Top Post:
Since Ben Holmes has proven himself to be too much of a coward to
defend the issues he raises in this open forum I`ve decide to create a
wholly fiction character, Honest Ben Holmes to provide the answers
that Dishonest Ben Holmes can`t bring himself to give.
> (Interesting to note - Johnny is so afraid of posts like this that he censors
> even the *MENTION* that there's a reply in this forum... and does so with no
> notice - rather cowardly of him...)
>
> Found in the censored forum:
>
> In article <
6ea005e5-1dbb-4281-9be7-0f5c1bf58...@i11g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> claviger says...
>
>
>
> >Perhaps the most puzzling technical aspect about this shooting ambush in
> >Dealey Plaza: why is the auricular perception by a majority of
> >eyewitnesses at odds with the Zapruder film?
>
> The more *obvious* question is not limited to just "auricular perception"... but
> what eyewitnesses in general heard and *saw*.
Bud: Honest Ben Holmes, isn`t it dishonest for Ben to change the
point that the poster was making into something else and then address
that?
Honest Ben Holmes: Yes, yes it is, but Ben was raised on dishonest
Mark Lane pap, so he finds it difficult to honestly address issues
raised.
> Why do so many of the eyewitnesses report things that contradict the extant Z-
> film?
>
> Such as the dozens of eyewitnesses who reported the dramatic slowdown and/or
> brief stop of the limo.
Me: Isn`t the fact that the limo slowed down detectable in the z-
film?
HBH: Yes, yes it is.
> Or the incredible silence coming from Dealey Plaza about the "back and to the
> left" that's so dramatically seen in the extant Z-film.
Me: Isn`t it true that experts on such things do not share the
confidence Dishonest Ben Holmes has in the ability of witnesses to
faithfully and accurately relate details in situations such as split
second attacks? And isn`t it true that if witnesses were as reliable
as Ben represents them to be and since so many witnesses witnessed
this murder then Ben Holmes should be able to use his much touted
witnesses to give a detailed explanation of what happened?
HBH: All true.
> There *is*, of course, a credible and reasonable explanation... it's just not
> non-conspiratorial.
Me: Isn`t it true that a conspiracy retard like Ben should not be
trusted to determine what is "credible and reasonable"?
HBH: True, and Dishonest Ben Holmes also pretends that witnesses
could not describe the action he refers to as "slumping", something
numerous witnesses report.
> >A number of eyewitnesses
> >heard the first loud sound that had no effect on the passengers in the
> >Limousine. Some witnesses recognized the first loud sound as a gunshot
> >but most did not, and thought it was either a firecracker, motorcycle
> >backfire, or tire blowout.
>
> >Many witnesses did notice the physical reaction of the President to the
> >next two loud sounds. A majority of those witnesses heard three loud
> >sounds. We know there was a shot at z224
>
> Actually, no we don't.
>
> It was, undoubtedly, somewhere in that vicinity - but an *honest* person will
> state that there's no *unmistakable* showing of shots other than frame 313.
>
> Indeed, different LNT'ers will put that "Z224" shot at other times.
Me: Isn`t Ben splitting split-second hairs here?
HBH: Yes. What a dick.
> You are, of course, presuming that the shot (or more likely, shots) that wounded
> Connally are to be included in these two shots that killed Kennedy.
>
> Intelligent people will *reject* such a presumption...
Me: Isn`t Ben proven wrong by the number of intelligent people who
don`t reject this presumption.
HBH: Yes.
>as did the doctors who
> worked on Connally, for example.
Me: Isn`t Ben being deceitful here, since the doctors were not
experts in the fields that determine such things and never expressed
the idea that it was impossible for one bullet to have inflicted the
wounds on Connally?
HBH: Yes.
> >and z313 as recorded on the
> >Zapruders film. The gap between those two shots is approximately 4.86 -
> >5.56 seconds according to the measured speed of Zapruder's Model 414 PD
> >Bell & Howell Zoomatic Director Series Camera. That is plenty of time to
> >re-chamber and fire the M38 Carcano SR purchased by LHO and found on the
> >6th floor of the TSBD. Several witnesses heard and a few even saw
> >something hit the street, at the first loud sound. Therefore all three
> >shots are accounted for: a first shot miss, a second shot back wound on
> >the President, and a third shot head wound on the President.
>
> Some major speculation going on there... and *NOT* able to explain *all* the
> evidence.
>
> You *PRESUME* that there were three shots, then pretend that all three have been
> "accounted" for... despite expert opinion to the contrary.
Me: Can Ben produce this expert opinion?
HBH: Likely not.
> >For the last two sounds to be so close together one of the following
> >must be true:
>
> >1. There were 3 shots :
>
> >The 1st loud sound is not perceived as a gunshot, the 2nd loud sound is
> >recognized as a gunshot, and a 3rd loud double sound, a gunshot- echo
> >perceived as two gunshots. The first loud sound is disconnected as a
> >confirmed gunshot in the startled memory of several witnesses. Problem:
> >How can that many witnesses be wrong? If there were 3 shots plus echo why
> >didn't a majority of witnesses hear 4 loud sounds?
>
> Some did.
>
> You realize, of course, that the difference in sound of the shots can *EASILY*
> be explained by different shooters firing different rifles.
Me: Can Ben explain why the witnesses largely didn`t indicate
different locations for the source of the shots?
HBH: Likely not.
> >2. There were 3 shots :
>
> >The 1st loud sound was a gunshot that struck the President in the back.
> >The 2nd shot missed and hit the street and several witnesses confused it
> >as the first shot. LHO quickly re-chambered and got off a 3rd shot that
> >struck the President in the head. This is possible because the Carcano
> >M38 has been recycled and fired in 1.5 seconds. Problem: Several well
> >placed witnesses are quite sure they saw and/or heard a first shot miss.
>
> You're lying. This sequence is *IMPOSSIBLE* based on the cycle time of the
> actual rifle.
Me: Isn`t Ben lying when he claims to know the cycling time of the
assassination rifle at the time of the assassination?
HBH: Of course.
> I find it amusing that the kooks will simply label the WCR wrong whenever it's
> inconvenient for their theory.
Me: Isn`t Ben being hypocritical when he touts WC supplied
information to support an idea when it suits him but rejects it when
it goes against his theories? And doesn`t he have no problem accepting
an incredibly slow time but would question if the WC supplied an
incredibly fast time?
HBH: Right on both counts.
> The Warren Commission, with EVERY POSSIBLE BIAS in favor of getting the fastest
> time they could, were unable to produce a time faster than 2.3 seconds to
> recycle the MC.
Me: Isn`t putting "EVERY POSSIBLE BIAS" all in capitals meaningless
hyperbole, and isn`t Dishonest Ben Holmes proven wrong by the fact
that the WC *DID* return a slow time?
HBH: Yes. He is scum.
> You do so simply by lying. "This is possible because the Carcano M38 has been
> recycled and fired in 1.5 seconds." - you carefully omit that you're speaking of
> ANOTHER rifle. One that has undoubtedly been far better cared for than the MC in
> question.
Me: Isn`t it true that we have no idea what the condition of the
rifle was in when was used by Oswald to kill Kennedy since it was
disassembled and dusted for prints?
HBH: Yes, any small child knows that putting dust on the oiled
working parts of machinery will affect performance.
Me: Isn`t it also true that it is in evidence that Oswald sat around
practicing working the bolt of his rifle?
HBH: Yes, thats true. You can`t really expect to get the same
results unless you can faithfully replicate the conditions.
Me: How do you suppose Ben would answer if I asked him why he
thought the rifle took so long to operate?
HBH: I suspect he would dance or run.
> Of course, pointing out that you're lying, and you *KNOW* that you're lying,
> isn't possible in the censored forum.
Me: Wouldn`t it be possible for Dishonest Ben Holmes to say "This
isn`t true because..." on the moderated board, and isn`t it true that
he doesn`t take that tact because he is afraid of having to debate the
two opposing ideas (conspiracy or not) on their merits?
HBH: Sadly, yes.
> >3. There were 3 shots :
>
> >1st shot miss (LHO), 2nd shot back wound (LHO), 3rd shot head wound
> >(GKS).
>
> >Problem: No person was seen behind the fence or anywhere else on the
> >Grassy Knoll with a weapon, and several witnesses heard 3 shots from
> >the same direction as the TSBD.
>
> You're again making claims not supported by the evidence. There were
> eyewitnesses to a weapon in the GK... Ed Hoffman and Julia Ann Mercer come to
> mind. Since you certainly know about these witnesses, you're simply lying again.
Me: Isn`t Ben representing witnesses to be credible when there are
severe questions about their accounts?
HBH: Yes, conspiracy retards cling to such information regardless of
whether it can pass critical muster.
> As for someone hearing three shots being proof that no other shots were fired...
> well, that's just too silly to respond to.
Me: Isn`t this a strawman?
HBH: Yes, I picked that right up.
> >4. There were 3 shots :
>
> >1st shot miss (LHO), 2nd shot back wound (LHO), 3rd shot head wound
> >from behind the Limousine (not LHO): Take your pick, the Dal-Tex
> >Sniper theory or the Donahue theory.
>
> >Problem: No witness specifically saw or heard a shooter behind the
> >Limousine other than LHO.
>
> Problem, the trajectory evidence can't be explained by you.
Me: have you ever seen a conspiracy retard offer plausible
trajectories?
HBH: No, and I doubt I ever will.
> >5. There were 4 shots :
>
> >A 1st shot miss (LHO), a 2nd shot hit (LHO), a 3rd shot miss (GKS),
> >and a 4th shot hit (LHO). This is the HSCA conclusion.
>
> >Problem: No sniper was seen or heard on the GK
>
> You're *LYING* again... Why do you think you can lie and get away with it?
Me: Isn`t Ben assertion that this is a lie contingent on his ability
to show their was a sniper on the GK to be heard or seen?
HBH: Yes.
> Oh yeah... you're posting in a censored forum where lies can't be pointed out.
>
> >by elevated witnesses on
> >the Triple Underpass, the pedestal in front of the North Pergola, or in
> >the Union Terminal Co north tower. No witness on the GK reported hearing
> >4 shots. Sitzman, the Hesters, and Clint Hill only heard 2 shots.
>
> And on the *same* basis as you just used previously to declare that because
> someone heard three shots from the TSBD, that there couldn't have been any shots
> from the GK, you now must admit that you couldn't have had three shots from the
> TSBD, because you mention an eyewitness who only heard *two* shots.
>
> But that's kook logic for you...
Me: Can Dishonest Ben Holmes explain why there are witnesses who
said they only heard two shots?
HBH: Not in any honest way.