Day 5,246 of the Vincent T. Bugliosi search...
Ben Holmes
Bugliosi's apologia tome proving that the Warren Commission actually came to the
correct conclusion, people are still waiting...
Could it be that Bugliosi's research has proven otherwise???
And at a mere 7 days... John Welsh Hodges has quite a way to go to match
Bugliosi's record...
But John has a problem... publishing a devastating critique of a book that never
gets published would be an author's faux pas...
David VP
Ben-Kook can't even count it seems.
David VP
"Almost all of the current books on the subject deal with conspiracy
theories. I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can convince
the average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK." -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi; April 22, 2004
Grizzlie Antagonist
lazu...@webtv.net
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> It's much closer to 7,350 days.
>
> Ben-Kook can't even count it seems.
I like daBug's 2004 quote: 25 pages is all he needs to prove no
conspiracy
ROFLMFAO! Hell, he's had 2 years to write 25 pages, what the hell is
the matter with him Von Pein?
David VP
25 pages! By 2004, VB had already been working on the book for 18
years.
Get your insults right, will ya.
Geesh.
lazu...@webtv.net
intellect would want to go down as a cross between a huckster and a
Govt. whore, but he sure wouldn't be the first to lie about JFK's death
and be hugely rewarded, along with tarnishing the character of dozens of
witnesess who don't support the officia myth.
David VP
It has never once occurred to you that Vince B. just MIGHT be right in
his LN-believing ways....has it?
Perhaps that's the answer right there -- i.e., VB is right.
But that would never occur to an Official CT-Kook, I suppose.
lazu...@webtv.net
etc.) and other documentation released, none of which strengthens the
Warren Commission's case against LHO as sole assassin. Even the HSCA
disputes the WC's findings. No, the more information revealed, the more
the pieces fall into place, the more evident it becomes that a
conspiracy took JFK's life. Does Vince have access to materials and
documentation incriminating LHO as lone assassin that no one else has
seen? That is highly unlikely. The upshot is that he will do no better
than any of his predecessors, Posner, etc. in making his case, which
relies solely on te WC's conclusion, not even their own 26 volumes of
testimony and evidence, which in many instances do not point only at
LHO. Frankly, you LN'ers have failed miserably at convincing anyone who
has any knowledge of the case. And if you think Bugliosi will acomplish
this feat of magical persuasion, then I guess the world really is flat.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> It's shame a man of Bugliosi's reputation, accomplishments, and intellect
>> would want to go down as a cross between a huckster and a Govt. whore..
Can't even quote correctly... snip and run, snip and run...
>It has never once occurred to you that Vince B. just MIGHT be right in
>his LN-believing ways....has it?
Of course not. The Government has had three major attempts to convince the
American public that two lone nuts were running around that weekend, and have
been unable to do so with the evidence.
What, do you suppose, has changed about the evidence? Has something new been
released that supports the WCR?
>Perhaps that's the answer right there -- i.e., VB is right.
If he supports the WCR, he's provably not.
>But that would never occur to an Official CT-Kook, I suppose.
Wild speculation is not our forte.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Could it be that Bugliosi's research has proven otherwise???
>
>
>"Almost all of the current books on the subject deal with conspiracy
>theories.
There's an obvious reason for this. It's spelled F - A - C - T - S
>I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can convince
>the average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK." -- Vincent T.
>Bugliosi; April 22, 2004
And yet, he hasn't. There's a word for someone who makes a claim like that, and
fails to back it up.
cdddraftsman
ass stuff , not all evidence is created equal , unfortunatly for you
dim wits eh. . Tom Lowry
cdddraftsman
both feet stuck in your mouth ? Must be awlfully difficult to now what
the facts are too ? Statements don't make facts . Peices of evidence
don't make it a fact . So gather up all you bits and peice's and what
have you got ? Bits and peices of partial facts , that don't peove
anything . Thats what the CT community has been doing for the past 40
yrs. , all the while , screaming , lets debate the weak evidence . Must
make you feel like the king of the grassy knoll . You sit atop it , Mr.
mumbo jumbo with a ( weak mind ) , leading the CTer's ( Gutless cowards
, leftist traitors , Democrats ) , the mobocracy of perhaps 10,000
people at the most . The rest of America wouldn't follow you guys to
the shitter , if their britches were bursting . Boo Hoo no one will
discuss the weak evidence with Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes . He's all alone
guarding the grassy knoll , looking here and there , but never quite
catching a glimse of what he's after . If he knew what he was after ,
he would stop looking . But he's just not that smart , to figure it out
. That makes him perfect material to be a CT investigator , absolutely
clueless , as to what questions , if ever , to ask . In this case, the
last question to ask is who killed JFK . The Bennut asks it first .
Backwards , upsidedown , and inside out , a first rate fiasco of epic
proportions . CLUESS IN DALLAS ! Haaaaaaaaa HAAAAAAAAAA ! NUTCASE Tom
Lowry
lazu...@webtv.net
years, please name one document or other bit of evidence uncovered
which conclusively points to LHO's sole guilt.
You're stuck with the WCR, and that's all you've got, the conclusions of
which are easily refuted, and have been since its inception.
And why were LHO's CIA and military intel. files systemtically
destroyed, if he was only a lone malcontent?
And finally, why are so many files, and other pertinent information
still secreted from the American people, if these files truly
strengthened the government's case?
You can lead a jackass to the truth, but you can't make him think.
aeffects
cdddraftsman wrote:
> I must say Benner , how do you type up such garbage so quickly , with
> both feet stuck in your mouth ? Must be awlfully difficult to now what
> the facts are too ? Statements don't make facts . Peices of evidence
> don't make it a fact . So gather up all you bits and peice's and what
> have you got ? Bits and peices of partial facts , that don't peove
> anything . Thats what the CT community has been doing for the past 40
> yrs. , all the while , screaming , lets debate the weak evidence . Must
> make you feel like the king of the grassy knoll . You sit atop it , Mr.
> mumbo jumbo with a ( weak mind ) , leading the CTer's ( Gutless cowards
> , leftist traitors , Democrats ) , the mobocracy of perhaps 10,000
> people at the most . The rest of America wouldn't follow you guys to
> the shitter , if their britches were bursting . Boo Hoo no one will
> discuss the weak evidence with Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes . He's all alone
> guarding the grassy knoll , looking here and there , but never quite
> catching a glimse of what he's after . If he knew what he was after ,
> he would stop looking . But he's just not that smart , to figure it out
> . That makes him perfect material to be a CT investigator , absolutely
> clueless , as to what questions , if ever , to ask . In this case, the
> last question to ask is who killed JFK . The Bennut asks it first .
> Backwards , upsidedown , and inside out , a first rate fiasco of epic
> proportions . CLUESS IN DALLAS ! Haaaaaaaaa HAAAAAAAAAA ! NUTCASE Tom
> Lowry
so clueless yet YOU keep responding, starting new threads when you
can't get yurself out of a sticky wicket... Why is that?
I say lurkers know your dangling at the end of a very short Lone Neuter
string, Mr. Lowry -- its great theater however. So please stay, we'll
let you know when we tire of your nonsense. Do attempt to stick to
facts and the evidence when its convenient, huh?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>I must say Benner , how do you type up such garbage so quickly , with
>both feet stuck in your mouth ? Must be awlfully difficult to now what
>the facts are too ? Statements don't make facts . Peices of evidence
>don't make it a fact . So gather up all you bits and peice's and what
>have you got ? Bits and peices of partial facts , that don't peove
>anything . Thats what the CT community has been doing for the past 40
>yrs. , all the while , screaming , lets debate the weak evidence . Must
>make you feel like the king of the grassy knoll . You sit atop it , Mr.
>mumbo jumbo with a ( weak mind ) , leading the CTer's ( Gutless cowards
>, leftist traitors , Democrats ) , the mobocracy of perhaps 10,000
>people at the most . The rest of America wouldn't follow you guys to
>the shitter , if their britches were bursting . Boo Hoo no one will
>discuss the weak evidence with Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes . He's all alone
>guarding the grassy knoll , looking here and there , but never quite
>catching a glimse of what he's after . If he knew what he was after ,
>he would stop looking . But he's just not that smart , to figure it out
>. That makes him perfect material to be a CT investigator , absolutely
>clueless , as to what questions , if ever , to ask . In this case, the
>last question to ask is who killed JFK . The Bennut asks it first .
>Backwards , upsidedown , and inside out , a first rate fiasco of epic
>proportions . CLUESS IN DALLAS ! Haaaaaaaaa HAAAAAAAAAA !
>
>NUTCASE
>Tom Lowry
I've seen better argument on the playground.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>If you new how to judge weight of evidence
And if *you* "new" how to judge the weight of the evidence, you certainly give
no clue to readers... Your ability to judge the weight of evidence is
illustrated on virtually each of your postings, where you refuse to debate the
evidence, or show why certain evidence is preferable to other evidence. You
never cite evidence, you never answer questions, and what's truly sad, is to
think that you don't even realize how transparent this is.
What you engage in is ad hominem.
Ben Holmes
>both feet stuck in your mouth ? Must be awlfully difficult to now what
>the facts are too ? Statements don't make facts .
Actually, they certainly can. Although more normally, words are simply a way to
communicate facts.
>Peices of evidence
>don't make it a fact .
Nope... merely poor spelling...
>So gather up all you bits and peice's and what
>have you got ? Bits and peices of partial facts , that don't peove
>anything .
Absolutely true! "peices" of partial facts don't "peove" anything. I
absolutely agree.
>Thats what the CT community has been doing for the past 40
>yrs. , all the while , screaming , lets debate the weak evidence .
The fact that you can't is most revealing...
>Must
>make you feel like the king of the grassy knoll . You sit atop it , Mr.
>mumbo jumbo with a ( weak mind ) , leading the CTer's ( Gutless cowards
>, leftist traitors , Democrats ) ,
By the way, I consider myself to the right of Rush Limbaugh... and have so
posted for years. And having spent over a decade in the United States Marine
Corps, few people would have the guts to question my support of Mom, Apple Pie,
patriotism, and the United States of America. And never, I might add, to my
face.
My most current read was Ann Coulter's new book... excellent material! I
particularly enjoyed the last few chapters.
>the mobocracy of perhaps 10,000
>people at the most .
You clearly haven't been paying much attention... as much as 90% of America
fails to follow the WCR lead according to polls.
>The rest of America wouldn't follow you guys to
>the shitter , if their britches were bursting .
Provably untrue...
>Boo Hoo no one will
>discuss the weak evidence with Ben ' Sherlock ' Holmes .
I prefer to assert that LNT'ers can't support *their own words*. You really
don't have to respond to anything I say. But once you have, you *should* be
able to support your words.
>He's all alone
>guarding the grassy knoll , looking here and there , but never quite
>catching a glimse of what he's after . If he knew what he was after ,
>he would stop looking . But he's just not that smart , to figure it out
>. That makes him perfect material to be a CT investigator , absolutely
>clueless , as to what questions , if ever , to ask . In this case, the
>last question to ask is who killed JFK . The Bennut asks it first .
Meaningless. Oswald could have been guilty as sin - and in fact, some CT'ers do
believe so... but it has *NOTHING* to do with whether a conspiracy took the life
of JFK or not.
David VP
Probably not.
But he's got a whole lot of something that virtually all CT-Kooks lack
(or that the kooks just fail to use when evaluating the JFK case) --
Common sense and reasoned thinking when assessing all of the
information surrounding this case.
The key to some of VB's carefully-worded quotes over the years has been
the use of appropriately-fitting words like "reasonable" and "average"
when he states he thinks he can convince the "average reader" in 25
pages of Oswald's (obvious) guilt; and when he used "reasonable" in
this quotation from 1986......
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80% of the
evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than
enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the
crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
Most CT-Kooks, however, as we all know, do NOT qualify under the
umbrella of "reasonable" people when it comes to the Kennedy
assassination case. (I don't want to say "ALL" kooks don't qualify just
yet. I want to leave that door open just a crack; because some kooks
will certainly abandon their quest for "the real assassins" that never
existed in the first place once VB's logic is showered upon them. Not
all kooks, but some.)
aeffects
You find Hodges, yet? Better yet, has Vinnie foundout who he is?
tsk-tsk!
David VP
lazu...@webtv.net
And regarding Vince- I'm not going to pre-judge anybody's forthcoming
JFK Book Lifton, even Holland etc., but in Vince's case there are no big
surprises-he has no questions- so, I can rip it to shreds if I care to.
He has to go with the HSCA on the headshot and to fit all the
'authentic" evidence, so he shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt.
David VP
But a highly-accurate moniker nonetheless. Not to mention how very
pleasing it is when the phrase effortlessly trips off of the
keyboard/tongue.
>>> "But in Vince's case there are no big surprises-he has no questions- so, I can rip it to shreds if I care to. He has to go with the HSCA on the headshot and to fit all the 'authentic" evidence, so he shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt." <<<
Some kooky shit/reasoning here, folks. Par for the kook-course, natch.
aeffects
Now I realize you Lone Neuter wingnuts never use your real name -- but,
"natch" ? You my old pissing match buddy Steve 'never could hit a
moving target' Keating? Sounds like a Keating signature to me, always
wondered where that moron went....
lazu...@webtv.net
does not pass for healthy, intelligent debate.
When your aim is as low as you guys', you don't win arguments, all you
do is shoot yourself in the foot constantly. Isn't there an all nutter
network that you could infest for awhile and give the rest of us a
break?
Steve
Well David, after he realized that you guys are all bi-polar here,and
heavily medicated for mental disorders, and realized that one cannot
carry on a conversation, intelligently, since there is such a lack of
it among you Oswald apologists, he did what most people would do. He
left!
lazu...@webtv.net
Steve
Naw. I am just here to watch you guys make butts of yourselves. Why?
Because I can.
aeffects
I'll tell you what I told Keating: get lost you moron, he did!
Steve
Oh, David. I expected something a lot more "intelligent" from you
than this, a man of your "higher learning".
But...you just accused DaveVon Pein of not being such, by saying : "Now
I realize you Lone Neuter wingnuts never use your real name". Not only
does the fact that you can't manage to say something to another human
being who disagrees with you without referring to them as , well "Lone
Neuter wingnuts" for example, prove my point, but, you, of all people,
who uses the name "aeffects" instead of his " real name", "David
Healy" have just confirmed my suspicions.
aeffects
Steve wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > Steve wrote:
> > > aeffects wrote:
> > > > David VP wrote:
> > > > > >>> "Calling someone a kook when you are in the minority isn't too bright." <<<
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But a highly-accurate moniker nonetheless. Not to mention how very
> > > > > pleasing it is when the phrase effortlessly trips off of the
> > > > > keyboard/tongue.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> "But in Vince's case there are no big surprises-he has no questions- so, I can rip it to shreds if I care to. He has to go with the HSCA on the headshot and to fit all the 'authentic" evidence, so he shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt." <<<
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Some kooky shit/reasoning here, folks. Par for the kook-course, natch.
> > > >
> > > > Now I realize you Lone Neuter wingnuts never use your real name -- but
> > > > moving target' Keating? Sounds like a Keating signature to me, always
> > > > wondered where that moron went....
> > >
> > > Well David, after he realized that you guys are all bi-polar here,and
> > > heavily medicated for mental disorders, and realized that one cannot
> > > carry on a conversation, intelligently, since there is such a lack of
> > > it among you Oswald apologists, he did what most people would do. He
> > > left!
> >
> > I'll tell you what I told Keating: get lost you moron, he did!
>
> Oh, David. I expected something a lot more "intelligent" from you
> than this, a man of your "higher learning".
>
> But...you just accused DaveVon Pein of not being such, by saying : "Now
> I realize you Lone Neuter wingnuts never use your real name". Not only
> does the fact that you can't manage to say something to another human
> being who disagrees with you without referring to them as , well "Lone
> Neuter wingnuts" for example, prove my point, but, you, of all people,
> who uses the name "aeffects" instead of his " real name", "David
> Healy" have just confirmed my suspicions.
So, you know David VonPain is the real deal? When I see DVP introduced
and standing beside Vin Bugliosi, I'll reconsider the question: is Von
Pain real or just a myth in the minds of a few? As for Keating? eh, he
needed to pass a McAdams class -- he paid his Lone Neuter dues, I'm
sure he's out there passing praise on the Warren Commission using
another handle... these guy's can't help themselves, as you well
know...
aeffects has been in my email addresses for over 10 years. Rummage
around you broadcast media friends and ask them about the compositing
tool called After Effects...
As for your righteous indigniation about Lone Neuter terminology, I
suggest you direct that anger towards those who conspired in the murder
of JFK, instead of wringing your hands concerning my attitude about the
Von Pains and the 'never could hit a moving target' Keating's of the
world...
Steve
LOL! And it's a known fact that you "guys can't help" yourselves or
control yourselves from calling people these childish names you come up
with. Get a grip, David.
> aeffects has been in my email addresses for over 10 years. Rummage
> around you broadcast media friends and ask them about the compositing
> tool called After Effects...
>
I'm well familiar with the tool David. But the fact is, you cannot
accuse DVP of something that you, yourself do.
> As for your righteous indigniation about Lone Neuter terminology, I
> suggest you direct that anger towards those who conspired in the murder
> of JFK, instead of wringing your hands concerning my attitude about the
> Von Pains and the 'never could hit a moving target' Keating's of the
> world...
I am not the one who is "angry", David. Anger seems to be what you
and the other Oswald apologists hold dear. You won't/can't even post in
a thread without calling one of the folks who disagree with you a name
made up by yourself.
You , Holmes, Marsh et.al. are the loose cannons, here!
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Does Vince have access to materials and documentation incriminating LHO
>> as lone assassin that no one else has seen?
>
>
>Probably not.
Then that's the end of the story. LNT'ers have had over 40 years to try to make
their case, and what we have is up to 90% of America that hasn't been
indoctrinated into this fantasy.
Unless Bugliosi has new *evidence*, he'll fare no better than previous attempts.
>But he's got a whole lot of something that virtually all CT-Kooks lack
>(or that the kooks just fail to use when evaluating the JFK case) --
>Common sense and reasoned thinking when assessing all of the
>information surrounding this case.
So presumably, did the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, and Posner. Yet *they* failed
too.
>The key to some of VB's carefully-worded quotes over the years has been
>the use of appropriately-fitting words like "reasonable" and "average"
>when he states he thinks he can convince the "average reader" in 25
>pages of Oswald's (obvious) guilt; and when he used "reasonable" in
>this quotation from 1986......
>
>"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
>Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
>the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80% of the
>evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than
>enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the
>crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
Asserting this is one thing - proving it will be a horse of an entirely
different color.
Bugliosi will fail just as dramatically as the previous attempts.
And *you* will be unable to defend him.
>Most CT-Kooks, however, as we all know, do NOT qualify under the
>umbrella of "reasonable" people when it comes to the Kennedy
>assassination case.
Oh, go ahead, tell the truth... "Most AMERICANS, do not qualify..."
>(I don't want to say "ALL" kooks don't qualify just
>yet. I want to leave that door open just a crack; because some kooks
>will certainly abandon their quest for "the real assassins" that never
>existed in the first place once VB's logic is showered upon them. Not
>all kooks, but some.)
>
>http://webster.com/dictionary/reasonable
Hope springs eternal in the LNT'er... hoping that the next book will prove them
right...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>So what's keeping you here, Steve? Are you a masochist?
He must be. He keeps popping his head in where I can remind him of how
gutlessly he has handled the Chaney statements THAT HE HIMSELF ASKED FOR!!
Stephanie, do you *ever* plan to address them?
Ben Holmes
says...
Clearly untrue. Tony, who's never misused my name, is still referred to as
"Tony", or "Marsh", by me... yet you, who can't seem to have normal courtesy,
simply get back exactly what *YOU* first did...
And Stephanie, isn't it about time that you admitted it, and apologize for
misusing my name?
>You , Holmes, Marsh et.al. are the loose cannons, here!
If keeping others honest about the evidence is what it takes to be known as a
"loose cannon", then that's what we must be.
Ever plan to confront what Chaney actually said?
David VP
Gee, I hope my mother is at least on that short list.
I guess, per D. Healy, I'm non-existent altogether. Just out here in
The Twilight Zone someplace sending down messages from Planet Twilo.
(Perhaps I'll join J.W. Hodges in the category of "made-up myths", eh?
There's a thought.)
David VP
My prediction is that Mr. Bugliosi will be doing something that I don't
think any other JFK authors have done in the past (I'm not aware of it
at any rate)....and that is -- Vince will be offering up some prior
"Case Histories" that in some specific ways mirror and parallel the
Kennedy case very closely.
For example:
Vince, as former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney, has probably
gone back into his case files and found a case or two (or more) which
had as part of its evidence a bullet that POSITIVELY went through a
victim (or two) and REMAINED PERFECTLY CLEAN AFTER EXITING.
That type of case history in the files probably wouldn't be that hard
to acquire (certainly not for Vincent B.). And if Vince can provide
that type of "Lookie Here! It's Happened Before In Similar Cases In
History!" in the files of past court trials, police records, etc., that
will go a long way to debunking the ever-popular theory of CTers, which
is:
'There's no way in hell that that bullet (CE399) could have emerged
from JFK & JBC without any trace evidence of blood, tissue, or clothing
fibers on it'.
If Vince can dig even deeper through his hundreds of previous L.A.
County cases (or elsewhere) and come up with a prior case where a
person was shot in the head POSITIVELY FROM BEHIND (stipulated so by
both the prosecution and the defense in such a case, so that there's no
conflict at all in court re. this "Where Was The Killer Located?"
topic), and then demonstrate that the victim suffered a muscular spasm
of some sort (or jet effect scenario), whereby his head dramatically
moved backward after receiving the blow from the rear -- that type of
"stipulated case history" would do wonders for the LN position in the
JFK matter.
Is there such a PROVABLE case history in Vincent Bugliosi's
files/records?
Wait and see.
I predict Vince will provide just exactly that type of "evidence",
providing documented PROOF to illustrate that the things that happened
(or "allegedly happened", if you prefer those words) in the Kennedy
assassination case HAVE HAPPENED IN OTHER CASES AROUND THE WORLD. And
if anybody can dig up those factual pieces of data, it's Vince B.
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run...
Once again, Davey-boy illustrates what cowards most LNT'ers are...
In article <1152482640.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> Unless Bugliosi has new *evidence*, he'll fare no better than previous
>> attempts.
>
>
>My prediction is that Mr. Bugliosi will be doing something that I don't
>think any other JFK authors have done in the past (I'm not aware of it
>at any rate)....and that is -- Vince will be offering up some prior
>"Case Histories" that in some specific ways mirror and parallel the
>Kennedy case very closely.
>
>For example:
The Lincoln assassination?
>Vince, as former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney, has probably
>gone back into his case files and found a case or two (or more) which
>had as part of its evidence a bullet that POSITIVELY went through a
>victim (or two) and REMAINED PERFECTLY CLEAN AFTER EXITING.
That would be new. In over 40 years, no LNT'er has been able to do this.
Perhaps we can have some new physics theories to go along with it... you know,
something along the lines of the "jet effect". You could call it the "clean
bullet effect".
Hmmm... perhaps you can think about it, and come up with a snazzier title for
your new physics theory.
On second thought, better not. Bugliosi has probably already done this...
>That type of case history in the files probably wouldn't be that hard
>to acquire
Despite over 40 years of searching for it...
>(certainly not for Vincent B.).
Perhaps this explains the last 14 years of waiting...
>And if Vince can provide
>that type of "Lookie Here! It's Happened Before In Similar Cases In
>History!" in the files of past court trials, police records, etc., that
>will go a long way to debunking the ever-popular theory of CTers, which
>is:
>
>'There's no way in hell that that bullet (CE399) could have emerged
>from JFK & JBC without any trace evidence of blood, tissue, or clothing
>fibers on it'.
Yep... it's really getting sad when the best LNT'ers can do is provide
speculative future discoveries that will offset known fact.
>If Vince can dig even deeper through his hundreds of previous L.A.
>County cases (or elsewhere) and come up with a prior case where a
>person was shot in the head POSITIVELY FROM BEHIND (stipulated so by
>both the prosecution and the defense in such a case, so that there's no
>conflict at all in court re. this "Where's Was The Killer?" topic), and
>then show that that victim suffered a muscular spasm (or jet effect
>scenario), whereby his head dramatically moved backward after receiving
>the blow from the rear -- that type of "stipulated case history" would
>do wonders for the LN position in the JFK matter.
Yep... for despite over 40 years of trying, LNT'ers *still* haven't repealed the
laws of physics.
>Is there such a PROVABLE case history in Vincent Bugliosi's
>files/records?
Nope.
>Wait and see.
Don't need to. Sorta like telling you that the sun isn't planning on putting in
an appearance tomorrow. Then telling you to just "wait and see!"
>I predict Vince will provide just exactly that type of "evidence"
>(i.e., "proof") that things that happened (or "allegedly happened", if
>you prefer those words) in the Kennedy assassination case HAVE HAPPENED
>IN OTHER CASES AROUND THE WORLD. And if anybody can dig up those
>factual pieces of data, it's Vince B.
Hope springs eternal...
lazu...@webtv.net
somewhere in the vast files of homicides in SO CAL, that somebody shot
from the rear had a neurospasm that will prove the shot came from the
rear? I am just saying what is more likely.
David VP
And Ben will continue to totally IGNORE (or claim as "fake" I guess)
the many tests that were done that PROVE beyond any doubt that when
shot from behind, a skull can be propelled BACKWARD, toward the
shooter. If that doesn't prove the "jet effect" is valid, what the hell
will?
You've surely seen the "backward flying skulls" test film footage,
haven't you, kook (Ben)?
Is that film "tampered with" (reversed?) too...like the Z-Film is (per
many CTers)?
If not...what caused those skulls in those tests to go BACK toward the
shooter (EVERY TIME) when shot from the rear?
I await your brilliant CT-Kook analysis on this one.
And, yes, VB will undoubtedly be using that test skull footage to
support his general LN/LHO position re. the JFK head shot. But what I
was talking about earlier was an ACTUAL MURDER CASE, where a person was
positively KNOWN to have been tossed toward the person that shot them
after being hit in the head by a high-velocity bullet.
That's the type of "prior case" I'll bet VB has searched for in the
files. Whether he ever found one (with witnesses to verify the head
movement or by having the incident on film), I cannot say.
But even without such "case histories" to rely on as icing on an
undoubtedly already well-frosted VB/LN cake, Mr. Bugliosi's book will
still blow all CTs out of the room. The only reason that obvious fact
is being debated here is because this silly place is occupied by
several CT-Kooks. (What else?)
>>> "Hope springs eternal." <<<
As do CT-Kooks. Like weeds, we must put up with them...year in and year
out.
David VP
In true fashion of Kooksville USA (or wherever these kooks call home),
my post re. Vince and "case histories" evidently went over your cranium
completely.
Such "ACTUAL CASE HISTORIES OF STUFF HAPPENING JUST THE WAY THE WC SAID
THINGS HAPPENED ON 11/22/63" most certainly would bolster the overall
"LN case" scenario. Wouldn't you agree?
This certainly isn't the ONLY thing that Vince can use to bolster the
LN case, for pity sake. The actual evidence saying Oswald was a
double-murdering bastard (of which there are reams) is the strongest
stuff on the table for Vince to work with...and shall.
But as icing on the cake, if VB could provide some real case histories
that equate nicely with what happened to JFK on Elm Street in 1963, it
sure as hell wouldn't hurt.
Is that hard to comprehend?
lazu...@webtv.net
propel back towards the shooter. Were these unattached skulls? If so,
such a test is invalid. Lattimer's tests on unattached melons are a
standing joke. You have nothing. You can't overcome the laws of
physics. So how do ya like them apples--- er melons?
David VP
Duh!
No, Mr. Kook, they were REAL skulls and were attached to actual living
people. Lattimer and Company took the liberty of sacrificing several
innocent Dallas citizens just to do these "tests". ~smirk~
Yes, they were unattached skulls. And, yes, it's not an EXACT
replication of the JFK case. But so what?
The tests proved a human skull will move TOWARD THE SHOOTER when shot
from behind. Why would tethering the skulls to a "neck" provide
vastly-different results here? There's no reason to think it would.
In fact, IMO, an UNATTACHED skull moving backward is even BETTER for
proving the "JFK Was Shot From Behind" position. Because without the
skull being TIED to something, it's probably much more likely that
Lattimer's bullet would have sent the skull FORWARD, rather than
backward.
And yet, still, even without any restraint to restrict its forward OR
backward movement, ALL of those skulls went BACKWARD -- toward the
gunman.
>From John McAdams' website, we find:
"Dr. John Lattimer reproduced Alvarez' results with human skulls, and
with a rifle and ammunition identical to those Oswald used. Clicking on
the {link below} will download a video clip of one of Lattimer's
shooting experiments." ----
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Despite over 40 years of trying, LNT'ers *still* haven't repealed the
>> laws of physics.
>
>
>And Ben will continue to totally IGNORE (or claim as "fake" I guess)
>the many tests that were done that PROVE beyond any doubt that when
>shot from behind, a skull can be propelled BACKWARD, toward the
>shooter.
Never happened. I'm aware of *one* test... and it's trivial to explain it...
Physics hasn't been repealed... sorry.
>If that doesn't prove the "jet effect" is valid, what the hell
>will?
An actual example will suffice.
>You've surely seen the "backward flying skulls" test film footage,
>haven't you, kook (Ben)?
Yep... not very convincing, was it?
>Is that film "tampered with" (reversed?) too...like the Z-Film is (per
>many CTers)?
No, merely the assumptions you're making ...
>If not...what caused those skulls in those tests to go BACK toward the
>shooter (EVERY TIME) when shot from the rear?
When you have to lie, you've only demonstrated that you're a liar.
>I await your brilliant CT-Kook analysis on this one.
No you don't.
>And, yes, VB will undoubtedly be using that test skull footage to
>support his general LN/LHO position re. the JFK head shot.
I hope he does. It'll be even *more* obvious ...
>But what I
>was talking about earlier was an ACTUAL MURDER CASE, where a person was
>positively KNOWN to have been tossed toward the person that shot them
>after being hit in the head by a high-velocity bullet.
Nope. Never happened. Physics will not be mocked.
>That's the type of "prior case" I'll bet VB has searched for in the
>files. Whether he ever found one (with witnesses to verify the head
>movement or by having the incident on film), I cannot say.
I *can* say... He won't.
>But even without such "case histories" to rely on as icing on an
>undoubtedly already well-frosted VB/LN cake, Mr. Bugliosi's book will
>still blow all CTs out of the room. The only reason that obvious fact
>is being debated here is because this silly place is occupied by
>several CT-Kooks. (What else?)
John W. Hodges will make you look sillier than I do.
>> Hope springs eternal.
>
>
>As do CT-Kooks. Like weeds, we must put up with them...year in and year
>out.
Snipped and ran, didn't you?
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Vince, as former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney, has probably
> gone back into his case files and found a case or two (or more) which
> had as part of its evidence a bullet that POSITIVELY went through a
> victim (or two) and REMAINED PERFECTLY CLEAN AFTER EXITING.
He needn't be this ambitious.
CE 399 is not "perfectly clean". It is severely flattened and bent,
and lead has clearly leaked out of its base.
References to the "pristine bullet" are CT misstatements.
David VP
Grizz....I wasn't referring to the shape of the bullet or the loss of
lead at the core. I was referring to the lack of blood and tissue on
said bullet. Which I thought was fairly obvious as to what I meant,
esp. since I spelled it out in the sentence after I said "perfectly
clean".
David VP
"Never happened"????
So Lattimer is a "conspirator" now too, I reckon. Is that it? You're
getting goofier with each passing 24-hour period.
Lattimer's skull tests "Never happened"???
Man, what balls!
Well, maybe Ben-boy is right -- after all, why believe your lying eyes
when a skull can be seen flying backwards toward the shooter here......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/skull.rm
......When Ben could just say it "never happened"?
Man, what balls! He must take a Size 96 in pants.
aeffects
somebody buy this guy a drink -- roflmfao!
David VP
And after I purchase Vince his well-deserved beverage, perhaps we can
pick up a pacifier for Mr. Healy (maybe one with a little picture of
his idol, Ben-Kook, printed on it). Healy oughta enjoy sucking on
that....for sure.
David VP
footage, haven't you...?"
BEN: "Yep...not very convincing, was it?"
~~~~~~~
Care to explain what was not "convincing" about it? Did or did not the
skull go backward, toward the shooter?
Plus...there's not only the backward movement of the skull, there's
what the test skull looked like after being struck from behind.
Remarkably similar to the wound described in the autopsy report.
Did Humes, et al, have Lattimer's skull tests in mind when they
concocted all of that stuff in the autopsy report? I.E., stuff in the
AR about the head wounds that mimic this "test" skull almost to
perfection? .....
http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images%5CLattimer.jpg
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>>"David, please cite what "tests" were performed on skulls to make them propel
>>>>back towards the shooter. Were these unattached skulls? If so, such a test is
>>>>invalid." <<<
>
>
>Duh!
>
>No, Mr. Kook, they were REAL skulls and were attached to actual living
>people. Lattimer and Company took the liberty of sacrificing several
>innocent Dallas citizens just to do these "tests". ~smirk~
>
>Yes, they were unattached skulls. And, yes, it's not an EXACT
>replication of the JFK case. But so what?
>
>The tests proved a human skull will move TOWARD THE SHOOTER when shot
>from behind.
Isn't it just amazing what you must believe in order to believe the WCR?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Never happened. I'm aware of *one* test... and it's trivial to explain
>> it...
>
>
>"Never happened"????
Yep... never happened. For the benefit of lurkers who don't know what you
asserted and snipped... you claimed that a skull shot will come *back* towards
the shooter.
>So Lattimer is a "conspirator" now too, I reckon.
Nah... just another LNT'er trying to prove his case.
>Is that it? You're
>getting goofier with each passing 24-hour period.
Or, more accurately, your presumptions are being challenged and refuted.
>Lattimer's skull tests "Never happened"???
Nope. Didn't say that.
I said that proving that a skull, when shot, will fly back toward the shooter -
never happened. It would violate the conservation of momentum, and the laws of
physics have never been repealed.
>Man, what balls!
Not needed. The truth requires only honesty.
>Well, maybe Ben-boy is right -- after all, why believe your lying eyes
>when a skull can be seen flying backwards toward the shooter here......
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/skull.rm
>
>......When Ben could just say it "never happened"?
>
>Man, what balls! He must take a Size 96 in pants.
Ever shot any pool?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>DVP: "You've surely seen the "backward flying skulls" test film
>footage, haven't you...?"
>
>BEN: "Yep...not very convincing, was it?"
>
>~~~~~~~
>
>Care to explain what was not "convincing" about it? Did or did not the
>skull go backward, toward the shooter?
Ever shoot pool?
>Plus...there's not only the backward movement of the skull, there's
>what the test skull looked like after being struck from behind.
>Remarkably similar to the wound described in the autopsy report.
The WC had these tests conducted, and the shot from behind *INVARIABLY* exited
from the face.
So no, you are incorrect.
>Did Humes, et al, have Lattimer's skull tests in mind when they
>concocted all of that stuff in the autopsy report?
Humes never tried to explain the "back and to the left" movement. He most
likely never knew about it until the Z-film was shown on T.V.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1152511824.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
>> DVP: "You've surely seen the "backward flying skulls" test film
>> footage, haven't you...?"
>>
>> BEN: "Yep...not very convincing, was it?"
>>
>> ~~~~~~~
>>
>> Care to explain what was not "convincing" about it? Did or did not the
>> skull go backward, toward the shooter?
>
> Ever shoot pool?
>
>
>> Plus...there's not only the backward movement of the skull, there's
>> what the test skull looked like after being struck from behind.
>> Remarkably similar to the wound described in the autopsy report.
>
>
> The WC had these tests conducted, and the shot from behind *INVARIABLY* exited
> from the face.
>
Because they did not duplicate the angles correctly.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Despite over 40 years of trying, LNT'ers *still* haven't repealed the laws of physics." <<<
>
>
> And Ben will continue to totally IGNORE (or claim as "fake" I guess)
> the many tests that were done that PROVE beyond any doubt that when
> shot from behind, a skull can be propelled BACKWARD, toward the
> shooter. If that doesn't prove the "jet effect" is valid, what the hell
> will?
That is a lie. No one had conducted such tests.
aeffects
Von Pain doeth it, AGAIN ---- roflmfao! I suspect the person you feel
will put all JFK related conspiracy theories to rest, is *painfully*
reviewing a few of the threads located on this newsboard. After all
where else can he learn the truth....
when the "wimps' start the idolworship nonesense, you know these fools
are on the ropes...
Proceed Von Pain...
lazu...@webtv.net
worship. Vince will not, cannot deliver the goods. The Bug stops here!
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1152511824.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>>> DVP: "You've surely seen the "backward flying skulls" test film
>>> footage, haven't you...?"
>>>
>>> BEN: "Yep...not very convincing, was it?"
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> Care to explain what was not "convincing" about it? Did or did not the
>>> skull go backward, toward the shooter?
>>
>> Ever shoot pool?
>>
>>
>>> Plus...there's not only the backward movement of the skull, there's
>>> what the test skull looked like after being struck from behind.
>>> Remarkably similar to the wound described in the autopsy report.
>>
>>
>>The WC had these tests conducted, and the shot from behind *INVARIABLY* exited
>> from the face.
>>
>
>Because they did not duplicate the angles correctly.
Pure BS, Tony. Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going
to exit the face. It's just that simple.
But I'm sure that the WC thanks you for your support...
aeffects
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Rather than idol worship by these wasted orgasms, I think it's idle
> worship. Vince will not, cannot deliver the goods. The Bug stops here!
I stand corrected, thanks --
David VP
Yeah....I have to actually believe my own eyes.
Remarkable huh?
David VP
Spoken like the kook Ben is. I guess Ben's never heard of a bullet
changing directions once it's hit something very hard (like, say, a
skull).
And the "Never Happened" bullshit re. the skull tests (which prove
beyond ALL doubt that a human skull can and will move toward the
shooter after being hit by a bullet) is just astonishing ignorance
(even for a CT-Kook).
Let me ask Ben -- What do YOU see on that Lattimer/Skull Test film
footage -- a mirage?
Ben's balls just grew another two sizes today.
Look out everybody -- those babies ARE gonna blow --- and soon! And I
don't wanna be standing in their explosive path.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit the face. It's just that simple." <<<
>
> Spoken like the kook Ben is. I guess Ben's never heard of a bullet
> changing directions once it's hit something very hard (like, say, a
> skull).
>
> And the "Never Happened" bullshit re. the skull tests (which prove
> beyond ALL doubt that a human skull can and will move toward the
> shooter after being hit by a bullet) is just astonishing ignorance
> (even for a CT-Kook).
>
There is no such test. You are just imagining things.
> Let me ask Ben -- What do YOU see on that Lattimer/Skull Test film
> footage -- a mirage?
>
You claim to have seen the Lattimer tests. Did you happen to notice that
the impact of the shot moved the step ladder forward, away from the rifle?
Anthony Marsh
> In article <MrudnePz9rJiGy_Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <1152511824.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>>> says...
>>>> DVP: "You've surely seen the "backward flying skulls" test film
>>>> footage, haven't you...?"
>>>>
>>>> BEN: "Yep...not very convincing, was it?"
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> Care to explain what was not "convincing" about it? Did or did not the
>>>> skull go backward, toward the shooter?
>>> Ever shoot pool?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Plus...there's not only the backward movement of the skull, there's
>>>> what the test skull looked like after being struck from behind.
>>>> Remarkably similar to the wound described in the autopsy report.
>>>
>>> The WC had these tests conducted, and the shot from behind *INVARIABLY* exited
>>> from the face.
>>>
>> Because they did not duplicate the angles correctly.
>
>
> Pure BS, Tony. Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going
> to exit the face. It's just that simple.
>
No, it's not that simple. I don't mind you theorizing, but don't lie.
The HSCA trajectory is wrong, but don't base your theory on that or the
WC. It is possible to have a bullet enter the back of the head, near the
cowlick not the EOP, and exit the front of the head above the face.
> But I'm sure that the WC thanks you for your support...
>
I've always said there is only one head shot, the one from the front.
David VP
Sure I noticed that. So what?
The skull still travels backward. Why is this even debated?
You actually think the test that's ON FILM and on the McAdams site for
all to see and link (as I did previously here) never took place at all?
Can I have some of that glue? Sounds like it must be good stuff indeed.
Ben Holmes
Snip and run... snip and run...
In article <1152568034.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit
>> the face. It's just that simple.
>
>Spoken like the kook Ben is. I guess Ben's never heard of a bullet
>changing directions once it's hit something very hard (like, say, a
>skull).
An FMJ is not designed to change directions...
But feel free to point to the study that shows that it can...
>And the "Never Happened" bullshit re. the skull tests (which prove
>beyond ALL doubt that a human skull can and will move toward the
>shooter after being hit by a bullet)
Untrue...
>is just astonishing ignorance (even for a CT-Kook).
Ever shoot any pool?
>Let me ask Ben -- What do YOU see on that Lattimer/Skull Test film
>footage -- a mirage?
Not what you're claiming for it.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <MrudnePz9rJiGy_Z...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>In article <1152511824.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>>>> says...
>>>>> DVP: "You've surely seen the "backward flying skulls" test film
>>>>> footage, haven't you...?"
>>>>>
>>>>> BEN: "Yep...not very convincing, was it?"
>>>>>
>>>>> ~~~~~~~
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to explain what was not "convincing" about it? Did or did not the
>>>>> skull go backward, toward the shooter?
>>>> Ever shoot pool?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Plus...there's not only the backward movement of the skull, there's
>>>>> what the test skull looked like after being struck from behind.
>>>>> Remarkably similar to the wound described in the autopsy report.
>>>>
>>>>The WC had these tests conducted, and the shot from behind *INVARIABLY* exited
>>>> from the face.
>>>>
>>> Because they did not duplicate the angles correctly.
>>
>>
>>Pure BS, Tony. Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going
>> to exit the face. It's just that simple.
>>
>
>No, it's not that simple. I don't mind you theorizing, but don't lie.
>The HSCA trajectory is wrong, but don't base your theory on that or the
>WC. It is possible to have a bullet enter the back of the head, near the
>cowlick not the EOP, and exit the front of the head above the face.
No Tony... it's not. You think you can sneak in a little head movement... but
the location of JFK's head is well known.
And FMJ's at roughly 2,000 FPS aren't going to be ditty bopping around. You
lose, Tony.
Particularly when the WC tests *PROVED* you wrong.
>> But I'm sure that the WC thanks you for your support...
>>
>
>I've always said there is only one head shot, the one from the front.
You can say anything you want, Tony... and you usually do.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> You claim to have seen the Lattimer tests. Did you happen to notice that
>> the impact of the shot moved the step ladder forward, away from the rifle?
>
>Sure I noticed that. So what?
Thinking isn't your strong suit, is it?
>The skull still travels backward. Why is this even debated?
Because you make unwarranted assumptions.
>You actually think the test that's ON FILM and on the McAdams site for
>all to see and link (as I did previously here) never took place at all?
Of course it did. Presumably, you believe that ET phoned home, too...
David VP
Is there anyone this side of Neptune who WASN'T a rotten, lying,
scheming conspirator in a kook's eyes?
Ben Holmes
Interestingly, you snipped this *ENTIRE* post. Wonder why?
David VP
Oh, come now, my dear Ben-boy. If you bring your head up out of that CT
toilet long enough you'll be able to figure out why I "snip" your
God-awful garbage. Right? Just give it a minute; it'll come to ya.
Ben Holmes
says...
Sad that you can't figure out that "Wonder why?" is a rhetorical device. I
*know* why. It's self-evident... you're a coward that has no response to make
to my assertions, so you have to snip it so that Lurkers can't see that you
refuse to respond.
Anthony Marsh
No, it is not, not by you.
> And FMJ's at roughly 2,000 FPS aren't going to be ditty bopping around. You
> lose, Tony.
>
I never said anything about FMJ's ditty bopping around.
> Particularly when the WC tests *PROVED* you wrong.
>
I just said that the WC tests were flawed.
>
>>> But I'm sure that the WC thanks you for your support...
>>>
>> I've always said there is only one head shot, the one from the front.
>
>
> You can say anything you want, Tony... and you usually do.
>
You seem to not understand the difference between what is possible and
what is likely.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <1152568554....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
>>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit
>>> the face. It's just that simple.
>> Spoken like the kook Ben is. I guess Ben's never heard of a bullet
>> changing directions once it's hit something very hard (like, say, a
>> skull).
>
>
> An FMJ is not designed to change directions...
>
And yet a FMJ does and can change directions.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "You claim to have seen the Lattimer tests. Did you happen to notice that the impact of the shot moved the step ladder forward, away from the rifle?" <<<
>
> Sure I noticed that. So what?
>
Not until I pointed it out.
It proves that the impact of a WCC M-C bullet can visibly move an object
away from the rifle, something which WC defenders claim is impossible.
Notice also that WC defenders also think that the bullet moved JFK's
head 2.3 inches forward between Z-312 and Z-313. In other words, WC
defenders change their arguments as needed for the cover-up.
> The skull still travels backward. Why is this even debated?
>
No, the skull does not travel backwards. The back half of the skull
travels backwards while the front half travels frontwards. Like smashing
a watermelon in half with a sledgehammer.
> You actually think the test that's ON FILM and on the McAdams site for
> all to see and link (as I did previously here) never took place at all?
>
Who said anything like that?
Ben Holmes
Oh, any lurker who's seen the Z-film and knows the rough layout of Dealey Plaza
is going to laugh at your silly assertion that a bullet striking the EOP won't
exit the face.
>> And FMJ's at roughly 2,000 FPS aren't going to be ditty bopping around. You
>> lose, Tony.
>>
>
>I never said anything about FMJ's ditty bopping around.
Entering the EOP, and *not* exiting the face??? You've got another magic bullet
there, Tony!! Quick!!! Get a patent on it... before your LNT'er friends take it
away from you...
>> Particularly when the WC tests *PROVED* you wrong.
>>
>
>I just said that the WC tests were flawed.
Not that you can show or prove.
>>>> But I'm sure that the WC thanks you for your support...
>>>>
>>> I've always said there is only one head shot, the one from the front.
>>
>>
>> You can say anything you want, Tony... and you usually do.
>>
>
>You seem to not understand the difference between what is possible and
>what is likely.
You seem to not understand the difference between honesty and dishonesty...
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1152568554....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>>>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit
>>>> the face. It's just that simple.
>>> Spoken like the kook Ben is. I guess Ben's never heard of a bullet
>>> changing directions once it's hit something very hard (like, say, a
>>> skull).
>>
>>
>> An FMJ is not designed to change directions...
>
>And yet a FMJ does and can change directions.
By all means, cite the study of a bullet entering the EOP and *NOT* exiting the
face using the same distance and angles of the JFK case.
But I'm sure Davey-boy is happy to have you support his silly thesis.
David VP
Bullshit. I noticed the forward movement of the ladder immediately. Why
you think I didn't is anybody's guess.
In fact, the slight forward movement of that ladder (not enough to
knock it over BTW), while the skull travels in the opposite direction
(untethered to anything at all) is probably even BETTER proof that
JFK's head could do what it did do (move toward the gun after an
initial forward movement) on 11/22/1963 A.D.
The idea, spouted by some CTers, that the forward-tipping ladder is all
that it took to send that skull (which was hit violently from behind
with a bullet at full velocity, with the skull then performing some
kind of 'rebounding' maneuver off of the ladder, per some CTers) flying
in the exact OPPOSITE direction from the way the bullet was travelling
sounds like a theory almost as ludicrous as the "Let's Shoot JFK From
Many Directions And Just Hope Everything Comes Out Okay To Frame Our
Lone Patsy" operation that many CT-nutsacks put their crazy faith in.
IOW .... If THAT'S all it took -- a tipped ladder -- to get a human
skull (hit violently from behind) to completely change directions and
proceed directly toward the source of the shot, then it's reasonable to
also assume, IMO, that JFK's head could have experienced a similar
"It's Not Going To Take Very Much To Get This Skull To Change From A
Forward To A Rearward Direction" flight path on November 22nd.
>>> "It proves that the impact of a WCC M-C bullet can visibly move an object away from the rifle, something which WC defenders claim is impossible." <<<
LOL.
LOL again!
WHO on this EARTH ever said it would be "impossible" for an object to
travel away from the rifle after being hit by a MC/WCC/6.5mm bullet?
You're as goofy as Ben if you think any LNer EVER said that nutty
thing.
Sure, JFK's head travelled backward after being hit from behind (after
initially going forward of course), but that doesn't mean that's going
to happen in EVERY single case. (As Peter Jennings, the man CT-Kooks
loved to hate, rest his soul, pointed out in the 2003 "Beyond
Conspiracy" documentary. -- "Sometimes an object moves forward;
sometimes backward." -- P. Jennings)
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Not until I pointed it out." <<<
>
> Bullshit. I noticed the forward movement of the ladder immediately. Why
> you think I didn't is anybody's guess.
>
Because I was the person who brought it up, not you. You had never
mentioned it before.
> In fact, the slight forward movement of that ladder (not enough to
> knock it over BTW), while the skull travels in the opposite direction
> (untethered to anything at all) is probably even BETTER proof that
The skull did not travel in the opposite direction.
> JFK's head could do what it did do (move toward the gun after an
> initial forward movement) on 11/22/1963 A.D.
>
As usual you miss the point. WC defenders claim that the impact of a WCC
M-C bullet can not move the head in any direction. And the Lattimer test
proves that the impact can move a step ladder forward, away from the rifle.
> The idea, spouted by some CTers, that the forward-tipping ladder is all
> that it took to send that skull (which was hit violently from behind
> with a bullet at full velocity, with the skull then performing some
> kind of 'rebounding' maneuver off of the ladder, per some CTers) flying
> in the exact OPPOSITE direction from the way the bullet was travelling
> sounds like a theory almost as ludicrous as the "Let's Shoot JFK From
> Many Directions And Just Hope Everything Comes Out Okay To Frame Our
> Lone Patsy" operation that many CT-nutsacks put their crazy faith in.
>
No, one one ever said that. I said that the Lattimer tests show that the
impact of the bullet moves the ladder away from the rifle.
> IOW .... If THAT'S all it took -- a tipped ladder -- to get a human
> skull (hit violently from behind) to completely change directions and
> proceed directly toward the source of the shot, then it's reasonable to
> also assume, IMO, that JFK's head could have experienced a similar
> "It's Not Going To Take Very Much To Get This Skull To Change From A
> Forward To A Rearward Direction" flight path on November 22nd.
>
The step ladder has little to do with the rearward motion of the back
half of the test skull.
>
>>>> "It proves that the impact of a WCC M-C bullet can visibly move an object away from the rifle, something which WC defenders claim is impossible." <<<
>
>
> LOL.
>
> LOL again!
>
> WHO on this EARTH ever said it would be "impossible" for an object to
> travel away from the rifle after being hit by a MC/WCC/6.5mm bullet?
>
All the WC defenders here. Google it.
> You're as goofy as Ben if you think any LNer EVER said that nutty
> thing.
>
Google it. Then tell your fellow WC defenders that they are nutty.
David VP
Kooky.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <O5udnbPbcMU0gSnZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <1152568554....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>>> says...
>>>>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit
>>>>> the face. It's just that simple.
>>>> Spoken like the kook Ben is. I guess Ben's never heard of a bullet
>>>> changing directions once it's hit something very hard (like, say, a
>>>> skull).
>>>
>>> An FMJ is not designed to change directions...
>> And yet a FMJ does and can change directions.
>
>
> By all means, cite the study of a bullet entering the EOP and *NOT* exiting the
> face using the same distance and angles of the JFK case.
>
I said nothing about that. I said they got the angles wrong.
Anthony Marsh
Nonsense. I said nothing about the EOP. No one said a bullet struck the EOP.
>
>>> And FMJ's at roughly 2,000 FPS aren't going to be ditty bopping around. You
>>> lose, Tony.
>>>
>> I never said anything about FMJ's ditty bopping around.
>
>
> Entering the EOP, and *not* exiting the face??? You've got another magic bullet
> there, Tony!! Quick!!! Get a patent on it... before your LNT'er friends take it
> away from you...
>
Not MY magic bullet. The Warren Commission's.
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <O5udnbPbcMU0gSnZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> In article <1152568554....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>>>> says...
>>>>>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit
>>>>>> the face. It's just that simple.
>>>>> Spoken like the kook Ben is. I guess Ben's never heard of a bullet
>>>>> changing directions once it's hit something very hard (like, say, a
>>>>> skull).
>>>>
>>>> An FMJ is not designed to change directions...
>>> And yet a FMJ does and can change directions.
>>
>>
>> By all means, cite the study of a bullet entering the EOP and *NOT*
>> exiting the face using the same distance and angles of the JFK case.
>
>I said nothing about that.
Of course you did. Anyone can look above, and see my statement: "Any shot
entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit the face. It's
just that simple."
I was quite specific, yet Tony believes that to support the WC means to disagree
with what their tests show.
>I said they got the angles wrong.
Yet you can't cite it. The Warren Commission is *still* proud of you, Tony.
Ben Holmes
And once again, you lie.
>>>>>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going
>>>>>> to exit the face. It's just that simple.
>>>>> No, it's not that simple.
I SPECIFICALLY addressed the EOP, you SPECIFICALLY replied to it.
Your strawman about a bullet striking the EOP is just another dishonest lie,
isn't it, Tony?
Why do you continue to insist on lying so blatantly Tony? Do you really think
that lurkers can't look *above* in the same thread and follow it???
>>>>And FMJ's at roughly 2,000 FPS aren't going to be ditty bopping around. You
>>>> lose, Tony.
>>>>
>>> I never said anything about FMJ's ditty bopping around.
>>
>>
>> Entering the EOP, and *not* exiting the face??? You've got another magic
>> bullet there, Tony!! Quick!!! Get a patent on it... before your LNT'er
>> friends take it away from you...
>>
>
>Not MY magic bullet. The Warren Commission's.
It's *yours* if you try to argue that a bullet entering near the EOP from the
6th floor at the angles given by the WC will not exit the face.
The WC's own commissioned studies showed that.
Anthony Marsh
No, I did not say EOP.
>
>>>>>>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going
>>>>>>> to exit the face. It's just that simple.
>>>>>> No, it's not that simple.
>
> I SPECIFICALLY addressed the EOP, you SPECIFICALLY replied to it.
>
> Your strawman about a bullet striking the EOP is just another dishonest lie,
> isn't it, Tony?
>
I never said anything about a bullet striking the EOP.
>
> Why do you continue to insist on lying so blatantly Tony? Do you really think
> that lurkers can't look *above* in the same thread and follow it???
>
>
Lurkers can look back at our messages in Google and see who was talking
about a bullet hitting the EOP. YOU, not I.
>>>>> And FMJ's at roughly 2,000 FPS aren't going to be ditty bopping around. You
>>>>> lose, Tony.
>>>>>
>>>> I never said anything about FMJ's ditty bopping around.
>>>
>>> Entering the EOP, and *not* exiting the face??? You've got another magic
>>> bullet there, Tony!! Quick!!! Get a patent on it... before your LNT'er
>>> friends take it away from you...
>>>
>> Not MY magic bullet. The Warren Commission's.
>
>
> It's *yours* if you try to argue that a bullet entering near the EOP from the
> 6th floor at the angles given by the WC will not exit the face.
>
I never argued any such thing.
> The WC's own commissioned studies showed that.
>
Flawed studies.
Anthony Marsh
> In article <uPGdnWKvac1v4ijZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> In article <O5udnbPbcMU0gSnZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> In article <1152568554....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit
>>>>>>> the face. It's just that simple.
>>>>>> Spoken like the kook Ben is. I guess Ben's never heard of a bullet
>>>>>> changing directions once it's hit something very hard (like, say, a
>>>>>> skull).
>>>>> An FMJ is not designed to change directions...
>>>> And yet a FMJ does and can change directions.
>>>
>>> By all means, cite the study of a bullet entering the EOP and *NOT*
>>> exiting the face using the same distance and angles of the JFK case.
>> I said nothing about that.
>
> Of course you did. Anyone can look above, and see my statement: "Any shot
> entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit the face. It's
> just that simple."
>
Yes, YOUR statement, not mine. I told you that the WC was wrong.
> I was quite specific, yet Tony believes that to support the WC means to disagree
> with what their tests show.
>
>
>> I said they got the angles wrong.
>
>
> Yet you can't cite it. The Warren Commission is *still* proud of you, Tony.
>
Proud of me for constantly pointing out their mistakes? How does that work?
Ben Holmes
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>>In article <uPGdnWKvac1v4ijZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>In article <O5udnbPbcMU0gSnZ...@comcast.com>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>In article <1152568554....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit
>>>>>>>> the face. It's just that simple.
>>>>>>> Spoken like the kook Ben is. I guess Ben's never heard of a bullet
>>>>>>> changing directions once it's hit something very hard (like, say, a
>>>>>>> skull).
>>>>>> An FMJ is not designed to change directions...
>>>>> And yet a FMJ does and can change directions.
>>>>
>>>> By all means, cite the study of a bullet entering the EOP and *NOT*
>>>> exiting the face using the same distance and angles of the JFK case.
>>> I said nothing about that.
>>
>> Of course you did. Anyone can look above, and see my statement: "Any shot
>>entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going to exit the face. It's
>> just that simple."
>>
>
>Yes, YOUR statement, not mine. I told you that the WC was wrong.
Of *COURSE* it's my statement. Lied about it, didn't you?
>>I was quite specific, yet Tony believes that to support the WC means to disagree
>> with what their tests show.
>>
>>
>>> I said they got the angles wrong.
>>
>>
>> Yet you can't cite it. The Warren Commission is *still* proud of you, Tony.
>>
>
>Proud of me for constantly pointing out their mistakes? How does that work?
Proud of you for supporting their work.
Ben Holmes
You implied that someone had said that a bullet struck the EOP.
I defy you to produce that statement.
For otherwise, you're a liar.
>>>>>>>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going
>>>>>>>> to exit the face. It's just that simple.
>>>>>>> No, it's not that simple.
>>
>> I SPECIFICALLY addressed the EOP, you SPECIFICALLY replied to it.
>>
>> Your strawman about a bullet striking the EOP is just another dishonest lie,
>> isn't it, Tony?
>>
>
>I never said anything about a bullet striking the EOP.
Yes, you did: "No one said a bullet struck the EOP."
Lied, didn't you?
>>Why do you continue to insist on lying so blatantly Tony? Do you really think
>> that lurkers can't look *above* in the same thread and follow it???
>>
>>
>
>Lurkers can look back at our messages in Google and see who was talking
>about a bullet hitting the EOP. YOU, not I.
Liar, aren't you? I DEFY YOU TO PRODUCE ANY SUCH STATEMENT BY ME.
>>>>>>And FMJ's at roughly 2,000 FPS aren't going to be ditty bopping around. You
>>>>>> lose, Tony.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I never said anything about FMJ's ditty bopping around.
>>>>
>>>> Entering the EOP, and *not* exiting the face??? You've got another magic
>>>> bullet there, Tony!! Quick!!! Get a patent on it... before your LNT'er
>>>> friends take it away from you...
>>>>
>>> Not MY magic bullet. The Warren Commission's.
>>
>>
>> It's *yours* if you try to argue that a bullet entering near the EOP from the
>> 6th floor at the angles given by the WC will not exit the face.
>>
>
>I never argued any such thing.
Oh, I'll leave that one for the lurkers to decide...
>> The WC's own commissioned studies showed that.
>>
>
>Flawed studies.
Liar, aren't you?
Anthony Marsh
There you go again. Unable to produce evidence, you fall back on someone
implying something.
> I defy you to produce that statement.
>
It was YOUR hypothetical problem which said that a bullet hit the EOP. I
know you do not believe that hypothetical. Neither do I.
> For otherwise, you're a liar.
>
>
>>>>>>>>> Any shot entering near the EOP from a 6th floor window is going
>>>>>>>>> to exit the face. It's just that simple.
>>>>>>>> No, it's not that simple.
>>> I SPECIFICALLY addressed the EOP, you SPECIFICALLY replied to it.
>>>
>>> Your strawman about a bullet striking the EOP is just another dishonest lie,
>>> isn't it, Tony?
>>>
>> I never said anything about a bullet striking the EOP.
>
>
> Yes, you did: "No one said a bullet struck the EOP."
>
> Lied, didn't you?
>
>
The bullet hitting the EOP was YOUR hypothetical.
Anthony Marsh
"By all means, cite the study of a bullet entering the EOP and *NOT*
exiting the face using the same distance and angles of the JFK case."
That was YOUR hypothetical.
>
> For otherwise, you're a liar.
>
>
No otherwise, you are always an idiot.