REVIEW -- "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination -- Beyond Conspiracy"
David VP
Tale Of 11-22-63, Using The Evidence In The Case Instead Of Pure
CT-Slanted Guesswork
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001BFDKU
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001BFDKU.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ABC-TV News production "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy
Assassination -- Beyond Conspiracy" originally aired on that television
network in November of 2003, two days before the 40th anniversary of
the assassination of America's 35th President, John F. Kennedy.
Most of the pro-conspiracy advocates will fail to find any redeeming
qualities in a program like this one, a program that bases its
conclusions on just the FACTS in the case, and not fanciful, would-be
theories of hidden gunmen, faked photographs, and forged autopsy
records, etc.
This program dives head-first into the documented "facts" that we have,
and presents a stylish, polished, and completely-acceptable documentary
based on those facts (none of which has ever been proven to be
inaccurate to the point of dismissal, including, of course, the
highly-controversial "Single-Bullet Theory").
I like the way ABC presents the case in this program, pulling no
punches along the way. It's obvious to them, as it is to me, that Lee
Harvey Oswald was the lone killer of JFK (and Dallas police officer
J.D. Tippit as well) in 1963.
And, seeing as how every scrap of physical evidence in both the Kennedy
and Tippit murder cases does indeed point in the direction of Lee
Oswald having acted alone, I cannot fathom how so many individuals
still seem to want to cling to the idea of conspiracy. And, no, I
certainly do not believe for a single second that ALL of this large
wealth of evidence against Oswald could have possibly been faked,
fabricated from whole cloth, or otherwise tampered with, so as to
implicate an innocent "patsy" named Lee H. Oswald. That notion, to me,
is far more fanciful than anything the Warren Commission published in
1964.
With the aid of Dale K. Myers' very detailed three-dimensional models
(which show that the "SBT" is far from a "Lone Nut dream"), Peter
Jennings and ABC-TV paint a convincing portrait of the way things
really occurred on Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.
Mr. Myers' animations actually show that the Single-Bullet Theory is
more than just a "theory" -- it's very likely the ONLY possible
explanation to account for the wounding of JFK and Texas Governor John
Connally. Because, without it, we would have another sort of "Magic
Bullet" -- a bullet that enters Mr. Connally and completely disappears
without a trace!
In actuality, without the SBT, the number of vanishing "Magic Bullets"
isn't just a mere one -- it's at least THREE (and that number goes up
to an even more ridiculous FOUR according to many CTers, who are of the
opinion that Governor Connally was struck by two separate missiles to
account for his wounds).
For, if the SBT is not the correct version of the wounding of Kennedy
and Connally, then there simply MUST have been three (or four)
different bullets which entered both men on November 22nd to cause the
various wounds. And, to add to the incredibly-unbelievable nature of
this silly pro-CT version of events, I guess we're supposed to swallow
the oddball notion that TWO separate bullets (fired from two different
guns) somehow BOTH failed to transit all the way through the body of
President Kennedy, despite the known fact that not a single bone or
hard surface was struck by either of these "Magic CT Bullets" during
their time spent inside the back and neck of the President.
Does that CT scenario sound like a logical multi-missile alternative to
the Single-Bullet Theory? Hardly. To the contrary, I'm always amazed
when a CTer can put such nonsense on the table and do it with a
straight face. I know I couldn't. I'd be compelled to burst out
laughing at such unsupportable conspiracy-slanted tripe. (Not to
mention the virtual impossibility of having three separate wounds on
two different victims aligning themselves in a very-nearly-perfect
"SBT"-like manner if these three wounds had been caused by THREE
different gunmen, as many CTers incredibly seem to believe.)
Plus, as mentioned, all of these bullets had to disappear into thin air
in order to then be "replaced" by bullet #CE399 fired from Lee Oswald's
rifle (which is the only bullet ever recovered from Parkland Hospital).
It sure was a lucky day at Parkland for the "Conspiracy Team", huh?
Quite obviously, that multiple-bullet conspiratorial version of the SBT
never could have happened in a million lifetimes. But, amazingly, scads
of conspiracy theorists actually believe that it did occur.
There are many good-quality archival video clips utilized in this
documentary, plus some new 2003 interviews featuring key players in the
tragedy. But it's Dale Myers' 3-D mock-ups which really hit a
bull's-eye here. 'Fascinating' is the best word for them, I would say.
I would have liked more of the Myers' animation shown within this
compelling 2-hour program (88 minutes sans commercials), but
unfortunately much of Mr. Myers' comprehensive work was not used for
this ABC special. But there's still enough shown for the viewer to
obviously know that Mr. Myers hasn't just slapped this 3-D computer
model together overnight. He has been working on this animation
project for many years. And that level of research and detail comes
through in the all-too-brief demonstration of his work on this program.
Additional facts and information regarding Dale Myers' 3-D computer
models can be located here:
www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/content.htm
Books, movies, television documentaries, and videos on the subject of
the JFK assassination have been decidedly one-sided, favoring one
conspiracy angle or another. But there are far too few pieces of
material about that fateful Friday in Texas which focus attention on
the idea that there was NO conspiracy, and that a lone oddball named
Lee Harvey Oswald took a rifle with him to work on the morning of
November 22nd, 1963, and fired three shots from a sixth-floor warehouse
window, killing the President of the United States.
This well-done ABC program fills a very important gap with regard to
video material relating to the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy.
David Von Pein
January 2004
---------------------------
www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?&postid=1886542#post1886542
www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=327257
---------------------------
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Fabulous Documentary Program On The JFK Assassination, Telling The True
>Tale Of 11-22-63, Using The Evidence In The Case Instead Of Pure
>CT-Slanted Guesswork
>
>http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001BFDKU
>
>http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0001BFDKU.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The ABC-TV News production "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy
>Assassination -- Beyond Conspiracy" originally aired on that television
>network in November of 2003, two days before the 40th anniversary of
>the assassination of America's 35th President, John F. Kennedy.
>
>Most of the pro-conspiracy advocates will fail to find any redeeming
>qualities in a program like this one, a program that bases its
>conclusions on just the FACTS in the case, and not fanciful, would-be
>theories of hidden gunmen, faked photographs, and forged autopsy
>records, etc.
The same 'facts' that you refuse to respond to?
>This program dives head-first into the documented "facts" that we have,
>and presents a stylish, polished, and completely-acceptable documentary
>based on those facts (none of which has ever been proven to be
>inaccurate to the point of dismissal, including, of course, the
>highly-controversial "Single-Bullet Theory").
Garbage, of course...
>I like the way ABC presents the case in this program, pulling no
>punches along the way. It's obvious to them, as it is to me, that Lee
>Harvey Oswald was the lone killer of JFK (and Dallas police officer
>J.D. Tippit as well) in 1963.
>
>And, seeing as how every scrap of physical evidence in both the Kennedy
>and Tippit murder cases does indeed point in the direction of Lee
>Oswald having acted alone,
It doesn't matter how many times this is pointed out as a lie, Davey-boy will
continue to spout it.
And not defend it.
>I cannot fathom how so many individuals
>still seem to want to cling to the idea of conspiracy.
Perhaps because that's where the facts lead?
>And, no, I
>certainly do not believe for a single second that ALL of this large
>wealth of evidence against Oswald could have possibly been faked,
>fabricated from whole cloth, or otherwise tampered with, so as to
>implicate an innocent "patsy" named Lee H. Oswald. That notion, to me,
>is far more fanciful than anything the Warren Commission published in
>1964.
Yep... you'd rather believe that dozens of eyewitnesses were simply wrong - and
even more interesting, wrong *IN THE SAME WAY*.
>With the aid of Dale K. Myers' very detailed three-dimensional models
>(which show that the "SBT" is far from a "Lone Nut dream"), Peter
>Jennings and ABC-TV paint a convincing portrait of the way things
>really occurred on Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.
G.I.G.O.
>Mr. Myers' animations actually show that the Single-Bullet Theory is
>more than just a "theory" -- it's very likely the ONLY possible
>explanation to account for the wounding of JFK and Texas Governor John
>Connally. Because, without it, we would have another sort of "Magic
>Bullet" -- a bullet that enters Mr. Connally and completely disappears
>without a trace!
Total nonsense, of course... since Davey-boy will *ARGUE* that the bullet is
CE399.
Davey-boy is trying to argue that if Connally was hit *at all*, it had to be via
the SBT. Which, of course, is an undefendable silly statement.
>In actuality, without the SBT, the number of vanishing "Magic Bullets"
>isn't just a mere one -- it's at least THREE (and that number goes up
>to an even more ridiculous FOUR according to many CTers, who are of the
>opinion that Governor Connally was struck by two separate missiles to
>account for his wounds).
Doctors, too.
>For, if the SBT is not the correct version of the wounding of Kennedy
>and Connally, then there simply MUST have been three (or four)
>different bullets which entered both men on November 22nd to cause the
>various wounds.
Yep... absolutely true. Something that the FBI and Secret Service *still*
officially adhere to.
>And, to add to the incredibly-unbelievable nature of
>this silly pro-CT version of events,
You mean the same one that the FBI and Secret Service still officially believe?
>I guess we're supposed to swallow
>the oddball notion that TWO separate bullets (fired from two different
>guns) somehow BOTH failed to transit all the way through the body of
>President Kennedy, despite the known fact that not a single bone or
>hard surface was struck by either of these "Magic CT Bullets" during
>their time spent inside the back and neck of the President.
Of course, we now know that it's *impossible* for a bullet to transit on the
accepted path without striking bone.
>Does that CT scenario sound like a logical multi-missile alternative to
>the Single-Bullet Theory? Hardly. To the contrary, I'm always amazed
>when a CTer can put such nonsense on the table and do it with a
>straight face. I know I couldn't. I'd be compelled to burst out
>laughing at such unsupportable conspiracy-slanted tripe.
And yet, strangely enough, Davey-boy is scared stiff of the eyewitness testimony
and evidence in this case. This is why he snips virtually *everything*, and
will not defend his own assertions...
>(Not to
>mention the virtual impossibility of having three separate wounds on
>two different victims aligning themselves in a very-nearly-perfect
>"SBT"-like manner if these three wounds had been caused by THREE
>different gunmen, as many CTers incredibly seem to believe.)
They don't 'align'.
>Plus, as mentioned, all of these bullets had to disappear into thin air
>in order to then be "replaced" by bullet #CE399 fired from Lee Oswald's
>rifle (which is the only bullet ever recovered from Parkland Hospital).
>It sure was a lucky day at Parkland for the "Conspiracy Team", huh?
Strawman nonsense...
>Quite obviously, that multiple-bullet conspiratorial version of the SBT
>never could have happened in a million lifetimes.
Not in *your* mind.
>But, amazingly, scads
>of conspiracy theorists actually believe that it did occur.
Yep... it's just *amazing* that virtually the same numbers, statistically
speaking, believe in the moon hoax as believe in the WCR.
>There are many good-quality archival video clips utilized in this
>documentary, plus some new 2003 interviews featuring key players in the
>tragedy. But it's Dale Myers' 3-D mock-ups which really hit a
>bull's-eye here. 'Fascinating' is the best word for them, I would say.
G.I.G.O., I would say.
Davey-boy Von Pein - the LNT'er believer that is too yellow to defend his own
words against the eyewitness testimony and evidence.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
David VP
Bullshit. They align just fine. And you know it.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg
That bullet came out of JFK's throat (just as the autopsy doctors
determined it MUST have and just as anyone with a brain and some common
sense would have determined it must have) and continued into Governor
Connally, which is the ONLY place the bullet could have gone, and is
the ONLY possible place, given the evidence, that anyone with a brain
could have determined that the bullet went.
To believe otherwise is to believe in CT nonsense of the first order.
Nonsense which Ben wallows in daily.
>> "G.I.G.O., I would say."
Sure, you'd say that. Because it doesn't add up to gobs of unseen
gunmen all over DP. You've got to say GIGO.
But the odds of three gunmen being able to spray 2 victims with 3
bullets in an even remotely-acceptable "SBT" pattern are so low as to
be deemed virtually nil. That's "what I say". And that's what anyone
with a brain cell would say too. Evidently rabid CT nuthatches lack any
cells of this nature.
But, by all means, continue to believe that three gunmen peppered two
victims just perfectly and simultaneously to make the SBT even remotely
feasible. And then continue to believe that all of those three bullets
(or even FOUR if you want to say Connally was hit twice, as many CTers
do, for some reason) just got themselves conveniently misplaced or were
seen by ONLY the pre-arranged Patsy Plotters.
If you believe all of this crap happened, you must be a very happy man
this Monday evening.....because it must also mean that the furry little
beast who visits every Easter (the little guy that you must also put
some faith in as well) must have doused you with tons of goodies
yesterday.
Watch that waistline now.....you wouldn't want to over-indulge in too
much CT (Conspiracy Treats).
And if Ben thinks his silly two-word and four-word retorts to my post
above (and other posts/threads as well) are making him look anything
but foolish....he oughta think again (if that's possible with rusty and
forever-paranoid gray matter up in his attic).
Ben Holmes
Snipped content again, I see. Too cowardly to let everyone know that you can't
even respond to most of what I say.
In article <1145323439....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> They don't 'align'.
>
>Bullshit. They align just fine. And you know it.
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg
A rather meaningless "cite" to even *begin* proving your assertion, isn't it?
The HSCA stated that the back wound was *lower* than the throat wound... yet the
angle into Connally was, if I recall correctly, 25 degrees *downward*.
That doesn't match up... so you have a problem when you attempt to assert that
the trajectories through JFK and Connally "align".
Of course, you again make an assumption that you cannot prove - transit.
Without a bullet actually transiting JFK's body, you don't have *any* of this
silly nonsense you try to push off in this group.
Perhaps you've figured out that people *are* smarter than you take them for, and
will recognize that they can only review relevant evidence and testimony in a
*NON* censored group - so you try to fill this forum up with LNT'er nonsense.
But the fact that you snip and run all the time tells lurkers all they need to
know to figure out who to believe.
>That bullet came out of JFK's throat
The evidence is that it went *in*. There is *NO* physical evidence, nor medical
examination - which shows that it was anything *OTHER* than an entry wound, as
was first stated.
In fact, the government was forced to use *LIES* to get the Parkland
eyewitnesses to recant their statements.
I wonder why no LNT'er has yet to try defending the WC and HSCA for lying about
their *OWN COLLECTED TESTIMONY* to support their 'conclusions'.
>(just as the autopsy doctors
>determined it MUST have
Yep... speculation...
I prefer to base my conclusions on facts, not speculations. I'm sure you
realize that the *ONLY* assertions about the direction of this bullet, based on
an examination of the wound, and unrestrained by future government lies about
the autopsy, is that the neck wound was an *entry*.
And that the back wound didn't go in very far, and was located *below* the neck
wound.
Can you defend the missing photographs? You know, of course, of missing
photographs, particularly the inside of the chest. Why did that photograph go
missing?
>and just as anyone with a brain and some common
>sense would have determined it must have)
A rather overwhelming majority of America disagrees with you...
>and continued into Governor
>Connally, which is the ONLY place the bullet could have gone,
Untrue, of course.
>and is
>the ONLY possible place, given the evidence, that anyone with a brain
>could have determined that the bullet went.
Untrue, of course. Why bother to lie?
>To believe otherwise is to believe in CT nonsense of the first order.
>Nonsense which Ben wallows in daily.
It's so clearly "nonsense" that Davey-boy is constrained to snip the majority of
it, and refuse to respond.
With, of course, no explanation.
>> G.I.G.O., I would say.
>
>Sure, you'd say that. Because it doesn't add up to gobs of unseen
>gunmen all over DP. You've got to say GIGO.
No, I say that because this is what the evidence will lead one to. And your
comment presupposes that you didn't even understand my comment.
Obscure, it certainly was... but in a world with a virtually instant ability to
look up such obscure references... merely makes you look too lazy to do simple
research.
>But the odds of three gunmen being able to spray 2 victims with 3
>bullets in an even remotely-acceptable "SBT" pattern are so low as to
>be deemed virtually nil. That's "what I say". And that's what anyone
>with a brain cell would say too. Evidently rabid CT nuthatches lack any
>cells of this nature.
Sheer nonsense... how silly!
>But, by all means, continue to believe that three gunmen peppered two
>victims just perfectly and simultaneously to make the SBT even remotely
>feasible.
Merely asserting such nonsense does nothing to prove it.
In fact, Dr. Shaw, for example, finds no particular problem in believing that
multiple bullets struck Connally. That would (whether he knew it or not)
presuppose a conspiracy.
>And then continue to believe that all of those three bullets
>(or even FOUR if you want to say Connally was hit twice, as many CTers
>do, for some reason)
So too did Dr. Shaw, for example.
>just got themselves conveniently misplaced or were
>seen by ONLY the pre-arranged Patsy Plotters.
How silly!
>If you believe all of this crap happened, you must be a very happy man
>this Monday evening.....because it must also mean that the furry little
>beast who visits every Easter (the little guy that you must also put
>some faith in as well) must have doused you with tons of goodies
>yesterday.
An imagination like this should be turned away from supporting the stories of
the WC, and into Hollywood. You'd make more money.
But until you can refute my statements with *EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE*,
you're going to keep looking foolish.
>Watch that waistline now.....you wouldn't want to over-indulge in too
>much CT (Conspiracy Treats).
>
>And if Ben thinks his silly two-word and four-word retorts to my post
>above
Of course, when you are busy snipping, you will certainly snip the more
subtantive responses. Rather cowardly, isn't it?
>(and other posts/threads as well) are making him look anything
>but foolish....he oughta think again (if that's possible with rusty and
>forever-paranoid gray matter up in his attic).
And if Davey-boy thinks that snipping substantive refutations of his silly posts
- without responding - is going to win him any lurker approval, he's sadly
deluded.
You see, people really *are* smarter than you take them for.
Ben Holmes
Toddy does it too, so the mistake is an easy one.
I'd apologize to Toddy, except I know he'll be guilty of snipping and running
within a day or two anyway...
David VP
angle into Connally was, if I recall correctly, 25 degrees *downward*."
And yet the HSCA still fully supported the SBT.
And, yes, the Connally bullet/damage path through his body was 25
degrees downward. That's no secret...and it's no big mystery as to HOW
a 17-degree downward angle through JFK turned into a steeper angle
through Connally.....the bullet was tumbling and hitting stuff inside
Connally....therefore, the angle of declination changed/increased after
striking Connally. But such a "change" does nothing to disprove the
SBT.
Nothing will disprove the SBT until the day you hand over to the FBI
those three (verifiable) bullets that you need to "replace" the SBT.
Have you got those bullets hidden in your CT BatCave someplace....along
with the "real" Tippit bullet shells and all that other "real" evidence
connected with the JFK/Tippit cases that magically disappeared or was
"swapped" for the Oswald-Did-It evidence?
Come on....hand over those bullets.
Cowardly, aren't you?
Robert Harris
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> "They {the SBT wounds} don't 'align'."
>
> Bullshit. They align just fine. And you know it.
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg
David, I posted a similar illustration years ago, in an article I wrote
that supported the SBT.
But, I have learned since, that an attempt like that to superimpose a
two dimensional line over a three dimensional being can produce
outrageously inaccurate impressions.
In fact, the only way to correctly depict a trajectory in a case like
this, is to do so in a true 3D environment.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> The HSCA stated that the back wound was *lower* than the throat wound...
>> yet the angle into Connally was, if I recall correctly, 25 degrees
>> *downward*.
>
>And yet the HSCA still fully supported the SBT.
You didn't assert that the HSCA supported the SBT. You asserted that the wounds
were in alignment.
Lied, didn't you?
But don't worry... I consider it my job to keep pointing out the facts on this
forum... so as long as you lie on this forum, I'll be here to correct your
ignorance.
>And, yes, the Connally bullet/damage path through his body was 25
>degrees downward. That's no secret...and it's no big mystery as to HOW
>a 17-degree downward angle
It was, according to the HSCA, a slight *UPWARD* angle through JFK's body.
>through JFK turned into a steeper angle
>through Connally.....the bullet was tumbling and hitting stuff inside
>Connally....therefore, the angle of declination changed/increased after
>striking Connally. But such a "change" does nothing to disprove the
>SBT.
You asserted that the wounds "aligned"... lied, didn't you?
>Nothing will disprove the SBT until the day you hand over to the FBI
>those three (verifiable) bullets that you need to "replace" the SBT.
The SBT was disproven from the beginning. And it's only gotten *worse*. The
SBT proposed by the WC was *almost* believable, but the HSCA version of this
theory is simply impossible.
>Have you got those bullets hidden in your CT BatCave someplace....along
>with the "real" Tippit bullet shells and all that other "real" evidence
>connected with the JFK/Tippit cases that magically disappeared or was
>"swapped" for the Oswald-Did-It evidence?
Can you *explain* the evidence in the CE399?
Can you *explain* the evidence in the CE543?
I thought not.
>Come on....hand over those bullets.
>
>Cowardly, aren't you?
I'll hand over the bullets when you stop molesting children.
Todd W. Vaughan
Ben Holmes wrote:
> That was, of course, Davey-boy that was caught snipping again.
>
> Toddy does it too, so the mistake is an easy one.
>
> I'd apologize to Toddy, except I know he'll be guilty of snipping and running
> within a day or two anyway...
Obviously you're not man enough to apologize even when you admit that
you're wrong.
Thanks for showing everyone, posters and lurkers, how much of a real
sack of shit you are.
You make this too easy.
Toddy
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>Benny The Gutless Wonder,
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> That was, of course, Davey-boy that was caught snipping again.
>>
>> Toddy does it too, so the mistake is an easy one.
>>
>> I'd apologize to Toddy, except I know he'll be guilty of snipping and running
>> within a day or two anyway...
>
>
>
>Obviously you're not man enough to apologize even when you admit that
>you're wrong.
I would, except that I'd be apologizing to someone who actually snips and runs
all the time.
Knowing that *YOU* will never apologize for such cravenly behavior, it seems
rather needless...
>Thanks for showing everyone, posters and lurkers, how much of a real
>sack of shit you are.
>
>You make this too easy.
>
>Toddy
Your constant refusal to debate the eyewitness testimony, evidence, LNT'er
omissions, misrepresentations, and lies... show the world just where the facts
lie.
Steve
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> That was, of course, Davey-boy that was caught snipping again.
>> Toddy does it too, so the mistake is an easy one.
>> I'd apologize to Toddy, except I know he'll be guilty of snipping and running
>> within a day or two anyway...
>Obviously you're not man enough to apologize even when you admit that
>you're wrong.
I would, except that I'd be apologizing to someone who actually snips
and runs
all the time.
Knowing that *YOU* will never apologize for such cravenly behavior, it
seems
rather needless...
>Thanks for showing everyone, posters and lurkers, how much of a real
>sack of shit you are.
>You make this too easy.
>Toddy
Your constant refusal to debate the eyewitness testimony, evidence,
LNT'er
omissions, misrepresentations, and lies... show the world just where
the facts
lie.
Steve writes:
This is all you have to offer to the topic of the JFK assassination,
Ben:
Constant name calling.
Constant ***whining*** that no one wants to "debate" with you.
Constant bitching.
Todd W. Vaughan
>>Benny The Gutless Wonder,
>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> That was, of course, Davey-boy that was caught snipping again.
>>> Toddy does it too, so the mistake is an easy one.
>>> I'd apologize to Toddy, except I know he'll be guilty of snipping and running
>>> within a day or two anyway...
>>Obviously you're not man enough to apologize even when you admit that
>>you're wrong.
>I would, except that I'd be apologizing to someone who actually snips and runs
>all the time.
>Knowing that *YOU* will never apologize for such cravenly behavior, it seems
>rather needless...
Rather needless?
We're talking about a mistake you admitted you made. Because of your
sloppiness you addressed your post to the wrong person, me, and in
effect accused me of something I didn't do.
I've felt for a while that you're one of the most morally bankrupt
people I've ever run across, and this just reinforces that belief.
>>Thanks for showing everyone, posters and lurkers, how much of a real
>>sack of shit you are.
>>You make this too easy.
>>Toddy
>Your constant refusal to debate the eyewitness testimony, evidence, LNT'er
>omissions, misrepresentations, and lies... show the world just where the facts
>lie.
Again, your refusal to apologize for your admitted mistake shows
everyone, posters and lurkers, how much of a real sack of shit you are.
Toddy
Todd W. Vaughan
Ben's morally bankrupt.
He's now shown that to everyone.
He's not worth the effort.
Todd
Ben Holmes
says...
Should I *stop* pointing it out when people lie?
> Constant ***whining*** that no one wants to "debate" with you.
Bugs you, doesn't it? But I'll *continue* to point out when LNT'ers refuse to
defend their own words, and refuse to debate on the actual evidence.
> Constant bitching.
Considering that you're another gutless wonder who will never debate the
evidence, I consider it an honor to have you spout nonsense like this.
Thankyou!
Steve
>>Toddy
> Steve writes:
> Constant name calling.
> Constant bitching.
Thankyou!
Steve writes:
See what I mean, folks? When I stated that all Ben has to offer to
the topic of the JFK assassination, is whining, he just proved my
point. He sounds like this:
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-uh-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Also, please note that he can't respond to a post without further
proving my point that he cannot respond without name calling. His use
of the words" Gutless wonder"( above) is just more evidence of this.
Todd is right, Ben.
You are definitely not worth it.
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
Good... Toddy finally has the excuse he needs to never answer the "FBI
Intimidation" post he's been running from for months...
I'll have to remember not to hit your poor LNT'er heads with quite so much
eyewitness testimony and evidence in a single post.
By the way... say 'hi!' to Tom for me...
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>Benny the Pretend Man,
>
>>>Benny The Gutless Wonder,
>>>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> That was, of course, Davey-boy that was caught snipping again.
>>>> Toddy does it too, so the mistake is an easy one.
>>>>I'd apologize to Toddy, except I know he'll be guilty of snipping and running
>>>> within a day or two anyway...
>>>Obviously you're not man enough to apologize even when you admit that
>>>you're wrong.
>>I would, except that I'd be apologizing to someone who actually snips and runs
>>all the time.
>>Knowing that *YOU* will never apologize for such cravenly behavior, it seems
>>rather needless...
>
>
>Rather needless?
Yep.
>We're talking about a mistake you admitted you made. Because of your
>sloppiness you addressed your post to the wrong person, me, and in
>effect accused me of something I didn't do.
That you didn't do *THIS ONE TIME*. You actually *do* snip and run all the
time, this is why I feel it rather senseless to apologize.
>I've felt for a while that you're one of the most morally bankrupt
>people I've ever run across, and this just reinforces that belief.
Good! I *want* to be known that way by people such as yourself.
>>>Thanks for showing everyone, posters and lurkers, how much of a real
>>>sack of shit you are.
>
>>>You make this too easy.
>
>>>Toddy
>
>>Your constant refusal to debate the eyewitness testimony, evidence, LNT'er
>>omissions, misrepresentations, and lies... show the world just where the facts
>>lie.
>
>
>Again, your refusal to apologize for your admitted mistake shows
>everyone, posters and lurkers, how much of a real sack of shit you are.
Gutless, aren't you?
>Toddy