear enough so even a moron like you can understand?
>
Speaking of ad hominene, you condone the above attack by your mate
Healy, right?
> And, of course, "Tim" will run from it again. Just as he did the first time.
>
Where is note 202, Benny?
> >> Curious Regards,
>
> >> Tim Brennan
> >> Sydney, Australia
> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Cordial Regards,
mainframetech
><snip for clarity>
> **************************************************************************
> Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:
>
> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a
> sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually
> round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually *say*
> this anywhere?
>
> What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?
>
> Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged", or you
> can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...
>
> Which will it be?
> **********************************************************************
wound was ragged. Here's what he said in his testimony: ""Through the
larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and
immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury."
He mentioned that the tracheal injury was RAGGED, not the wound,
which was in the skin. Here's a picture of a side view of the neck
where it's obvious that the wound area would be outside the body and
the trachea would be inside where the 'scope would be needed to see
it:
http://www.edoctoronline.com/media/19/photos_B9B8E0F5-1373-4347-BCCD-B4D4D403DCBD.jpg
Shortly after that Carrico was asked about the wound and he
answered as follows:
"Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the
anterior third of the neck which you have Just described, could you be
any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
Dr. CARRICO - This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the
midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the
thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no
jagged edges or stellate lacerations."
The direct answer in respect to the 'wound' was that "it was rather
round and there were NO jagged edges or stellate lacerations." (my
caps) This would seem to invalidate the statement that the 'wound' was
'ragged'. Bugliosi stated that an entrance wound, which is usually
"round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413) So by Bugliosi's
definition it was an entrance wound.
Carrico statements from: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrico2.htm
Header: "The testimony of Dr. Charles J. Carrico was taken at 9:30
a.m. on March 25, 1964, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex. by
Mr. Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. "
Chris
Walt
>
> Shortly after that Carrico was asked about the wound and he
> answered as follows:
>
> "Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the
> anterior third of the neck which you have Just described, could you be
> any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
> Dr. CARRICO - This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the
> midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the
> thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no
> jagged edges or stellate lacerations."
>
> The direct answer in respect to the 'wound' was that "it was rather
> round and there were NO jagged edges or stellate lacerations." (my
> caps) This would seem to invalidate the statement that the 'wound' was
> 'ragged'. Bugliosi stated that an entrance wound, which is usually
> "round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413) So by Bugliosi's
> definition it was an entrance wound.
Excellent rebuttal to Friar the liar, Chris....... I'll bet he
doesn't respond to the facts you posted....But be prepared for an ad
hominem attack.
>
> Carrico statements from:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrico2.htm
>
> Header: "The testimony of Dr. Charles J. Carrico was taken at 9:30
> a.m. on March 25, 1964, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex. by
> Mr. Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. "
>
mainframetech
>
> Excellent rebuttal to Friar the liar, Chris....... I'll bet he
> doesn't respond to the facts you posted....But be prepared for an ad
> hominem attack.
>
LOL! Well, it's facts after all. I'm not sure he deals with
those. But since I'm now the Head Troll around here, I will defend my
superior position! :))
Chris
aeffects
son, you're simply not worthy... and you've been found wanting,
therefore, another lone nut shithead.... carry on!
> Chris
mainframetech
I'm the first! Now my worth to you is unimportant to me, but my worth
to me is high on my own list...but I'm definitely wanting, but only
for things you're unable to provide...:)
Sounds like someone's little ego was punctured. Git on home, little
fella...:)
Chris