A New Troll - Come to "Fight the Righteous Fight".
Ben Holmes
cdddra...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Just a short post to announce my arrival , Hello I'm Tom Lowry , I hope
>this post finds you and finds you all well and in good spirits . If
>questions still remain in one's mind , about the ' Deed ' there are
>other ways of getting around this ! . Don't get me wrong , questioning
>this case , may have been useful in the first couple of years after the
>Assassination , but it has now taken on a life of it's own .
Yep... more and more evidence has been released by the HSCA and ARRB. Very
little of it, unfortunately, supporting the WC conclusions.
>The
>Kennedy Assassination Factoid Factory and Circus Performance , I see ,
>is alive and well on this group . The questions now asked , have been
>answered , in a thousand different ways , many , many times before .
Then you'll be able to cite easily where the question was answered, right?
Okay, here's just a few off the top of my head:
Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidently
would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or
Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?
Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?
Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still
denied by most LNT'ers today?
Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse
their theory?
Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the
statements they wanted?
What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the
night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the
autopsy?
How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively
demonstrated with CAT scans?
Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were
clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?
Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the
govenment had control of them...
Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did they
actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?
Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?
Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed
Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid
reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you
provide it?
Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?
CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.
Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned
by LHO? Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to
government investigators?
Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own
collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the
HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical
testimony... why??
Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case?
Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and
"photographs trump eyewitnesses"?
Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant
Z-film?
Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we
can't see it in the Z-film?
Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the
large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?
Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?
These are just a few off the top of my head that I don't recall seeing an answer
for... but, as you've asserted, they've already been answered... so if you'll be
so kind as to merely cite where I can find the answers to these...
>The only thing that's missing , is the letting go of this ' need ' / '
>want ' to have a cohesive narrative and meaning in a meaningles act ,
>perpetrated by a single person .
One could wonder about your motivation here... why are you obsessing on this
topic? Can you offer a reason why you're not "letting go" of this obsessive
need of yours to invoke the WCR?
>So trying to say LHO killed JFK and
>Tippit by himself , to a die hard conspiracists , I know , is like
>trying to convince a fanatical Funnymentalist Islamic Terrorist that
>there won't be 40 black eyed virgins waiting for him , just before he
>pulls the pin .
You confuse faith with facts... Why is that, I wonder?
>So I Look to others that are perhaps a little smarter
>, have sharper critical / classical thinking skills to sort out the
>natural confusion , that occurs , whenever two or more people witness
>something , let alone this case , which contains so many players , the
>Bible looks barren , in comparison .
You assert that lawyers have "sharper critical, classical thinking skill"... on
what basis? Can you cite for this belief?
And why would you assert that the Bible is barren in comparison to the numbers
involved in this case? Does this merely illustrate your ignorance of the Bible?
Or were you trying for just a wee a bit of hyperbole?
>I therefore find the WC version of
>event's to be highly plausible and most probable .
What makes you so different from up to 90% of America? To what do you attribute
your distinct minority status?
>On the other hand
>when you have too much useless information , useless speculation ,
>useless theorizing , you end up with what the ' critical community '
>deserves , a vast desert of conspiracy constructs , none being right or
>even remotely feasable or logically possible .
This really isn't difficult to understand at all... there were *multiple*
shooters that day. Most likely, I suspect, around 3, perhaps four. Other
students of the assassination differ on the numbers - since much is
speculation... but the *fact* that there was more than a single shooter is
evident from the evidence.
>Thirty years of my own
>investigation into this matter , reading both sides of the issue , have
>lead me to the following conclusions : 95 % of the so called evidence
>in this case is useless ( eye and ear witness especially )
Of course! It's not possible to believe in *both* the WCR and the eyewitnesses,
they reported different things.
Why, I wonder, is the JFK case so unique... No other place in history will the
LNT'er crowd deny eyewitness accounts to the extent that they do here.
>99.9 % of
>the conspiracy writers wouldn't know an assassin, even if one were to
>be shot in the rear end by one and 98 % don't get paid and are not
>professional in the field they speak in .
Yes... the field of "professional JFK Assassination authors" is a difficult one
to break into. What are the qualifications? Can you enlighten us?
And why do conspiracy authors with clearly *no* professional qualifications keep
writing books that sell? Do you suppose that the American public is just too
stupid to realize that they aren't "professionals"?
>This case has been hi-jacked
>by conpiracy writers who have mis-handled the evidence , building a '
>Tempest in a Teapot ' upon a ' Mountain of Unfounded Speculation ' and
>' Invalid Constructs ' .
Yep... with all the power of the American government to hire writers... the
national mass media with their well-proven ability to *write*... we still seem
to have a paucity of well-written defenses of the WCR. Posner - who attempted
perhaps, to be far too specific, has been shot down rather dramatically in the
CT'er community. Bugliosi, I predict, will fall even harder... due mainly to
the detail he'll *have* to go into to fill the number of pages he has promised.
The question is not why the case has been "hi-jacked" by conspiracy writers...
it's why Warren Commission Report defenders have not been able to make the
case... considering that they are generally professional writers with access to
evidence that non-WCR defenders don't have access to.
As merely one example, you have to defend the WCR to have access to Nosenko...
>The saying ' Drink from the Fountain of
>Knowledge ' has been replaced by ' Garglers ' , who , in this nation
>and elsewhere , have apparently no care , as to the amount of confusion
>and mayham it causes .
On the contrary... to be a CT'er on *THIS* newsgroup means a depth of knowledge
that I suspect you won't approach. Will you prove this prediction wrong?
>This denial of LHO 's guilt , overwhelming
>evidence against him and the reality of an assasination , that could of
>happened only one way ,
Already setting the terms of the debate???
>is suggestive , for those disbelievers , to me
>, of only two possible answers . They are either in denial , that
>their failed world view has collapsed or that their parents engaged in
>bad breeding habits that have effected their feeble minds , brought on
>by , premature old age .
How convenient for you! Anyone who disagrees is either in "denial" or simply
too feeble-minded to be able to assess the evidence.
My crystal ball is telling me right now that you won't stick around and actually
*debate* the evidence... most likely because you really don't *know* it all that
well. For despite your claims of having studied for 30 years, most LNT'ers
simply don't know the facts in this case.
LNT'ers duck and run all the time in this forum, which is a source of great
amusement to those CT'ers, like me, who like to point it out.
>Sincerely Tom Lowry cdddra...@yahoo.com
>PS : All comments are welcome , especially from ' them ' , ' they ' and
> ' those over yonder ' , but remember to bring words , guns , swords ,
>knives or fists finely tuned , for I'm an expert in all these area's ,
>something I won't try to minimize by any sense of false modesty .
Ah! Good! Get those threats out of the way right away! Of course, I've always
invited those who've made threats to step right up... I'm usually practicing at
least two nights a week, and sometimes more, at the Encino Judo Club. If that
isn't sufficient, guns, knives, or swords are also fine. I'm competent enough.
Rifles at 500 ft would be quite excellent.
>Good
>day , for I , God's gift to the feeble minded in regards to ' The
>Kennedy Assassination ' have arrived to do battle ! Fire away .
LOL!! Another troll, is what we have...
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
David VP
A friendly word of warning before you plunge into Ben-boy's toilet-full
of CT-isms (if you choose to at all; the foul stench alone is enough to
drive many people away) ---
Ben "Not Sherlock" Holmes is a person who NEEDS a "conspiracy" at all
costs. This fact is quite obvious via the weak arguments he thinks
supports multiple shooters in JFK's demise.
It doesn't matter to Ben that ALL of the physical evidence in the JFK
and J.D. Tippit murder cases points to only one killer named Oswald.
It doesn't matter to Ben that EVERY Official Government panel appointed
to investigate JFK's death came to the same basic conclusion re. the
number of bullets THAT STRUCK ANY VICTIMS and the fact that all of
these investigative bodies concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that
Lee H. Oswald was THE ONLY SHOOTER WHO HIT ANY VICTIM WITH BULLETS IN
DEALEY PLAZA ON 11/22/1963 A.D. (the proven-flawed HSCA acoustics
nonsense notwithstanding here....because even a plastic record in a
girlie magazine provided virtual proof that that "95% certainty of the
existence of a conspiracy" was all wet...and still is).
And it doesn't matter to Ben that COMMON SENSE (combined with all the
vast evidence at hand) tells us that no multi-gun plot was a-brewin' on
11/22/63 -- especially, of course, within the context of the
widely-accepted-as-fact "Oswald Was Just A Patsy" assassination plot.
Only a gang of plotters from the "I WANNA GET CAUGHT--QUICK!" school of
Patsy Plots would have dreamed up a plan so inept as the multi-shooter
Patsy plot that many (many!) CTers think actually DID take place in DP
that Friday back in '63.
And it doesn't matter to Ben that COMMON SENSE (plus just a small bit
of the truckloads of physical and circumstantial evidence against LHO)
is telling the world that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy
and Patrolman J.D. Tippit in Dallas.
In short, it's fairly obvious that Ben H. doesn't give a damn about the
"truth" re. the events of November 1963. He WANTS a conspiracy.....so,
by God, that's what he's gonna have. Period.
---------
CS&L Interjection............
"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." .... "Oswald had the motive, the opportunity, and the skill to
kill President Kennedy." .... "My conclusion is that I believe beyond
ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all
REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone." .... "Many of the conspiracy
theories are appealing to the intellectual palate at first glance, but
they do violence to all notions of common sense." --- Vincent T.
Bugliosi
David VP
Re. the supposed "Multi-Gun Patsy Plot" for just a moment longer, if
you please.....
Can you just hear the assassins/plotters/bad guys, on 11-21-63,
planning the details of the "One-Patsy Assassination Plot" which would
be occurring the following day......
"OK....remember, Charlie (our Umbrella dude), you shoot first -- right
out in plain sight on Elm Street where many dozens of people will
probably be filming you & therefore will have you on movies and still
pics (but don't worry, the Fetzer Team can explain away those pics as
"fakes" like everything else we're about to do tomorrow).
"OK, so, Chuck, you've checked out that Umbrella Dart Thing-a-ma-bob,
right? It's working OK? Wouldn't do to have a "misfired" poisoned dart.
You might hit Fidel, who's gonna be standing next to you and wave to
JFK as a "final sign" to him of who it is that's about to kill him,
remember.
"So it looks like Charlie's got the Umbrella thing down cold. Great.
He'll fire the "Warning" shot into Kennedy's neck so that he'll be
paralyzed for a shot that comes many seconds later. There's no real
need, of course, for this dart-shot; in fact it's pretty stupid if ya
ask me -- but them's my orders from 'upstairs' guys, so we gotta live
with it.
"Alrighty, so then Francisco in the Dal-Tex is to fire next, after the
Umbrella shot; but Francisco's second shot into JFK's back is ALSO a
low-powered shot, like the Umbrella shot. It'll only go into JFK's back
about two inches. Remember, guys, we don't want to kill him yet! Not
after just a mere two shots! We want him to have TWO "Warning" shots,
so that he and the USSS will have ample time to GET WISE to what is
about to happen, and he'll have time to duck away from our "Kill" shot.
After all, fair is fair, right?
"Plus, we also want this 'One-Patsy' plot of ours to be so
overly-complicated and impossible to pull off in order to make as much
work as possible for our cover-up operatives who'll be taking over the
conspiracy case tomorrow at 12:31 PM -- like having to fake AS MUCH
EVIDENCE AS WE CAN POSSIBLY DREAM UP. We want these guys to have to dig
out of JFK's body AS MANY USELESS, NEEDLESS BULLETS AS POSSIBLE in
order to earn their keep tomorrow!
"We COULD just use Billy Bob here (who kinda looks like Oswald) as the
lone shooter from the SN window -- but -- Nah! Let's go whole hog and
clog the works with as many futile and needless shots as possible to
give the cover-up crew a good workout tomorrow! OK? OK! Let's do it!"*
* = Exact Patsy Plot scenario may vary, depending upon your degree of
"CT-ism Disease". For example, "Charlie The Umbrella Dude" can be
replaced by "Maurice, A Knoll Sniper" if you wish. But in such a
version, Maurice must be utilizing either a low-powered rifle or he
must have fired a bad round or a misfired round into JFK's neck from
the front.
Please also remember to garner the proper patent numbers from the U.S.
Patent Office for any and all individual "Assassination Shooting
Scenarios Heavy On Lunacy, Etc." (aka "ASSHOLE", for short).
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>To Tom Lowry........
>
>A friendly word of warning before you plunge into Ben-boy's toilet-full
>of CT-isms (if you choose to at all; the foul stench alone is enough to
>drive many people away) ---
Actually, it's the facts and evidence that drive LNT'ers away...
>Ben "Not Sherlock" Holmes is a person who NEEDS a "conspiracy" at all
>costs. This fact is quite obvious via the weak arguments he thinks
>supports multiple shooters in JFK's demise.
Does this explain why LNT'ers keep running away from citing or providing
refutations of my statements on the evidence?
>It doesn't matter to Ben that ALL of the physical evidence in the JFK
>and J.D. Tippit murder cases points to only one killer named Oswald.
It doesn't matter that you've just lied here... for the simple fact is that
there *IS* physical evidence that exhonerates LHO... the paraffin caste of LHO's
cheek, for example. The 6.5mm virtually round object, for another. The
cartridge case that could *not* have been fired in LHO's rifle, for another.
All "physical" evidence.
>It doesn't matter to Ben that EVERY Official Government panel appointed
>to investigate JFK's death came to the same basic conclusion re. the
>number of bullets THAT STRUCK ANY VICTIMS and the fact that all of
>these investigative bodies concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that
>Lee H. Oswald was THE ONLY SHOOTER WHO HIT ANY VICTIM WITH BULLETS IN
>DEALEY PLAZA ON 11/22/1963 A.D.
Very carefully worded to avoid the fact that the HSCA concluded that there were
at least *FOUR* shots fired, and multiple assassins that day in Dealey Plaza.
Why bother, Davey-boy? People in this newsgroup know the basics...
>(the proven-flawed HSCA acoustics
>nonsense notwithstanding here....because even a plastic record in a
>girlie magazine provided virtual proof that that "95% certainty of the
>existence of a conspiracy" was all wet...and still is).
>
>And it doesn't matter to Ben that COMMON SENSE
When does "common sense" trump the actual evidence?
Speaking of "common sense", why do you suppose that up to 90% of America
evidently doesn't have it?
>(combined with all the
>vast evidence at hand) tells us that no multi-gun plot was a-brewin' on
>11/22/63 -- especially, of course, within the context of the
>widely-accepted-as-fact "Oswald Was Just A Patsy" assassination plot.
If this "vast evidence at hand" proves this... why not simply present it?
>Only a gang of plotters from the "I WANNA GET CAUGHT--QUICK!" school of
>Patsy Plots would have dreamed up a plan so inept as the multi-shooter
>Patsy plot that many (many!) CTers think actually DID take place in DP
>that Friday back in '63.
>
>And it doesn't matter to Ben that COMMON SENSE (plus just a small bit
>of the truckloads of physical and circumstantial evidence against LHO)
>is telling the world that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy
>and Patrolman J.D. Tippit in Dallas.
Then all you have to do is present it, right?
But don't worry, Davey-boy... I'll continue to correct your ignorance...
>In short, it's fairly obvious that Ben H. doesn't give a damn about the
>"truth" re. the events of November 1963. He WANTS a conspiracy.....so,
>by God, that's what he's gonna have. Period.
If the facts and evidence supported the WC, I'd be in favor of it. But
strangely enough, no LNT'er yet has been able to explain to me why the WC and
HSCA felt it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to
support their conclusions. (Hmmm... come to think of it, I don't recall any
LNT'er even *trying*... wonder why?)
And, as usual... Davey-boy snipped all my comments, and had *NO* answers for any
of them. Anyone care to bet on the probability that Tom Lowry can do no better?
>---------
>
>CS&L Interjection............
>
>"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." .... "Oswald had the motive, the opportunity, and the skill to
>kill President Kennedy." .... "My conclusion is that I believe beyond
>ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all
>REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone." .... "Many of the conspiracy
>theories are appealing to the intellectual palate at first glance, but
>they do violence to all notions of common sense." --- Vincent T.
>Bugliosi
Bugliosi is an intelligent man... it will be amusing to see if he can do any
better than Posner.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1144150563.0...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> cdddra...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >Just a short post to announce my arrival , Hello I'm Tom Lowry ,
Hello Tom. Just popping in here to give you the standard warning
that the person who responded to you, Ben Holmes, is not a rational
human being.
> I hope
> >this post finds you and finds you all well and in good spirits . If
> >questions still remain in one's mind , about the ' Deed ' there are
> >other ways of getting around this ! . Don't get me wrong , questioning
> >this case , may have been useful in the first couple of years after the
> >Assassination , but it has now taken on a life of it's own .
By people with no life of their own.
> Yep... more and more evidence has been released by the HSCA and ARRB. Very
> little of it, unfortunately, supporting the WC conclusions.
According to kooks. Of course, kooks have the advantage of calling
all physical evidence they don`t like planted,
manufactured,doctored,switched and/or non-existant, and all witness
testimony they don`t like as coerced or unreliable.
> >The
> >Kennedy Assassination Factoid Factory and Circus Performance , I see ,
> >is alive and well on this group . The questions now asked , have been
> >answered , in a thousand different ways , many , many times before .
>
>
> Then you'll be able to cite easily where the question was answered, right?
>
> Okay, here's just a few off the top of my head:
>
> Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidently
> would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or
> Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?
You might wonder how Ben knows what a person who didn`t testify
would have testified to.
> Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?
>
> Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still
> denied by most LNT'ers today?
Why haven`t the kooks who say they exist produced them for scrutiny?
Just claiming they show what kooks want them to show doesn`t carry as
much weight as you might think.
> Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse
> their theory?
>
> Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the
> statements they wanted?
Ben has never produced one witness who said they were told to say
something by the FBI that ran contrary to what that witness knew to be
true.
> What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the
> night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the
> autopsy?
Jerrol Custer, the x-ray tech taking the x-rays told the HSCA that
he pointed out this object to Ebersol, the chief radilogist, and that
Ebersole told him it was an artifact. Ben knows this, as I`ve pointed
it out to him, therefore his statement that "everyone was so blind" to
it is just a lie.
> How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively
> demonstrated with CAT scans?
By a conspiracy kook to the satisation of other conspiracy kooks.
> Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the
> prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were
> clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?
The answer to why the bullet track wasn`t dissected appears in the
record, so why ask? Why they did some things and not others is because
they did some things and not others. If you can establish conspiratory
motivations for any actions, don`t be bashful.
> Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the
> govenment had control of them...
If kooks could answer this, it could possibly be used to support
their theories of tampering. Since they don`t know, it can`t.
> Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did they
> actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?
Because they thought it was in their power to influence public
opinion. They were wrong.
> Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD?
Why did they say?
> Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed
> Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid
> reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there?
They removed Dealey Plaza?
> Can you
> provide it?
Kook inability establish answers to many of these questions can`t be
seen as anyones fault but their own.
> Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case?
> CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.
More lies. Tomlison, the man who found it was shown the bullet
later, and he said it
looked like the one he found.
> Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned
> by LHO?
The camera that doesn`t appear in eidence photos taken by the DP?
The photos that show a light meter in a camera case, a light meter
which isn`t listed among the evidence found?
> Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to
> government investigators?
Why did the miltary say?
> Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own
> collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the
> HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical
> testimony... why??
Because they didn`t return the crackpot conclusions favored by kook,
that makes them liars.
> Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case?
> Never before heard - such as the "jet effect"
Perhaps you should try physics to argue against physics.
> and "eyewitness unreliability"
Replace by witness infallibility by kooks, but only when it suits
them.
> and
> "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?
Photographs capture events unemotionally, without confusion. They
have their uses, such as keeping kooks occupied seeing gunmen in every
blur.
> Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant
> Z-film?
Chaney isn`t seen in the z-film at the same time Altgens was taken.
> Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we
> can't see it in the Z-film?
You aren`t looking hard enough.
> Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the
> large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?
Possibly because of the circumstances of their observations.
> Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?
It seems every aspect of the medical record can be argues against
using other select poryions of the medical record.
> These are just a few off the top of my head that I don't recall seeing an answer
> for...
This is how Ben`s mind works. If answers are given that Ben doesn`t
like, they don`t register in his mind as answers. For instance, he
asks why were Oz`s miltary records not released, there is an answer to
that in the record, the miltary did explain why they weren`t releasing
them Just because a kook doesn`t accept that answer doesn`t mean one
doesn`t exist. Likewise, answers to many other of his queries can be
found right here in this very newsgroup.
> but, as you've asserted, they've already been answered... so if you'll be
> so kind as to merely cite where I can find the answers to these...
So he can ignore them again.
> >The only thing that's missing , is the letting go of this ' need ' / '
> >want ' to have a cohesive narrative and meaning in a meaningles act ,
> >perpetrated by a single person .
>
>
> One could wonder about your motivation here... why are you obsessing on this
> topic? Can you offer a reason why you're not "letting go" of this obsessive
> need of yours to invoke the WCR?
>
>
> >So trying to say LHO killed JFK and
> >Tippit by himself , to a die hard conspiracists , I know , is like
> >trying to convince a fanatical Funnymentalist Islamic Terrorist that
> >there won't be 40 black eyed virgins waiting for him , just before he
> >pulls the pin .
>
>
> You confuse faith with facts... Why is that, I wonder?
Because to the true conspiracy believer, there is no difference.
Lets look at an example, the Fritz interrogations. It is an article of
faith amongst kooks that what Fritz relates that Oz said is
untrustworthy. Yet the grounds are merely their faith that there was a
frame-up. The have no real evidence that anyone told Fritz to put words
in Oz`s mouth, no evidence of pressure, coertion or complacity on
Fritz`s part, but many accept as fact that Fritz was "in on it".
> >So I Look to others that are perhaps a little smarter
> >, have sharper critical / classical thinking skills to sort out the
> >natural confusion , that occurs , whenever two or more people witness
> >something , let alone this case , which contains so many players , the
> >Bible looks barren , in comparison .
>
>
> You assert that lawyers have "sharper critical, classical thinking skill"... on
> what basis? Can you cite for this belief?
They are trained to think a certian way about information, evidence,
ect. I suspect that training undermined their results. It should have
been handled by a true investigator, a Bugliosi type, but with
communication skills. But in truth, it probably didn`t matter what was
done. Kooks would have been unsatisfied regrdless, they just don`t want
to accept that Oz took his rifle to work and shot some people, and they
will latch onto anything in order not to accept that reality.
> And why would you assert that the Bible is barren in comparison to the numbers
> involved in this case? Does this merely illustrate your ignorance of the Bible?
> Or were you trying for just a wee a bit of hyperbole?
>
>
> >I therefore find the WC version of
> >event's to be highly plausible and most probable .
>
>
> What makes you so different from up to 90% of America?
Just another of Ben`s favorite lies. There has never been a poll
that showed a figure as high as 90% for the amount of Americans who
believe in conspiracy in this case.
> To what do you attribute
> your distinct minority status?
Satisfaction. The majority is more satisfied that there be a
conspiracy. The are unsatisfied with Oz being offered as the sole
cause. But, this is a criminal matter, one in which jury findings would
far outweigh public opinion polls.
>
> >On the other hand
> >when you have too much useless information , useless speculation ,
> >useless theorizing , you end up with what the ' critical community '
> >deserves , a vast desert of conspiracy constructs , none being right or
> >even remotely feasable or logically possible .
>
>
> This really isn't difficult to understand at all... there were *multiple*
> shooters that day. Most likely, I suspect, around 3, perhaps four. Other
> students of the assassination differ on the numbers - since much is
> speculation... but the *fact* that there was more than a single shooter is
> evident from the evidence.
Kook reading of the evidence. It doesn`t matter that they can`t
offer a realistic scenario, only that they knock the official
investigation.
> >Thirty years of my own
> >investigation into this matter , reading both sides of the issue , have
> >lead me to the following conclusions : 95 % of the so called evidence
> >in this case is useless ( eye and ear witness especially )
>
>
> Of course! It's not possible to believe in *both* the WCR and the eyewitnesses,
> they reported different things.
>
> Why, I wonder, is the JFK case so unique... No other place in history will the
> LNT'er crowd deny eyewitness accounts to the extent that they do here.
The Dealey witnesses basically saw JFK being shot. The Tippit
witnesses saw Oz shooting Tippit.
> >99.9 % of
> >the conspiracy writers wouldn't know an assassin, even if one were to
> >be shot in the rear end by one and 98 % don't get paid and are not
> >professional in the field they speak in .
>
>
> Yes... the field of "professional JFK Assassination authors" is a difficult one
> to break into. What are the qualifications? Can you enlighten us?
To be a conspracy writer, insanity, dishonesty and greed.
> And why do conspiracy authors with clearly *no* professional qualifications keep
> writing books that sell? Do you suppose that the American public is just too
> stupid to realize that they aren't "professionals"?
You kooks do line up at the trough for the next crackpot offering.
> >This case has been hi-jacked
> >by conpiracy writers who have mis-handled the evidence , building a '
> >Tempest in a Teapot ' upon a ' Mountain of Unfounded Speculation ' and
> >' Invalid Constructs ' .
>
> Yep... with all the power of the American government to hire writers... the
> national mass media with their well-proven ability to *write*... we still seem
> to have a paucity of well-written defenses of the WCR.
No market. How many ways are there to write that Oz took his rifle
to work, and shot some people?
> Posner - who attempted
> perhaps, to be far too specific, has been shot down rather dramatically in the
> CT'er community.
According to kooks. I think Posenr`s strength was in creating an
understanding of Oz and Ruby.
> Bugliosi, I predict, will fall even harder... due mainly to
> the detail he'll *have* to go into to fill the number of pages he has promised.
No real point in any more books on the subject.
> The question is not why the case has been "hi-jacked" by conspiracy writers...
> it's why Warren Commission Report defenders have not been able to make the
> case... considering that they are generally professional writers with access to
> evidence that non-WCR defenders don't have access to.
Like the Oak Ridge testing?
> As merely one example, you have to defend the WCR to have access to Nosenko...
Perks.
> >The saying ' Drink from the Fountain of
> >Knowledge ' has been replaced by ' Garglers ' , who , in this nation
> >and elsewhere , have apparently no care , as to the amount of confusion
> >and mayham it causes .
>
> On the contrary... to be a CT'er on *THIS* newsgroup means a depth of knowledge
> that I suspect you won't approach. Will you prove this prediction wrong?
>
>
> >This denial of LHO 's guilt , overwhelming
> >evidence against him and the reality of an assasination , that could of
> >happened only one way ,
>
>
> Already setting the terms of the debate???
He is right. What kooks envision in terms of conspiracy is an
impossibilty. That in itself only leaves the WC findings.
> >is suggestive , for those disbelievers , to me
> >, of only two possible answers . They are either in denial , that
> >their failed world view has collapsed or that their parents engaged in
> >bad breeding habits that have effected their feeble minds , brought on
> >by , premature old age .
>
>
> How convenient for you! Anyone who disagrees is either in "denial" or simply
> too feeble-minded to be able to assess the evidence.
Yah, kooks fit that bill.
> My crystal ball is telling me right now that you won't stick around and actually
> *debate* the evidence... most likely because you really don't *know* it all that
> well. For despite your claims of having studied for 30 years, most LNT'ers
> simply don't know the facts in this case.
When knowledgable LN do come here to discuss the case, Ben just
insults them, and they leave. Why argue with kooks?
> LNT'ers duck and run all the time in this forum, which is a source of great
> amusement to those CT'ers, like me, who like to point it out.
I`m still here, pointing out what kooks infest this little enclave.
> >Sincerely Tom Lowry cdddra...@yahoo.com
> >PS : All comments are welcome , especially from ' them ' , ' they ' and
> > ' those over yonder ' , but remember to bring words , guns , swords ,
> >knives or fists finely tuned , for I'm an expert in all these area's ,
> >something I won't try to minimize by any sense of false modesty .
>
> Ah! Good! Get those threats out of the way right away! Of course, I've always
> invited those who've made threats to step right up... I'm usually practicing at
> least two nights a week, and sometimes more, at the Encino Judo Club. If that
> isn't sufficient, guns, knives, or swords are also fine. I'm competent enough.
> Rifles at 500 ft would be quite excellent.
Worked for Oswald.
> >Good
> >day , for I , God's gift to the feeble minded in regards to ' The
> >Kennedy Assassination ' have arrived to do battle ! Fire away .
>
> LOL!! Another troll, is what we have...
Yah, and the fucker is stealing my title. I`m the spokesman for the
LN, appointed by Tomnln himself. You just can`t appear and claim all
the feeble-minded, I had them first.
Robert Harris
>To Tom Lowry........
>
>A friendly word of warning before you plunge into Ben-boy's toilet-full
>of CT-isms (if you choose to at all; the foul stench alone is enough to
>drive many people away) ---
>
>Ben "Not Sherlock" Holmes is a person who NEEDS a "conspiracy" at all
>costs. This fact is quite obvious via the weak arguments he thinks
>supports multiple shooters in JFK's demise.
>
>It doesn't matter to Ben that ALL of the physical evidence in the JFK
>and J.D. Tippit murder cases points to only one killer named Oswald.
BULLSHIT!!
If that were true, you wouldn't have been dodging 98% of the questions
I asked you, and 100% of the evidence.
The photos and films ARE physical evidence, David, and would be
acceptable in any courtroom on the planet.
And so would the countless witness statements, you are trying to evade
by arbitrarily restricting the evidence to your personal definition of
"physical".
When you summon the guts to actually deal with these facts, then you
will have EARNED the right to make sweeping generalizations.
Until you stop running and accept that challenge, you are no more than
one more lying windbag, infesting the newsgroup.
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
David VP
Sure they are evidence. When did I ever say they weren't?
And -- Just how do the photos and films, in virtually ANY fashion,
support the CT scenario?
ALL of the X-rays and autopsy photos support LN-ism. And so does the
Z-Film without a shred of a doubt, whether CTers see this or not. The
Z-Film shows TWO distinct "hits" on the victims in the car, and no more
than two hits. If Bob Groden and the "Let's Free Oswald" brigade are
right, and Connally and JFK are being smacked by way more than two
bullets, where's the visual evidence on the Z-Film? Where? Answer -- it
ain't there. Never was.
Just another remarkable piece of "CT Luck" it would appear for these
amazing shooters on Nov. 22 -- they fire gobs and gobs of shots into
the car and are lucky enough to have ONLY TWO SHOTS visibly striking
any victim in the vehicle, instead of the AT LEAST FOUR that CTers
believe hit victims.
~girding up for the proverbial "Kennedy Lurch, Signifying Separate Back
Shot" CT argument~
>> "And so would the countless witness statements, you are trying to evade by arbitrarily restricting the evidence to your personal definition of "physical"."
I utilize "physical" when defining the TOP (#1) PHYSICAL ITEMS in this
case that ALL lead toward Oswald's lone guilt -- e.g., bullets, bullet
fragments, bullet cartridges, guns, prints, and fibers. None of which
the CT "side" possesses and never did.
That does not mean, obviously, I totally EXCLUDE the things you also
mentioned (photos/films/witnesses) as "physical evidence" as well. It's
just that the "guns, bullets, shells, prints, and fibers" are at the
top of the "physical" list IMO....and CTers have NONE of these
critically-important items in their basket to support even ONE
non-C2766 shot hitting a victim on 11/22 (let alone a "flurry" of
additional non-LHO shots, as some CTers seem to advocate).
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1144170473.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >To Tom Lowry........
> >
> >A friendly word of warning before you plunge into Ben-boy's toilet-full
> >of CT-isms (if you choose to at all; the foul stench alone is enough to
> >drive many people away) ---
>
>
> Actually, it's the facts and evidence that drive LNT'ers away...
Usually, it is that people are too smart to engage a kook in a
discussion.
> >Ben "Not Sherlock" Holmes is a person who NEEDS a "conspiracy" at all
> >costs. This fact is quite obvious via the weak arguments he thinks
> >supports multiple shooters in JFK's demise.
>
>
> Does this explain why LNT'ers keep running away from citing or providing
> refutations of my statements on the evidence?
Seems you run from me, Holmes.
> >It doesn't matter to Ben that ALL of the physical evidence in the JFK
> >and J.D. Tippit murder cases points to only one killer named Oswald.
>
>
> It doesn't matter that you've just lied here... for the simple fact is that
> there *IS* physical evidence that exhonerates LHO... the paraffin caste of LHO's
> cheek, for example.
Half the time rifles don`t leave detectable residue.
> The 6.5mm virtually round object, for another.
How does an unknown object exhonerate Oz?
> The
> cartridge case that could *not* have been fired in LHO's rifle, for another.
According to what firearms expert?
> All "physical" evidence.
>
>
> >It doesn't matter to Ben that EVERY Official Government panel appointed
> >to investigate JFK's death came to the same basic conclusion re. the
> >number of bullets THAT STRUCK ANY VICTIMS and the fact that all of
> >these investigative bodies concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that
> >Lee H. Oswald was THE ONLY SHOOTER WHO HIT ANY VICTIM WITH BULLETS IN
> >DEALEY PLAZA ON 11/22/1963 A.D.
>
> Very carefully worded to avoid the fact that the HSCA concluded that there were
> at least *FOUR* shots fired, and multiple assassins that day in Dealey Plaza.
But still found that Oz, firing from the TSBD, caused all the wounds
to the occupants of the limo.
> Why bother, Davey-boy? People in this newsgroup know the basics...
Basically, you are a kook.
> >(the proven-flawed HSCA acoustics
> >nonsense notwithstanding here....because even a plastic record in a
> >girlie magazine provided virtual proof that that "95% certainty of the
> >existence of a conspiracy" was all wet...and still is).
> >
> >And it doesn't matter to Ben that COMMON SENSE
>
> When does "common sense" trump the actual evidence?
Necessary to arrive at plausible conclusions.
> Speaking of "common sense", why do you suppose that up to 90% of America
> evidently doesn't have it?
Various reasons often touched upon when you throw this false number
out. Ignorance of the facts of the case. Unsatisfied with the answer
that the skinny commie did it all. They think that with all the smoke
generated, there must be a fire.
> >(combined with all the
> >vast evidence at hand) tells us that no multi-gun plot was a-brewin' on
> >11/22/63 -- especially, of course, within the context of the
> >widely-accepted-as-fact "Oswald Was Just A Patsy" assassination plot.
>
> If this "vast evidence at hand" proves this... why not simply present it?
Again, it is of no use to those devoid of common sense. Just why
would Oz bring a long paper object into work the very day of the
assassination, the very day his rifle was found in the building? Just
why would he be arrested with five bullets in his pants pocket, a truly
paranoid person might feel compelled to go armed, but how many would
anticipate a situation that would require reloading? Interesting that
when Harris asked 20 questions of LNT, none mentioned LHO. If I was to
ask 20 questions of CT, they`d probably all be about Oz. Therein lies
the difference.
> >Only a gang of plotters from the "I WANNA GET CAUGHT--QUICK!" school of
> >Patsy Plots would have dreamed up a plan so inept as the multi-shooter
> >Patsy plot that many (many!) CTers think actually DID take place in DP
> >that Friday back in '63.
> >
> >And it doesn't matter to Ben that COMMON SENSE (plus just a small bit
> >of the truckloads of physical and circumstantial evidence against LHO)
> >is telling the world that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy
> >and Patrolman J.D. Tippit in Dallas.
>
>
> Then all you have to do is present it, right?
>
> But don't worry, Davey-boy... I'll continue to correct your ignorance...
>
>
> >In short, it's fairly obvious that Ben H. doesn't give a damn about the
> >"truth" re. the events of November 1963. He WANTS a conspiracy.....so,
> >by God, that's what he's gonna have. Period.
>
>
> If the facts and evidence supported the WC, I'd be in favor of it. But
> strangely enough, no LNT'er yet has been able to explain to me why the WC and
> HSCA felt it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to
> support their conclusions. (Hmmm... come to think of it, I don't recall any
> LNT'er even *trying*... wonder why?)
And if the CT were to say there were multiple shooters, and Oz was
one of them, they might be able to claim some credibility. The fact
they refuse to accept the clearest aspect of the case shows they aren`t
at all interested in getting to the bottom of this.
tomnln
NOW I see Ben doen't need any help.
Ben Single handedly Debunked (LN term) Tom Lowry.
What I DO notice is that these Accessories After the Fact NEVER back up
Anything they say.
1. Proof of Oswald's guilt.
2. Empty threats of violence.
Kick Ass Ben;
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e0ubg...@drn.newsguy.com...
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1144180551....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1144170473.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David
>> VP
>> says...
>> >
>> >To Tom Lowry........
>> >
>> >A friendly word of warning before you plunge into Ben-boy's toilet-full
>> >of CT-isms (if you choose to at all; the foul stench alone is enough to
>> >drive many people away) ---
>>
>>
>> Actually, it's the facts and evidence that drive LNT'ers away...
> Usually, it is that people are too smart to engage a kook in a
> discussion.
AIDS infected Felon Supporters like you don't have the knowledge to debate
evidence/testimony.
Keep calling us kooks & you'll continue to be AIDS infected "Atheist".
=====================================================================
David VP
Anything they say."
The autopsy report ALL BY ITSELF "backs up" the undeniable FACT that no
frontal shots hit President Kennedy. That report doesn't prove Oswald's
guilt, true....but the rest of the evidence accomplishes that task
quite nicely -- except in the eyes of an RC, that is (i.e., Rabid
Conspiranoid).
The idea that ALL THREE autopsy doctors would have signed that report
(knowing it was a pack of lies) is something only a rabid CTer could
believe. Accusing all three of those doctors of deliberately falsifying
the autopsy report of a U.S. President is something that normal, decent
people would never considering doing without first offering up at least
a scrap of evidence to back up that despicable accusation.
But, to rabid CTers, such trashy treatment of Officialdom is
second-nature. Go figure.
Todd W. Vaughan
>Keep calling us kooks & you'll continue to be AIDS infected "Atheist". <
Words of a God fearing man who elswhere psoted "So Quit your G D
Lying."
Hey, you're a true hypocrite, Tomnln!
Todd
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> "What I DO notice is that these Accessories After the Fact NEVER back up
>> Anything they say."
>
>
>The autopsy report ALL BY ITSELF "backs up" the undeniable FACT that no
>frontal shots hit President Kennedy.
Untrue. It's even admitted that the neck wound was never dissected - BECAUSE
THEY WERE ORDERED NOT TO.
How can you say no frontal shots hit when you have clear evidence of *exactly*
that - but are forbidden from examining it?
Why bother to lie about this? People here are only going to point out the
truth, and it merely makes you look ignorant.
>That report doesn't prove Oswald's
>guilt, true....but the rest of the evidence accomplishes that task
>quite nicely -- except in the eyes of an RC, that is (i.e., Rabid
>Conspiranoid).
Interestingly, Davey-boy snipped *ALL* points made by CT'ers...
Cowards always do...
>The idea that ALL THREE autopsy doctors would have signed that report
>(knowing it was a pack of lies) is something only a rabid CTer could
>believe.
Actually, there's documentary proof of exactly this. See Col. Finck's
contemporaneous report to Gen Blumberg, where he stated that "In my discussion
with Cdr Humes, I stated that we should not check the block "complete Autopsy "
in the Autopsy Report Form."
Can you tell us, Davey-boy, why the autopsy is now listed as a complete autopsy?
Finck *knowingly* signed his name to a lie, didn't he?
So to, did Humes and Boswell. *They* knew that the wounds had not been
dissected, nor any "transit" track traced...
So they did indeed sign a report knowing it was a lie.
You see? Ignorance *CAN* be cured!
>Accusing all three of those doctors of deliberately falsifying
>the autopsy report of a U.S. President is something that normal, decent
>people would never considering doing without first offering up at least
>a scrap of evidence to back up that despicable accusation.
Such as a personal report of doing precisely this to his commanding officer by
Col. Finck?
That sort of "scrap of evidence"?
>But, to rabid CTers, such trashy treatment of Officialdom is
>second-nature. Go figure.
Actually, to CT'ers... the respect for the evidence is "second-nature"... Go
figure...
David VP
I disagree, because.......
None of the previous books to date has been written by the man who
successfully prosecuted Charles Manson....and he put Manson away using
only a tiny fraction of the evidence that exists against Lee Harvey
Oswald.
tomnln
When are you gonna address the 4 Different accounts of Officer Baker's
lunchroom
encounter with Oswald you G D Felon Supporter?
Are you gonna commit Suicide do to your Double Standards?
1. You Support Lies Under Oath.
2. You knock others for "Typo's".
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144184853.4...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Two of which were close to Military Retirement.
One of which "Rewrote" the autopsy report Sunday morning.
Two "Umexperienced Dr's who Disagreed with Several Dr's from Dallas who
attend
Gunshot Victims on an average of 1271 times per year.
So, YOU'RE the Guy who bought the Brooklyn Bridge.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144183487.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
following....
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Social Issues.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e0uom...@drn.newsguy.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
>Not a ONE of them will accept my Invitation to Debate Live at the
>following....
Because you're an idiot, Tom, you prove that over and over again right
here.
Todd
Todd W. Vaughan
>Two of which Never performed an Autopsy in they're Lives.<
LOL.
It's "their", not "they're".
LOL..
"They're" is the contraction of "they are".
Damn you're (you are) dumb.
Todd
Ben Holmes
>
>When I read the First post on this thread I was gonna jump in.
>
>NOW I see Ben doen't need any help.
>
>Ben Single handedly Debunked (LN term) Tom Lowry.
Actually, I'm still waiting for Tom Lowry to reply. It's only polite to wait
for what he says in response.
You never know, Tom might turn out to be an honest LNT'er... for they surely
exist. And who knows, perhaps he *does* know the answers to the questions I
posed... stranger things have surely happened *somewhere*...
But it's interesting to note that not *ONE SINGLE LNT'ER YET* who responded did
so without snipping the *entire* post - refusing to reply to a *SINGLE*
statement I'd made.
Makes me feel proud to frighten LNT'ers so throughly...
>What I DO notice is that these Accessories After the Fact NEVER back up
>Anything they say.
> 1. Proof of Oswald's guilt.
> 2. Empty threats of violence.
>
>Kick Ass Ben;
I do... several nights a week. Tonight, in fact, I'm going to go hunting for
some 6 or 7 year old white belt, hopefully someone that I outweigh by 100 pounds
or more, and beat them up for the sheer joy of it...
I was picking on a 14 year old yellow belt last week, and he almost did me in.
Who knows... perhaps Jerry *will* show up to "kick my Marine ass"...
Todd W. Vaughan
>>Kick Ass Ben
>I do... several nights a week. Tonight, in fact, I'm going to go hunting for
>some 6 or 7 year old white belt, hopefully someone that I outweigh by 100 pounds
>or more, and beat them up for the sheer joy of it...
>I was picking on a 14 year old yellow belt last week, and he almost did me in.
>Who knows... perhaps Jerry *will* show up to "kick my Marine ass"...
Ohh, we're all so impressed by your mastery of the martial arts.
You're our hero Ben!
Can we be just like you?
Except for the lying part?
Toady (yep, that one don't faze me either, Benjamin)
tomnln
When are you gonna address the Felon, Officer Baker todd?
Are you also a Deserter??
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144189966....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
toddy?
Unless you know it's Useless to defend Felons.
Orrrrrrrrrrr, Unless you're Afraid to debate me.
It's your opportunity to prove you don't support Felons todd.
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Social Issues.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144189839.7...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bud
I think you might be a tad bit too optimistic about Bug`s chances
of having any real effect on the status of this case. I don`t suppose
his book, Outrage, on the Simpson case had much effect on people`s
perceptions of what happened in that case. And as far as convicting
Manson, he had a great deal of help from Manson himself. When you are
trying to covince a jury what a controlling power the defendant has
over his followers, it helps when the day after he puts an "x" on his
forehead, the other "family" members appear in court with "x"s also,
David VP
of having any real effect on the status of this case."
You could be right, I suppose. But I doubt you are in this instance. A
few rabid CT kooks/immovable nutcases might not be swayed in the least
by VB's "Verdict"....but, as Vince has said.....
"...You could throw 80% of the evidence against {Oswald} out the window
and there would still be more than enough left to convince any
reasonable person of his sole role in the crime." -- V.B.
Key words = "Reasonable person".
Vince, IMO, wrote an amazing and persuasive book re. the O.J.
case....and he did so in only approx. a 6-month timeframe. He's spent
20 years on the JFK matter (not non-stop, granted....but a whole lot
more than 6 months in total).
And these two VB quotes should certainly pique a good degree of
interest:
"I agree with all of Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald killed Kennedy
and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology. There's a
credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
V.B.
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- V.B.
Bud
David VP wrote:
> >> "I think you might be a tad bit too optimistic about Bug`s chances
> of having any real effect on the status of this case."
Cowardly snipped out everything else I had to say I see. :)
> You could be right, I suppose. But I doubt you are in this instance. A
> few rabid CT kooks/immovable nutcases might not be swayed in the least
> by VB's "Verdict"....but, as Vince has said.....
>
> "...You could throw 80% of the evidence against {Oswald} out the window
> and there would still be more than enough left to convince any
> reasonable person of his sole role in the crime." -- V.B.
>
> Key words = "Reasonable person".
Yah, that is the key. For instance, Ben the Kook is willing to put
shooters on the roof of the TSBD, just about anywhere, except where the
shots actualy came from.
> Vince, IMO, wrote an amazing and persuasive book re. the O.J.
> case....
Thats the thing. Do you think it had any effect whatsoever on public
opinion polls about the case? It is a very tough thing to dislodge
opinions once they are adopted. And I suspect people adopt an opinion
they are comfortable early, and I doubt such opinions, once adopted,
are much susceptible to persausion. In the OJ case, I think people, the
jury particularly, just wanted enough support to vote they way they
were inclined. As long as the defense could give them a good enough
excuse for their innocent verdict, then they could vote their desire. I
think that is the same with the assassination, the public is inclined
toward conspiracy in this case, and conspiracy lore gives them enough
justifiction for holding these beliefs. When people are comfortable in
their beliefs, when they think what they want to think, it`s tough to
change that position. For instance, how could I go about convincing a
person who believes in heaven or an afterlife that once you die, thats
it, theres nothing? Obviously, they have a stake, a desire, that there
be an afterlife. What chance do I have of changing their opinion to one
they are uncomfortable with, one they desire not to be true?
>and he did so in only approx. a 6-month timeframe. He's spent
> 20 years on the JFK matter (not non-stop, granted....but a whole lot
> more than 6 months in total).
>
> And these two VB quotes should certainly pique a good degree of
> interest:
>
> "I agree with all of Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald killed Kennedy
> and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology. There's a
> credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
> antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
> V.B.
Perhaps it is better for VB`s book to replace Posner`s as the
flagship book of the LN cause. Posner`s book has a lot of flaws, I
thought it was best for getting a feel for Oz and Ruby, which helps in
understanding what happened. Personally, I think the WC told the story
as well as could be told, Oz took his rifle to work, and shot some
people from there for political reasons. Any other LN books will only
tell the same story, with only the approach differing.
Robert Harris
>>> "The photos and films ARE physical evidence, David, and would be acceptable in any courtroom on the planet."
>
>
>Sure they are evidence. When did I ever say they weren't?
>
>And -- Just how do the photos and films, in virtually ANY fashion,
>support the CT scenario?
I will answer that question in far more detail than you want to hear,
David.
Are you up to responding to this evidence, or will you waste my time
by snipping everything like you always have before?
Will you dodge my questions or evade them?
>
>ALL of the X-rays and autopsy photos support LN-ism. And so does the
>Z-Film without a shred of a doubt, whether CTers see this or not.
David, the surest sign that someone cannot defend their position and
has no clue what they are talking about is that they never, ever speak
of specifics.
They can only make sweeping generalizations that they cannot support
to save their lives.
Don't waste my time, claiming that all this or that proves anything.
SHOW me your evidence and explain intelligently and logically, how it
supports your premises.
And refute my arguments the same way.
Are you up for that, David??
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
I'll admit, I don't know exactly where you stand with regard to several
segments of the JFK case....but your quote above sure seems to me to
have a whole bunch of "Pot & Kettle" in it. Because what you just said
is EXACTLY what CTers do every time LNers like myself ask for a
reasonable, logical, and believable "alternate" (CT) scenario to
replace the SBT (the shooting DID happen, after all...even in a CTer's
orbs, I assume....so there MUST be an "alternate" version to the SBT).
"...They never, ever speak of specifics. They can only make sweeping
generalizations that they cannot support to save their lives."
Yep...that Robert comment above sure describes the anti-SBTers, that's
for sure.
But, Bob, if you think you're going to convince me of conspiracy JUST
using the photos and films....you've got an uphill battle. I've seen
all the photos and films too....and I find nothing "pro-conspiracy"
about them....at all. And that includes the grainy-as-all-get-out
Moorman photo too....plus the Z-Film, which supports LNism much more
than conspiracy, IMO.
Attempting to dissect Clint Hill's head angle at a precise Z-Frame
number...or trying to measure with skilled precision Jean Hill's "head
snap" to the left vs. the right (or whichever way you say it looks
kinda fishy to you), or trying to show that Nellie and Jackie are
"ducking", when they both are obviously just leaning over to aid their
stricken spouses....is all, IMO, a futile effort. And especially futile
when compared to the REST OF THE PHYSICAL & CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE in
the case that's telling us "Oswald's The One".
Do you see "people" on the 6th Floor in the Bronson and Hughes films,
Bob (like Mr. Groden does)?
Do you see conspirators in various still photos taken by Skaggs, Bond,
Willis, et al?
I don't mean to put words (and theories) in your mouth, Bob. I'm just
curious.
David VP
SHOW me your evidence and explain intelligently and logically, how it
supports your premises."
OK...........
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=17758
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=28318
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=30215
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=23444
tomnln
You're knocking one of your own people.
David is on YOUR Side.
You ARE Right though he IS a Kook.
Bud; I'm gettin Prouder & Prouder & Prouder of you every day.
Please don't ever stop posting here.
(Surgeon General's Warning: Aligning with Bud May Cause Embarrassment)
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1144203229....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> "I think you might be a tad bit too optimistic about Bug`s chances
>> of having any real effect on the status of this case."
>
>
>You could be right, I suppose. But I doubt you are in this instance. A
>few rabid CT kooks/immovable nutcases might not be swayed in the least
>by VB's "Verdict"....but, as Vince has said.....
>
>"...You could throw 80% of the evidence against {Oswald} out the window
>and there would still be more than enough left to convince any
>reasonable person of his sole role in the crime." -- V.B.
>
>Key words = "Reasonable person".
Of course, this means that as much as 90% of America is "unreasonable".
The improbabilities that LNT'ers are forced to swallow on a daily basis boggles
the mind.
>Vince, IMO, wrote an amazing and persuasive book re. the O.J.
>case....and he did so in only approx. a 6-month timeframe. He's spent
>20 years on the JFK matter (not non-stop, granted....but a whole lot
>more than 6 months in total).
>
>And these two VB quotes should certainly pique a good degree of
>interest:
>
>"I agree with all of Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald killed Kennedy
>and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology. There's a
>credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
>antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
>V.B.
>
>"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
>charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
>invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- V.B.
It's going to be a big letdown for you then, when Bugliosi out-Posner's Posner.
Ben Holmes
says...
What good is any of this? Without even bothering to go look - I know if you
posted it here, and I took the time to rip it apart by citing the evidence, you
wouldn't defend it.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> David, the surest sign that someone cannot defend their position and has
>> no clue what they are talking about is that they never, ever speak of
>> specifics. They can only make sweeping generalizations that they cannot
>> support to save their lives."
>
>I'll admit, I don't know exactly where you stand with regard to several
>segments of the JFK case....
Does it really matter where *someone else stands*???
It's only *YOUR* assertions that you should be capable of defending, not someone
else's... Everyone here will tell you that Robert is quite capable of defending
any assertion *he* makes.
>but your quote above sure seems to me to
>have a whole bunch of "Pot & Kettle" in it. Because what you just said
>is EXACTLY what CTers do every time LNers like myself ask for a
>reasonable, logical, and believable "alternate" (CT) scenario to
>replace the SBT (the shooting DID happen, after all...even in a CTer's
>orbs, I assume....so there MUST be an "alternate" version to the SBT).
>
>"...They never, ever speak of specifics. They can only make sweeping
>generalizations that they cannot support to save their lives."
Actually, this came up recently, and, as I recall, I provided *two* quite
detailed scenarios - but, as usual, the LNT'er crowd refuses to talk
specifics...
Snip snip... snip snip... snip snip...
>Yep...that Robert comment above sure describes the anti-SBTers, that's
>for sure.
And yet, it never seems to be the "anti-SBT'ers" that snip and run. Wonder why?
>But, Bob, if you think you're going to convince me of conspiracy JUST
>using the photos and films....you've got an uphill battle.
I suspect that Robert knows quite well that he'll never "convince" you. He has
the same plan in mind that we all do... letting the world see that *you* can't
defend your own statements.
Of course, I'm generalizing... I'm sure Robert wouldn't put it quite that way...
>I've seen
>all the photos and films too....and I find nothing "pro-conspiracy"
>about them....at all. And that includes the grainy-as-all-get-out
>Moorman photo too....plus the Z-Film, which supports LNism much more
>than conspiracy, IMO.
>
>Attempting to dissect Clint Hill's head angle at a precise Z-Frame
>number...or trying to measure with skilled precision Jean Hill's "head
>snap" to the left vs. the right (or whichever way you say it looks
>kinda fishy to you), or trying to show that Nellie and Jackie are
>"ducking", when they both are obviously just leaning over to aid their
>stricken spouses....is all, IMO, a futile effort. And especially futile
>when compared to the REST OF THE PHYSICAL & CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE in
>the case that's telling us "Oswald's The One".
>
>Do you see "people" on the 6th Floor in the Bronson and Hughes films,
>Bob (like Mr. Groden does)?
>
>Do you see conspirators in various still photos taken by Skaggs, Bond,
>Willis, et al?
>
>I don't mean to put words (and theories) in your mouth, Bob. I'm just
>curious.
David VP
Of course, as Bud has rightly pointed out to you a thousand times, your
silly "90%" figure is way overstated....it's probably closer to 70%-80%
believing in conspiracy today. But keep swelling the numbers if you
must (and you must).
But...yes, those believing in a conspiracy (regardless of percentile)
are not showing a "reasonable" mindset IMO. But it's only because of
the fact that probably about 85% of the 70%-80% (my rough figure, not
your inflated one) have never even picked up one single book on the JFK
case, and have never read the WR, and have never looked at the autopsy
report, and have never looked at any of the witness testimony
surrounding the case.
They've been totally influenced by popular opinion (a whole bunch of
that being Oliver Stone's film all by itself). As V.B. will no doubt
point up in his book...it's the "In The Air" syndrome that has
permeated the landscape since practically Day 1 (or Day 3, when Ruby's
shooting of Oswald HAD to make every logical-thinking American shout
"It's gotta be a rub-out and a conspiracy"). Hell, I'd have thought the
very same thing at that time too...if I'd been older than my
then-current age of less than 2.
So, yes, the vast majority of conspiracy-believing people re. this case
are being "unreasonable", IMO. Which is where Vince comes to the plate,
with hundreds upon hundreds of pages devoted to debunking those very
theories that have that conspiracy-swallowing pct. of Americans so
high.
>>> "The improbabilities that LNT'ers are forced to swallow on a daily basis boggles the mind." <<<
Pot...Kettle...once more...as usual...
The LN version of events is "improbable" in Ben's orbs .... and yet a
vast, wide-sweeping conspiracy involving AT LEAST three gunmen (gotta
be at least three if you don't want to believe in the SBT), and yet
just ONE lone "Patsy" in the Depository, plus tons of
"magically-disappearing evidence", plus gobs of crooked, lying
witnesses and members of Officialdom, is (somehow) LESS "improbable"
than just thinking that a sicko with his own rifle went to work one day
and shot three times from a window he had easy access to and succeeded
in killing a man riding slowly by in an open-top car just beneath the
building (which, of course, is the scenario every scrap of ballistics
evidence supports).
Who's being "unreasonable" now?
David VP
Just because we're on the same (logical) LN "side" doesn't mean that
Bud and I have to agree on every last thing re. the case....or in this
instance, agree about the impact Mr. Bugliosi's "Final Verdict" will
ultimately have on CTers.
But one thing I forgot to point out re. VB's Simpson book -- the
"impact" of that book I imagine wasn't as measurable simply due to the
fact that Vince didn't need to CHANGE a whole bunch of people's minds
and basic attitudes towards Simpson's obvious guilt in that case. I'd
say about 80% or so of Americans already KNEW that Simpson was guilty
of two murders in 1994 and held that "Guilty" opinion in their minds
even after the Not Guilty verdict was rendered. Vince just explained
the "5 Reasons O.J. Got Away With Murder" (the subtitle of his book
"Outrage" in fact).
Vince put the O.J. trial in context from his unique perspective as a
former prosecutor and author all in one. And it worked (for me anyway).
He pointed out many things that I had never known re. the "why didn't
they do this or that?" at the trial.
The book served not as a "Mind Changer" (because a huge majority of
Americans already were on VB's side on that verdict). The O.J. book,
instead, served as (as the subtitle suggests) a detailed explanation as
to why Simpson got away with murder (and to show how VB could have put
the bastard away for life...and I truly think he would have after
listening to his "mock summation" to the "jury" in his "video sequel"
to the book).
David VP
Yeah....you're prob'ly right. And you know why, don't ya? As Bud has
been pointing out for quite some time....you're a kook. And kooks
rarely bring up anything except pure guesswork and unsupportable junk
re. this case. E.G.: A whole bullet is still inside JFK's body as we
speak. Does a reasonable person, LNer or otherwise, really NEED to
respond to an unsupportable hunk of speculation like that? A theory
that is directly DEBUNKED by the hard, available evidence in the
case...the X-rays. Not to mention by the doctors who said NO BULLETS
WERE FOUND IN THE BODY. End of speculation.
But that official explanation ain't NEARLY good enough for people like
Ben. He NEEDS a whole bullet left inside JFK (or TWO of them even, if
he's to have a chance at debunking the SBT), so by God, there's gonna
BE a bullet left in his body.
David VP
I'm not familiar at all with Josiah Thompson's specific "shooting
scenario"....but with regard to the other "quite detailed scenario" you
mentioned (Mr. Groden's 8-to-10-Shot, 4-to-5-Gunmen theory in TKOAP,
with ZERO of the shots likely coming from the Oswald window)...and two
separate hits on JBC, resulting, of course, in FOUR "disappearing"
bullets at Parkland.....
....Well, need anything more be said at all. That outline says it all.
Mr. Groden is nuts if he truly believes such crap. Even Ollie Stone
didn't buy that tripe. (Oliver preferred his own tripe instead.)
Yeah, Ben, citing Bob Groden's TKOAP "No shots from the ONLY known,
verified source of gunfire" theory is a real dandy. If that's the best
you can provide to debunk the SBT (sans my knowing of Thompson's theory
in "Six Seconds"), the SBT is home free.
Ben Holmes
Todd W. Vaughan
Afraid to debate you?
What do you think I'm doing with you here?
"Brain dead" comes to mind.
Todd
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Of course, as Bud has rightly pointed out to you a thousand times, your
>silly "90%" figure is way overstated....
Actually, no. Bud is too silly to bother to go look at the polling numbers. My
figure is accurate, and if you had the balls to do the research, you'd know it
was.
>it's probably closer to 70%-80%
>believing in conspiracy today. But keep swelling the numbers if you
>must (and you must).
The exact figure has been rising over the years, and it's something that you
can't handle.
There has *NEVER* been a majority of the American people that have believed the
WC fantasy - according to *EVERY* legitimate poll ever conducted.
The government and media *failed* in their quest to cover this murder up. And
so have you.
>But...yes, those believing in a conspiracy (regardless of percentile)
>are not showing a "reasonable" mindset IMO.
Yep... only a nutcase like you could believe such a thing.
>But it's only because of
>the fact that probably about 85% of the 70%-80% (my rough figure, not
>your inflated one)
SUPPORT IT, YOU COWARD!!! Produce a *RECENT* poll that puts the numbers closer
to your figure than mine.
You won't, of course... gutless coward.
>have never even picked up one single book on the JFK
>case, and have never read the WR, and have never looked at the autopsy
>report, and have never looked at any of the witness testimony
>surrounding the case.
Which means that *despite* the media, they *still* disbelieve the WCR. What a
*damning* scenario!!
>They've been totally influenced by popular opinion
How silly!
Both the media and the educational system has been pounding the LNT'er theme for
many years. It's only been the most recent few years where there's been *any*
media discussion or showing of the CT'er viewpoint.
But facts don't faze you, do they?
>(a whole bunch of
>that being Oliver Stone's film all by itself). As V.B. will no doubt
>point up in his book...it's the "In The Air" syndrome that has
>permeated the landscape since practically Day 1 (or Day 3, when Ruby's
>shooting of Oswald HAD to make every logical-thinking American shout
>"It's gotta be a rub-out and a conspiracy"). Hell, I'd have thought the
>very same thing at that time too...if I'd been older than my
>then-current age of less than 2.
A silly suggestion...
>So, yes, the vast majority of conspiracy-believing people re. this case
>are being "unreasonable", IMO.
Of course you have to think that... the alternative, that *you* are the oddball
out, isn't very palatable.
>Which is where Vince comes to the plate,
>with hundreds upon hundreds of pages devoted to debunking those very
>theories that have that conspiracy-swallowing pct. of Americans so
>high.
Isn't it sad when the best you can do is refer to a book no-one other than the
author has seen?
>> The improbabilities that LNT'ers are forced to swallow on a daily basis
>> boggles the mind.
>
>
>Pot...Kettle...once more...as usual...
Feel free to illustrate how believing what the evidence shows is so
'improbable'...
>The LN version of events is "improbable" in Ben's orbs .... and yet a
>vast, wide-sweeping conspiracy involving AT LEAST three gunmen (gotta
>be at least three if you don't want to believe in the SBT),
Nope... two could have done it. The hard evidence is for two. I just believe
that the trajectories show three.
>and yet
>just ONE lone "Patsy" in the Depository, plus tons of
>"magically-disappearing evidence",
Yep... with photos, even...
>plus gobs of crooked, lying
>witnesses and members of Officialdom, is (somehow) LESS "improbable"
>than just thinking that a sicko with his own rifle went to work one day
>and shot three times from a window he had easy access to and succeeded
>in killing a man riding slowly by in an open-top car just beneath the
>building (which, of course, is the scenario every scrap of ballistics
>evidence supports).
Untrue, of course...
The ballistics simply *don't* support your position. This is why the WC was
forced to fire their ballistics expert, and find another one who was willing to
say what they wanted to hear.
>Who's being "unreasonable" now?
Oh, I prefer to let the lurkers decide...
Todd W. Vaughan
>Then, it should be a "slam-dunk" to educate the people in my chat room toddy? <
Yeah, and it would be a slam dunk to debate a four year old about the
case, but you won't see me doing it.
Todd
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> What good is any of this? Without even bothering to go look - I know if you
>> posted it here, and I took the time to rip it apart by citing the evidence,
>> you wouldn't defend it."
>
>
>Yeah....you're prob'ly right.
No, I'm DEMONSTRABLY right... since time after time, you've done exactly this.
Snip, duck, and run.
>And you know why, don't ya? As Bud has
>been pointing out for quite some time....you're a kook.
A convenient excuse for your failure to defend your own words, isn't it?
>And kooks
>rarely bring up anything except pure guesswork and unsupportable junk
Nah, I prefer citations...
>re. this case. E.G.: A whole bullet is still inside JFK's body as we
>speak. Does a reasonable person, LNer or otherwise, really NEED to
>respond to an unsupportable hunk of speculation like that?
You mean the quote I gave, from the HSCA, of the testimony/discussion of this
exact topic?
Is *that* the "pure guesswork and unsupportable junk" you're referring to?
Makes you a gutless coward and liar, doesn't it?
>A theory
>that is directly DEBUNKED by the hard, available evidence in the
>case...the X-rays.
LOL!!! It's the *X-rays* they were looking at! It's the X-rays that show this
chunk of metal!
>Not to mention by the doctors who said NO BULLETS
>WERE FOUND IN THE BODY. End of speculation.
And yet, you simply can't explain the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
X-ray, can you? You've ran screaming away each time I've mentioned it.
>But that official explanation ain't NEARLY good enough for people like
>Ben. He NEEDS a whole bullet left inside JFK (or TWO of them even, if
>he's to have a chance at debunking the SBT),
Nope... just one. The bullet that hit the back didn't go in very far.
>so by God, there's gonna
>BE a bullet left in his body.
Yep... you merely have to deny the X-rays, deny the testimony of the
radiologist, and click your heels three times...
How cowardly of you...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> I provided *two* quite detailed scenarios - but, as usual, the LNT'er crowd
>> refuses to talk specifics.
>
>I'm not familiar at all with Josiah Thompson's specific "shooting
>scenario"....
Who cares?
>but with regard to the other "quite detailed scenario" you
>mentioned (Mr. Groden's 8-to-10-Shot, 4-to-5-Gunmen theory in TKOAP,
>with ZERO of the shots likely coming from the Oswald window)...and two
>separate hits on JBC, resulting, of course, in FOUR "disappearing"
>bullets at Parkland.....
>
>....Well, need anything more be said at all. That outline says it all.
>Mr. Groden is nuts if he truly believes such crap. Even Ollie Stone
>didn't buy that tripe. (Oliver preferred his own tripe instead.)
>
>Yeah, Ben, citing Bob Groden's TKOAP "No shots from the ONLY known,
>verified source of gunfire" theory is a real dandy. If that's the best
>you can provide to debunk the SBT (sans my knowing of Thompson's theory
>in "Six Seconds"), the SBT is home free.
The SBT was never "home free"... close to half of the Warren Commission
commissioners never believed it. If you can't even convince the Warren
Commission, who ya gonna call?
tomnln
Interest"
that You/Yours Refuse to address???
Seeing that you answer FOR VB, can I expect to see a citation in his book to
that effect??
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144248690.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Dissention in the Ranks.
Attacking each other. (I Love it)
Didja ever notice that CT's have Varying opinions?
Didja ever notice ALL AFF's "accept every word" of the WCR???
You people are "Cultists".
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144248690.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:e1100...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <1144249792.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David
> VP
> says...
>>
>>> I provided *two* quite detailed scenarios - but, as usual, the LNT'er
>>> crowd
>>> refuses to talk specifics.
>>
>>I'm not familiar at all with Josiah Thompson's specific "shooting
>>scenario"....
>
> Who cares?
>
>
>>but with regard to the other "quite detailed scenario" you
>>mentioned (Mr. Groden's 8-to-10-Shot, 4-to-5-Gunmen theory in TKOAP,
>>with ZERO of the shots likely coming from the Oswald window)...and two
>>separate hits on JBC, resulting, of course, in FOUR "disappearing"
>>bullets at Parkland.....
>>
>>....Well, need anything more be said at all. That outline says it all.
>>Mr. Groden is nuts if he truly believes such crap. Even Ollie Stone
>>didn't buy that tripe. (Oliver preferred his own tripe instead.)
>>
>>Yeah, Ben, citing Bob Groden's TKOAP "No shots from the ONLY known,
>>verified source of gunfire" theory is a real dandy. If that's the best
>>you can provide to debunk the SBT (sans my knowing of Thompson's theory
>>in "Six Seconds"), the SBT is home free.
=======================================================================
> The SBT was never "home free"... close to half of the Warren Commission
> commissioners never believed it. If you can't even convince the Warren
> Commission, who ya gonna call?
ARRB Report, footnote 17.
LBJ/RFK/4 members of the WC did NOT believe the WCR.
======================================================================
David VP
As VB is wont to say with force .... WHERE DO YOU *BUY* GUTS LIKE
THIS??
How can Ben stand it...hauling around 'nads the size of a house. Must
be painful.
DVP WROTE:
"The LN version of events is "improbable" in Ben's orbs .... and yet a
vast, wide-sweeping conspiracy involving AT LEAST three gunmen (gotta
be at least three if you don't want to believe in the SBT)."
A GOOFY CTer WITH BALLS THE SIZE OF WORLD GLOBES WROTE:
"Nope... two could have done it."
Nope. No chance. No how. Given the too-tight a timeline per the
Z-Film....if you don't have the SBT, you MUST have THREE separate
gunmen firing away to replace the SBT. Two ain't gonna cut it...unless
one has a machine gun of some ilk.
Keep dreamin', though. It'll make you happy till "Final Verdict"
arrives.
tomnln
What comes to mind to me is that You AVOID the Baker Lies Under Oath.
What comes to mind to me is that you AVOID the Walker Bullet SWITCH.
What comes to mind to me is that you AVOID Owasld with Anti-Castro Cubans at
Harlandale address.
What comes to mind to me is that in order to Support the WC "Conclusions"
you MUST condemn.....
DPD
Parkland Dr's
Parklnad Technicians
Bethesda Technicians
Secret Service
FBI
CIA
Print Media
Electronic Media
U S Senate
U S House of Representatives
WC Members
WC Staff
Church Committee Members
Church Committee Staff
HSCA Members
HSCA Staff.
You/Yours are "Anti-American".
You know darn well we can NOT post Exhibits of Evidence here.
THAT's why this is a "Safe Haven" for you.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144252795.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
You know darn well we can NOT post Exhibits of Evidence here.
THAT's why this is a "Safe Haven" for you.
We can BOTH do that in my Live Audio Chat Room.
We could even discuss the 4 Different accounts of Officer Baker about his
lunchroom encounter withn Oswald.
====================================================================
tomnln
todd;
Post the WCR's Exhibit of the Walker Bullet here on this Forum?
(can't be done can it?) THAT is your Refuge. THAt is How
you get away with You're Lying!
We CAN do it in my Chat Room!
THAT's Why you will NOT come there. (it's called "Cowardice")
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144260114.6...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
David VP
that effect?"
Only if I can find ONE conspiracy theorist who can put on the table a
semi-believable CT scenario that blows away the WC/SBT/LN/LHO version.
I'm still searching. Wanna help me gain that citation by offering up a
non-laughable CT version of 11/22 events?*
* = And if you can avoid utilizing the following words in your theory,
it'd be nice (just for a change-of-pace anyway): "planted", "coerced",
"manipulated", "faked", "imposter", "umbrella", "sewer", "back and to
the left", "Groden", "Garrison", "Ferrie", "Marrs", "Fetzer", "Z-Film
Hoax", and "bald-faced liar".
Any takers?
Todd W. Vaughan
>Because a FOUR (4) year old could Beat the SNOT outta you on this subject.<
It's statements like this that show how idiotic you are.
>Post the WCR's Exhibit of the Walker Bullet here on this Forum?
>(can't be done can it?) THAT is your Refuge. THAt is How
>you get away with You're Lying!
>We CAN do it in my Chat Room!
>THAT's Why you will NOT come there. (it's called "Cowardice")
Hey, Captain Geritol, I have the 26 volumes.
And you know that.
I don't need your silly chat room to see a WCR exhibit.
Try and keep up with the real world.
Todd
Todd
David VP
Nor the physical 26 volumes even. Every WC exhibit and all the witness
testimony are available online at a moment's notice.
Surely, Tom-boy realizes that....
Surely????
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"Seeing that you answer FOR VB, can I expect to see a citation in his book to
>that effect?"
>
>Only if I can find ONE conspiracy theorist who can put on the table a
>semi-believable CT scenario that blows away the WC/SBT/LN/LHO version.
Believable by *who*? Up to 90% of America *ALREADY* believes that there was a
conspiracy...
So presumably, you've decided that *you* are the one who decides
"believability"...
Too bad you're a minority...
>I'm still searching. Wanna help me gain that citation by offering up a
>non-laughable CT version of 11/22 events?*
>
>* = And if you can avoid utilizing the following words in your theory,
>it'd be nice (just for a change-of-pace anyway): "planted", "coerced",
>"manipulated", "faked", "imposter", "umbrella", "sewer", "back and to
>the left", "Groden", "Garrison", "Ferrie", "Marrs", "Fetzer", "Z-Film
>Hoax", and "bald-faced liar".
>
>Any takers?
Planted: Actually, swapped would be a better term to use. "Planted" is the
strawman that LNT'ers always prefer.
Coerced: Such as the coerced statements that the FBI was collecting? Talk to
Toddy - he's an expert in this field.
Manipulated: Just a variation on "planted". Or possibly you're referring to the
CIA liason to the HSCA, and his actions...
Faked: Such as the BOH photo, which is in contradiction to virtually *all* of
the eyewitness testimony *AND* the autopsy report? Or the 6.5mm virtually round
object in the AP X-ray? That sort of "faked"?
Imposter: Tony comes to mind... there are others who proclaim themselves to be
what they are clearly not. But presumably, you mean in Dealey Plaza? Perhaps
you're referring to the known Secret Service imposter on the Grassy Knoll.
Umbrella: Yep... there was indeed an umbrella in Dealey Plaza that day...
Sewer: Yep... the sewer existed as well.
Back and to the Left: Indisputable. Simply a fact.
Groden: CT author...
Garrison: The only prosecutor to attempt a prosecution in this case - was so
feared by the government that they actively attempted to federally subvert a
state process. Much of what he asserted has years later proven correct.
Ferrie: Indisputably knew LHO, and many other 'characters' in this case.
Marrs: Yet another CT author.
Fetzer: Yet another CT author.
Z-Film Hoax: Something LNT'ers can't explain or defend...
Bald-Faced Liar: What LNT'ers typically are... with few exceptions. (and no,
you're not one of them.)
--
David VP
As the saying goes....never underestimate the stupidity of the masses.
I wonder if you were to "poll" America on the following question, what
do you think the results would be? ......
JFK POLL -- Do you, my fellow Americans, think that Robert J. Groden's
8-to-10-Shot theory put forth in his 1993 publication "The Killing Of A
President" is a TRULY BELIEVABLE AND REASONABLY-ACCEPTABLE VERSION of
the events that transpired in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on the 22nd day of
November in the year 1963 AD?
Yes -- ______
No -- ______
Think that'd result in "90%" in the Yes column?
David VP
Thanks, Ben.
I'll try and get this incredibly-detailed "shooting scenario" of yours
to VB right away.
But, I gotta tell ya, I don't think you helped me achieve my goal here.
Maybe you'd better try again.
You see, the basic idea was to NOT to have to use the above worn-out
terms/words within your own CT scenario. Hard to work within the
ACTUAL, verified evidence isn't it?
You've got it backwards....no surprise there, however.
Bud
> In article <1144247754.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> "Of course, this means that as much as 90% of America is "unreasonable"."
> >
> >
> >Of course, as Bud has rightly pointed out to you a thousand times, your
> >silly "90%" figure is way overstated....
>
> Actually, no. Bud is too silly to bother to go look at the polling numbers.
<snicker> Bud has offered many polls refuting Ben`s lies about the
polls. I`ve given Harris, Gallup, FoxNews, ABC, CBS poll figures, and
they all refute Ben`s silly assertions about 90% of the American people
thinking their was a conspiracy in this case. Hasn`t stopped Ben from
repeating this lie over and over. Thats ok, I don`t mind exposing Ben
as a lying blowhard one more time.
> My
> figure is accurate, and if you had the balls to do the research, you'd know it
> was.
There is nothing to reasearch, no poll has findings for conspiracy
as high as you are claiming. Most hover around 75%, like DVP was
saying.
>
> >it's probably closer to 70%-80%
> >believing in conspiracy today. But keep swelling the numbers if you
> >must (and you must).
>
>
> The exact figure has been rising over the years, and it's something that you
> can't handle.
I see Ben has reworded this lie, athough he still hasn`t retracted
his original version of it, where he claims belief in conspiracy has
been going up *yearly*. For starters, these polls are usually conducted
for the anniversaries of the assassination, when interest is raised,
they aren`t generally conducted yearly. But, even this latest
incarnation of Ben`s claim is false, the truth is that the numbers
fluctuate, they go up and down, as demonstrated in these Gallup
polls...
Year poll conducted One man Others involved
No opinion
11-03 19%
75% 6%
3-01 13%
81% 6%
11-93 15%
75% 10%
You can see the numbers for "others involved" remained at 75% after a
decade, while the belief in "one man" gained some ground.
Heres an 2003 poll taken for FoxNews by Opinion Dynamics...
Individual 25%
Conspiracy 66%
Not sure 9%
A May 1998 CBS poll...
One man, Oswald 10%
Others involved 74%
Don`t know, no answer 16%
> There has *NEVER* been a majority of the American people that have believed the
> WC fantasy - according to *EVERY* legitimate poll ever conducted.
Maybe so. But a survey of over 1,000 people taken a week after the
assassination found "72% per cent were "pretty much convinced" that
Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin", while " 28 per cent had some doubt
about his guilt." Compare that to a poll conducted for the 40th
anniversary of the assassination by ABC, which asked...
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy
assasination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to
Oswald, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at
all?"
Only Oswald 32%
Another Gunman 51%
Oswald not involved 7%
No opinion 10%
So, as can be seen from these figures, 83% of the people think
Oswald was shooting at that limo. Now, by show of hands, how many kooks
here think Oswald was a shooter? Ben tries to portray his position as
being acepted by the general public, but in reality, only 7% agree with
his assesment that Oz wasn`t a shooter. He is not representative of the
beliefs of the American people on this subject, the American people
largely believe Oz to be a gunman in the assassination.
> The government and media *failed* in their quest to cover this murder up. And
> so have you.
Kooks have failed to convict any conspirators. I know why.
> >But...yes, those believing in a conspiracy (regardless of percentile)
> >are not showing a "reasonable" mindset IMO.
>
> Yep... only a nutcase like you could believe such a thing.
<snicker> Only a nutcase like Ben would think the opinions of people
who are largely ignorant of the case are significant.
> >But it's only because of
> >the fact that probably about 85% of the 70%-80% (my rough figure, not
> >your inflated one)
>
>
> SUPPORT IT, YOU COWARD!!! Produce a *RECENT* poll that puts the numbers closer
> to your figure than mine.
I wonder what Ben the Kook considers a "recent" poll. You have to be
careful when Ben uses words like this. Like I said, for the most part,
the polls on this subject are conducted for the anniversaries of the
crime. And, of course, Ben hasn`t produced a poll supporting his 90%
figure, so he is the only real coward. He keeps throwing out a number
he hasn`t supported, despite my repeated requests for him to do so.
> You won't, of course... gutless coward.
<snicker> I totally destroyed Ben on this issue, so bad that he was
reduced to non-responsive responses to the points and polls I was
providing. The post was called "Bud caught lying again -- polls" or
something like that, for those interested. I must have produced a dozen
polls, yet Ben tells the bald-faced lie in this post that "Bud is too
silly to bother to go look at the polling numbers". Anyone interested
in seeing Ben dance can read it and see. Anyone interested in seeing a
bunch of polls for the Kennedy asassination can go to Polling Opinion
com. They have a number of polls from various agencies, none showing
figures nearly as high as the 90% for conspiracy Ben keeps lying about.
> >have never even picked up one single book on the JFK
> >case, and have never read the WR, and have never looked at the autopsy
> >report, and have never looked at any of the witness testimony
> >surrounding the case.
>
>
> Which means that *despite* the media, they *still* disbelieve the WCR. What a
> *damning* scenario!!
>
>
> >They've been totally influenced by popular opinion
>
>
> How silly!
Is it? How did they get the idea that the so-called magic bullet
zig-zagged in flight? Surely they didn`t all read the same conspiracy
book.
> Both the media and the educational system has been pounding the LNT'er theme for
> many years.
"Pounding"? It`s rarely mentioned either source.
> It's only been the most recent few years where there's been *any*
> media discussion or showing of the CT'er viewpoint.
>
> But facts don't faze you, do they?
How often has Ben removed these "facts" of meaningful context? Like
this poll, for instance. What weight can be given to poll results when
you don`t know if the respondents have any knowledge of the case?
> >(a whole bunch of
> >that being Oliver Stone's film all by itself). As V.B. will no doubt
> >point up in his book...it's the "In The Air" syndrome that has
> >permeated the landscape since practically Day 1 (or Day 3, when Ruby's
> >shooting of Oswald HAD to make every logical-thinking American shout
> >"It's gotta be a rub-out and a conspiracy"). Hell, I'd have thought the
> >very same thing at that time too...if I'd been older than my
> >then-current age of less than 2.
>
> A silly suggestion...
>
>
> >So, yes, the vast majority of conspiracy-believing people re. this case
> >are being "unreasonable", IMO.
>
> Of course you have to think that... the alternative, that *you* are the oddball
> out, isn't very palatable.
Ben and the other kooks are the oddballs that think Oz wasn`t a
shooter. Only 7% of the people believe that.
> >Which is where Vince comes to the plate,
> >with hundreds upon hundreds of pages devoted to debunking those very
> >theories that have that conspiracy-swallowing pct. of Americans so
> >high.
>
>
> Isn't it sad when the best you can do is refer to a book no-one other than the
> author has seen?
You keep refering to a poll that nobody but you has ever seen. In
fact, you keep refering to that Oak Ridge rifle testing that even you
have never seen.
> >> The improbabilities that LNT'ers are forced to swallow on a daily basis
> >> boggles the mind.
> >
> >
> >Pot...Kettle...once more...as usual...
>
>
> Feel free to illustrate how believing what the evidence shows is so
> 'improbable'...
Hundreds, maybe thousands of conspirators involved in this
conspiracy the kooks imagine, and none have come forward. What are the
chances of that?
> >The LN version of events is "improbable" in Ben's orbs .... and yet a
> >vast, wide-sweeping conspiracy involving AT LEAST three gunmen (gotta
> >be at least three if you don't want to believe in the SBT),
>
>
> Nope... two could have done it. The hard evidence is for two. I just believe
> that the trajectories show three.
Ben will believe a shooter on the roof of the TSBD, but he can`t
bring himself to believe there was one on the 6th floor of the TSBD
(you know, where a gunman was seen, shells and a rifle found).
> >and yet
> >just ONE lone "Patsy" in the Depository, plus tons of
> >"magically-disappearing evidence",
>
> Yep... with photos, even...
Is Ben hinting that the Minolta camera can be seen in the evidence
photos?
> >plus gobs of crooked, lying
> >witnesses and members of Officialdom, is (somehow) LESS "improbable"
> >than just thinking that a sicko with his own rifle went to work one day
> >and shot three times from a window he had easy access to and succeeded
> >in killing a man riding slowly by in an open-top car just beneath the
> >building (which, of course, is the scenario every scrap of ballistics
> >evidence supports).
>
>
> Untrue, of course...
>
> The ballistics simply *don't* support your position. This is why the WC was
> forced to fire their ballistics expert, and find another one who was willing to
> say what they wanted to hear.
Have you found a ballistics expert to back up your silly ideas about
the chamber marks?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> "Believable by who? Up to 90% {WILDLY-OVERSTATED %, AS PER THE BEN NORM}
>> of America ALREADY believes that there was a conspiracy."
Too gutless to cite... I've already done so a number of times.
Why is this, Coward?
Why can't you cite a recent poll giving the numbers who believe in a conspiracy
in the killing of JFK?
"Facts to LNT'ers are like Kryptonite to Superman".
>As the saying goes....never underestimate the stupidity of the masses.
Yep... LNT'ers *must* figure everyone else is stupid. The alternative isn't
worth thinking about...
>I wonder if you were to "poll" America on the following question, what
>do you think the results would be? ......
Since you are unwilling to provide any current polling citations, why would you
ask for yet *another* poll?
>JFK POLL -- Do you, my fellow Americans, think that Robert J. Groden's
>8-to-10-Shot theory put forth in his 1993 publication "The Killing Of A
>President" is a TRULY BELIEVABLE AND REASONABLY-ACCEPTABLE VERSION of
>the events that transpired in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on the 22nd day of
>November in the year 1963 AD?
>
>Yes -- ______
>No -- ______
>
>Think that'd result in "90%" in the Yes column?
Why do you bother to lie, Davy-boy? If you *haven't* looked at my previous
cites, or searched yourself for the polling data, then you're lying about me
"over-stating" the numbers.
If you *have* looked it up, then you *KNOW* that you're lying about me
"over-stating" the numbers.
Ben Holmes
Snip snip... snip snip... snip snip...
In article <1144277164.3...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
Hard to answer ACTUAL, verified evidence isn't it? No, wait, why am I asking
you... YOU NEVER DO!
>You've got it backwards....no surprise there, however.
Gutless, aren't you?
David VP
Bud just did (above)....and it was fabulous (in a Ben-bashing sort of
fashion)....and it also exhibited my ability to toss out a pure guess
re. the % of conspiracy believers and get it pretty damn close too.
The 7% figure is beautiful too. Thanks, Bud. I admire you more with
each passing common-sense post you make.
>> "Why do you bother to lie, Davy-boy? If you *haven't* looked at my previous cites, or searched yourself for the polling data, then you're lying about me "over-stating" the numbers."
After seeing the numbers Bud provided in a prior post above, would you
like to retract your last silly-sounding comments here?
>> "Facts to LNT'ers are like Kryptonite to Superman."
And getting a rabid CTer/kook to face the FACT that Lee Harvey Oswald
was NOT the innocent, halo-encased saint that many CTers seem to want
to make this bastard out to be is like pulling teeth from a charging
bull. ("Bull" seems a fitting analogy to use here when talking about CT
inadequacies.) ;)
David VP
I want to thank Bud (again) for the info re. polling data on the
Internet. I had never bothered to even search for that type of info
online (which WAS kinda silly of me, I'll admit, since everything from
soup to {conspiracy} nuts are available at the click of a mouse these
days).
The site I found with all the numbers Bud copied to his last post isn't
PollingOpinions however....it's called www.pollingreport.com .
The JFK area is here.......
http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
And it's also interesting to note just how FEW people actually buy into
the "Cuban" or "Soviet" connections to any JFK plot. As of November
2003, just 15% of those asked thought the Cubans were "involved" in any
plot to kill JFK; and the same low figure (15%) believed the Soviets
were involved.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> Why can't you cite a recent poll giving the numbers who believe in a
>> conspiracy in the killing of JFK?"
>
>Bud just did (above)....
I doubt it. I stopped reading Bud's posts months ago - and he already *knows*
the cites - he was provided them when *he* tried the same stupid argument that
you're doing here.
>and it was fabulous (in a Ben-bashing sort of
>fashion)....and it also exhibited my ability to toss out a pure guess
>re. the % of conspiracy believers and get it pretty damn close too.
>
>The 7% figure is beautiful too. Thanks, Bud. I admire you more with
>each passing common-sense post you make.
Strangely enough, I *still* don't see a cite to any polls here. In the age of
Google and 'cut & paste', it can only mean that Davey-boy is a gutless coward
who *knows* he's lying on this topic.
How sad...
>> "Why do you bother to lie, Davy-boy? If you *haven't* looked at my
>> previous cites, or searched yourself for the polling data, then you're
>> lying about me "over-stating" the numbers."
>
>After seeing the numbers Bud provided in a prior post above, would you
>like to retract your last silly-sounding comments here?
Why would I retract the truth?
I've given cites, you've provided *NOTHING*. Gutless coward, aren't you?
>>> "Facts to LNT'ers are like Kryptonite to Superman."
>
>
>And getting a rabid CTer/kook to face the FACT that Lee Harvey Oswald
Polls... poll results... how many Americans believe that a conspiracy existed in
the murder of our President. Why bother to change the topic?
You're inability to provide a cite merely goes to show what a gutless coward you
are...
>was NOT the innocent, halo-encased saint that many CTers seem to want
>to make this bastard out to be is like pulling teeth from a charging
>bull. ("Bull" seems a fitting analogy to use here when talking about CT
>inadequacies.) ;)
LHO could very well be guilty... he may have even pulled a trigger that day...
but the evidence is against it.
But just like polls, you're too gutless a coward to debate real facts...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Follow-Up Re. Polls..........
>
>I want to thank Bud (again) for the info re. polling data on the
>Internet. I had never bothered to even search for that type of info
>online (which WAS kinda silly of me, I'll admit, since everything from
>soup to {conspiracy} nuts are available at the click of a mouse these
>days).
Actually, rather cowardly to accuse someone of "wildly-overstating" statistics
when it's so easy to go look at them...
But I *STILL* haven't seen a retraction from you. Lied, didn't you?
>The site I found with all the numbers Bud copied to his last post isn't
>PollingOpinions however....it's called www.pollingreport.com .
>
>The JFK area is here.......
>
>http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
>And it's also interesting to note just how FEW people actually buy into
>the "Cuban" or "Soviet" connections to any JFK plot. As of November
>2003, just 15% of those asked thought the Cubans were "involved" in any
>plot to kill JFK; and the same low figure (15%) believed the Soviets
>were involved.
Why bother getting into details when you still refuse to retract your assertion
that I was making up figures?
Gutless coward, aren't you?
Taking Bud's citations won't do you much good... I've not read them, but I know
that he pulled the same BS that you're pulling, and despite being provided the
poll that supports my statement, Bud is evidently *still* spouting lies about
the polling numbers...
How sad... such ignorance ...
Bud
David VP wrote:
> Follow-Up Re. Polls..........
>
> I want to thank Bud (again) for the info re. polling data on the
> Internet. I had never bothered to even search for that type of info
> online (which WAS kinda silly of me, I'll admit, since everything from
> soup to {conspiracy} nuts are available at the click of a mouse these
> days).
>
> The site I found with all the numbers Bud copied to his last post isn't
> PollingOpinions however....it's called www.pollingreport.com .
>
> The JFK area is here.......
>
> http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
Yah, thanks David, I was just coming to make that correction.
> And it's also interesting to note just how FEW people actually buy into
> the "Cuban" or "Soviet" connections to any JFK plot. As of November
> 2003, just 15% of those asked thought the Cubans were "involved" in any
> plot to kill JFK; and the same low figure (15%) believed the Soviets
> were involved.
I found some more interesting polls looking around. I found a `03
Zorgby International poll with a 22% finding of LHO committing the
crime, with 57% expressing a belief of 2 or more gunmen responsible.
Also, on FoxNews.com, I found a this polling data, which disputes Ben`s
claim that a belief in conspiracy has been going up yearly...
Act of one individual Larger conspiracy
Not sure
May `67 19% 66%
12%
Oct `75 20% 66%
14%
Mar `81 21% 67%
12%
Oct `03 25% 66%
15%
These figures indicate that it is the lone gunman viewpoint becoming
increasingly popular, not the conspiracy angle as Ben claims.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1144282000....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> Why can't you cite a recent poll giving the numbers who believe in a
> >> conspiracy in the killing of JFK?"
> >
> >Bud just did (above)....
>
> I doubt it. I stopped reading Bud's posts months ago - and he already *knows*
> the cites - he was provided them when *he* tried the same stupid argument that
> you're doing here.
<snicker> Can anyone still be under the impression that this is a
rational human being? Wasn`t Ben just claiming that I didn`t supply any
polls? Ben asks for recent polls, when they are provided, he acts as if
they aren`t. The guy is a real kook.
> >and it was fabulous (in a Ben-bashing sort of
> >fashion)....and it also exhibited my ability to toss out a pure guess
> >re. the % of conspiracy believers and get it pretty damn close too.
> >
> >The 7% figure is beautiful too. Thanks, Bud. I admire you more with
> >each passing common-sense post you make.
>
>
> Strangely enough, I *still* don't see a cite to any polls here. In the age of
> Google and 'cut & paste', it can only mean that Davey-boy is a gutless coward
> who *knows* he's lying on this topic.
>
> How sad...
>
>
> >> "Why do you bother to lie, Davy-boy? If you *haven't* looked at my
> >> previous cites, or searched yourself for the polling data, then you're
> >> lying about me "over-stating" the numbers."
> >
> >After seeing the numbers Bud provided in a prior post above, would you
> >like to retract your last silly-sounding comments here?
>
>
> Why would I retract the truth?
For lurkers benefit, here is the 'truth" of this whole controversy.
Ben has been throwing around a 90% figure for conspiracy belief for
some time now. After searching around and finding no poll results even
close to that number, I asked Ben where he got that number from. He
referred me to an article which mentioned that 10% of the people think
Oswald acted alone. The source the article was using was a 1998 ABC
poll, which found the following...
Did Oswald Act Alone? Yes 10% No 76%
So, naturally, I asked Ben where he sees 90% in this. His answer was
"If 10% believe that LHO acted alone-- THEN 90% BELIEVE *OTHER* THAN
OSWALD ACTED ALONE." (His emphasis). Anyone with half a brain (and
this does not include Tomnln) can see the fallacy of this. The poll
only records the opinions of 86% of the people, the others are not
expressed, but likely are "not sure", "no opinion", or even "who is
Oswald?" Yet Ben claims these as conspiracy believers to dishonestly
inflate the number of conspiracy believers by 14%. This dispute gives
valuable insight into what you are dealing with with Ben Holmes.
> I've given cites, you've provided *NOTHING*. Gutless coward, aren't you?
>
>
>
> >>> "Facts to LNT'ers are like Kryptonite to Superman."
> >
> >
> >And getting a rabid CTer/kook to face the FACT that Lee Harvey Oswald
>
>
> Polls... poll results... how many Americans believe that a conspiracy existed in
> the murder of our President. Why bother to change the topic?
I`ve looked at about a dozen or so polls, and the numbers I`ve seen
are as low as 57% for conspiracy, and as high as 81%, with most falling
in the mid-seventies. Not one as high as 90%,
> You're inability to provide a cite merely goes to show what a gutless coward you
> are...
>
>
> >was NOT the innocent, halo-encased saint that many CTers seem to want
> >to make this bastard out to be is like pulling teeth from a charging
> >bull. ("Bull" seems a fitting analogy to use here when talking about CT
> >inadequacies.) ;)
>
> LHO could very well be guilty... he may have even pulled a trigger that day...
Or even three.
David VP
Anybody know what this lunatic is babbling about now??
Retraction regarding WHAT? The fact that you were wrong? You're getting
more senile by the minute.
Why can't you provide a weblink to your provable "90%" figure...similar
to the one I've provided (with Bud's help and initially-posted data
from that link)? Or is it a big secret of some kind, with only certain
CTers privy to this data?
Once more, we're apparently residing in the topsy-turvy world of CT
kookatics.....a world where providing VISIBLE, READABLE PROOF such as
this......
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
......is considered a "lie". Similarly, the CT world is a nifty little
place in the middle of "Kooksville USA" someplace where a
double-murderer is considered totally innocent even though all the
evidence points right at him.
Don't you ever want to escape that nightmarish world, Ben? If not...why
not?
Did you even read that Kennedy Poll? Or do you just want to pretend it
was never linked right before your eyes, just as you pretend the 101
pieces of real evidence against Oswald don't exist?
Ben, go look up "Todd Teachout" at www.jfklancerforum.com -- you must
be his twin. He seemingly has no gray matter either.
David VP
Oopsie....the rest of the "Anyone Except Oswald" brigade ain't gonna
like your abandoning them like that! (Even if it was only said in
jest....which, of course, it actually was, since you returned to your
true ignorant form and followed up your remark with the ultra-stupid
"but the evidence is against it".)
How can any self-respecting CTer (of the rabid persuasion) possibly
look at themselves in the mirror ever again after admitting that sweet
Lee Harvey ever hurt a fly? (Even in jest.)
And you call yourself a conspiranoid?? You don't deserve such a title.
~rips the 18x22 Oswald poster from Ben's ceiling~
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1144283845.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >Follow-Up Re. Polls..........
> >
> >I want to thank Bud (again) for the info re. polling data on the
> >Internet. I had never bothered to even search for that type of info
> >online (which WAS kinda silly of me, I'll admit, since everything from
> >soup to {conspiracy} nuts are available at the click of a mouse these
> >days).
>
>
> Actually, rather cowardly to accuse someone of "wildly-overstating" statistics
> when it's so easy to go look at them...
>
> But I *STILL* haven't seen a retraction from you. Lied, didn't you?
For those following along at home, Ben challenged DVP to "Produce a
*RECENT* poll that puts the numbers closer to your poll than mine."
Anyone who bothers to use the URLs supplied by DVP will see that he did
just that, produced polls with figures much closer to the numbers DVP
was offering than Ben`s figure of 90%. Now, since DVP has shown Ben to
be wrong, and DVP`s figures to be more accurate, Ben requests a
retraction. Does anyone still believe this is a well man?
> >The site I found with all the numbers Bud copied to his last post isn't
> >PollingOpinions however....it's called www.pollingreport.com .
> >
> >The JFK area is here.......
> >
> >http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
> >
> >And it's also interesting to note just how FEW people actually buy into
> >the "Cuban" or "Soviet" connections to any JFK plot. As of November
> >2003, just 15% of those asked thought the Cubans were "involved" in any
> >plot to kill JFK; and the same low figure (15%) believed the Soviets
> >were involved.
>
> Why bother getting into details when you still refuse to retract your assertion
> that I was making up figures?
You are making up figures, and have never supplied a poll with a
finding of 90% for conspiracy. A lesser man would admit this and move
on, but not a true kook like Ben.
> Gutless coward, aren't you?
>
> Taking Bud's citations won't do you much good... I've not read them, but I know
> that he pulled the same BS that you're pulling,
Yah, I cited polls with much the same results as DVP is getting. I
pulled the same BS of producing polls with numbers much lower than 90%
for conspiracy, while Ben has never produced a poll with a 90% finding
for conspiracy. He can`t, because one doesn`t exist by a reputable
polling firm. If anyone is interested, this is the 1998 CBS poll that
Ben uses to derive his figure of 90% for conspiracy....
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/11/20/opinion/main23166.shtml
> and despite being provided the
> poll that supports my statement, Bud is evidently *still* spouting lies about
> the polling numbers...
Yah, I just provided the poll in question again. The poll that shows
76% of the people favoring conspiracy, not the 90% you insist on lying
about.
> How sad... such ignorance ...
Actually, this is great. A simple illustration of your dishonesty,
one that anyone following along can easily grasp.
Robert Harris
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1144282000....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>> >
>> >> Why can't you cite a recent poll giving the numbers who believe in a
>> >> conspiracy in the killing of JFK?"
>> >
>> >Bud just did (above)....
>>
>> I doubt it. I stopped reading Bud's posts months ago - and he already *knows*
>> the cites - he was provided them when *he* tried the same stupid argument that
>> you're doing here.
>
> <snicker> Can anyone still be under the impression that this is a
>rational human being? Wasn`t Ben just claiming that I didn`t supply any
>polls? Ben asks for recent polls, when they are provided, he acts as if
>they aren`t. The guy is a real kook.
What poll did you cite, Bud?
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
David VP
I have littered this thread with.
The moon MUST be full in Kooksville.
Robert Harris
Dave, are you sure you aren't actually, David Reitzes?
You both seem to operate at about the same intellectual level and it
makes sense that he would assign the same first name so that he
doesn't get caught like he did before:-)
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
EVERYTHING) is never "what it/he seems to be" -- hence, I MUST really
be "David Reitzes", only masquerading as this "other guy named Dave".
Check the moon, Bob. It's full....right? Gotta be.
Robert Harris
>Now Robert is gonna play dumb and pretend he can't find the links Bud &
>I have littered this thread with.
You babbling idiot.
I am not even arguing with him. I just wanted to look at the link, and
it is not in this particular thread.
How old are you David?
Are you actually, an adult???
Robert Harris
David VP
Yes, it certainly is (multiple times). And I even specifically
mentioned that Bud's (non-linkable) data matched the figures in the
link I provided.
Maybe a better pair of glasses might help. The pair you got back in '95
must be worn out.
Robert Harris
David, I tell you what I am going to do.
You are obviously here to troll, so I will never ever again return an
insult. If I reply at all, I will simply ask you an important question
about the case. In that way, perhaps you will eventually learn enough
about the case to carry on a decent conversation without having to
resort to pre-adolescent ranting.
You may reply to my questions as you see fit.
My first question to you, is in regard to the segment I recently
posted from Nellie's interview by Texas Monthly. Listening to her in
the interview, and based on her WC testimony, when do you think she
heard that second shot?
Please justify your conclusion with verbatim statements by Mrs.
Connally.
David VP
Nellie Connally's testimony to the WC, coupled with the Z-Film ......
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/8088.gif
......further enhance (greatly) the solidity of the SBT. ....
Mrs. CONNALLY. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the
right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President
as he had both hands at his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands
crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. ... Then very soon there was the second shot that
hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same
time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second
shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled
like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to
kill us all."
When Nellie says she first looked at JFK, he already had "both hands at
his neck". This means she saw JFK several frames AFTER we can SEE John
Connally being struck at Z224 on the Z-Film. And the "grimace",
"shoulder drop", and coat movement on JBC are all undeniable
involuntary signs of a bullet hitting Connally at Z224, as can be seen
with ease via the excellent toggling clip/gif linked above, provided by
Lancer's Bill Miller).
Therefore, when we re-assemble things re. this shooting timeline --
Nellie's words of first seeing JFK with his hands ALREADY at his neck
(which we know did not occur until several frames AFTER Z224), coupled
with filmed PROOF (IMO) of a Connally hit at precisely Z224....this
indicates that Nellie was simply wrong/mistaken about JFK being hit
first and JBC at a later time.
And when we factor in JBC's own testimony (which is, frankly, BETTER
EARwitness testimony than Nellie's due to the fact that John Connally
has the DOUBLE benefit in this case of being able to "time" his own
hit, which he can feel quite obviously, with his earwitness account of
HEARING the other shots that bracket the "hit" to his body) --- "the
first shot did not hit me; I had time to think; I had time to react
.... then I WAS hit" --- it then becomes crystal clear that Nellie's
"timeline" is not correct re. the first shot hitting JFK, with the
second shot hitting JBC.
Nellie simply did not see the involuntary stuff happening to her
husband that we can see via that Z-Film clip. And the post-224
Z-Frames, of course, provide additional proof that Nellie was wrong re.
her "Separate Shots" scenario .... e.g., Connally's open mouth at Z225,
just an instant after the bullet hits him (very similar to the
open-mouth "startle" exhibited by JFK at Z225 as well; although,
granted, due to the damn sign, we can never know if JFK had first
opened his mouth at Z225; wish we could find that out...for it would
provide more rock-solid proof of a bullet piercing both men just 1/18th
of a second before that frame) ....
Plus, on the post-224 frames, there is the very important Connally hat
flip, which is undeniably (to a reasonable person examining the film)
an involuntary reflex to his right wrist having just been struck by a
missile.
And ALL of this stuff proving a bullet has struck John Connally is
occurring BEFORE NELLIE CONNALLY HAS EVER EVEN LOOKED AT JFK "and saw
the President as he had both hands at his neck" (Nellie's words to WC).
Robert Harris
David, we already know she was mistaken in failing to realize that her
husband was hit at 223. My question you is, in which frame do you
think she heard the shot that she *thought* hit her husband?
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
David VP
Beats me. How are we supposed to be able to pinpoint this to the exact
Z-Frame (esp. since we'd be trying to pinpoint a total non-event)?
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "But I *STILL* haven't seen a retraction from you. Lied, didn't you?"
>
>
>Retraction regarding WHAT? The fact that you were wrong? You're getting
>more senile by the minute.
>
>Why can't you provide a weblink to your provable "90%" figure...
Actually, I already have... but here you go:
***********************************
UPn 11/16 1830 CBS poll: Americans believe CIA helped assassinate JFK
NEW YORK (UPI) - Nearly half of Americans believe the CIA was involved
in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and only 11 percent
believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he shot Kennedy, a poll
released Tuesday by CBS News shows.
CBS surveyed 1,117 people on their beliefs about who orchestrated the
shooting of Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.
Eighty-nine percent of those questioned said they do not think Oswald
acted alone in assassinating Kennedy.
Asked who they believe was involved, 13 percent of those surveyed said
the Soviet Union was behind the assassination. Twenty-two percent blamed
the Cubans. And 37 percent said the Mafia was responsible.
Forty-nine percent said the CIA was involved in murdering Kennedy. Four
out of five people surveyed said the government covered up the truth about
the assassination.
Although a sizable majority in all age groups believe an entity other
than Oswald was involved in a conspiracy to murder Kennedy, a pattern
based on generational differences emerged in the CBS poll.
Eighty-six percent of those surveyed who were 18 to 29 years old --
born after the assassination -- believe there was an official cover-up,
compared to 77 percent of those 45 to 64 years old.
Sixty-four percent of 18- to 29-year-olds said the CIA was involved,
compared to 42 percent of those 45 to 64 years old.
CBS pointed out there has always been skepticism that Oswald acted by
himself; a 1963 Gallup poll showed two-thirds believed others were
involved. But the news agency said its poll shows there are many
explanations plausible to Americans today.
The poll had a three percent margin of error in either direction.
***********************************
Now, gutless that you are, when do *YOU* plan to cite for any of your
statements?
Or retract your lie?
>similar
>to the one I've provided
Oh, BS! You've not provided anything... you've quoted someone else's cite - and
one that isn't complete. Bud knows full well about the cite above.
If he gave it to you, you deleted it, if he didn't give it to you, it's merely
one liar lying to another liar...
>(with Bud's help and initially-posted data
>from that link)? Or is it a big secret of some kind, with only certain
>CTers privy to this data?
>
>Once more, we're apparently residing in the topsy-turvy world of CT
>kookatics.....a world where providing VISIBLE, READABLE PROOF such as
>this......
>
>www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
>......is considered a "lie".
You see? You can't tell the truth, and you can't argue against the truth, so
you make up lies.
>Similarly, the CT world is a nifty little
>place in the middle of "Kooksville USA" someplace where a
>double-murderer is considered totally innocent even though all the
>evidence points right at him.
>
>Don't you ever want to escape that nightmarish world, Ben? If not...why
>not?
Why would I want to leave the truth for a world of lies, misrepresentations,
inability to cite, and gutless cowardice?
>Did you even read that Kennedy Poll? Are do you just want to pretend it
>was never linked right before your eyes, just as you pretend the 101
>pieces of real evidence against Oswald don't exist?
When you decide that honesty is a good character trait, you can retract your
comment about the CBS poll.
But I rather doubt if you have that much honesty left in you...
>Ben, go look up "Todd Teachout" at www.jfklancerforum.com -- you must
>be his twin. He seemingly has no gray matter either.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> LHO could very well be guilty... he may have even pulled a trigger that
>> day..."
>
>Oopsie....the rest of the "Anyone Except Oswald" brigade ain't gonna
>like your abandoning them like that! (Even if it was only said in
>jest....which, of course, it actually was, since you returned to your
>true ignorant form and followed up your remark with the ultra-stupid
>"but the evidence is against it".)
Merely referenced the truth. Something that you continually snip, and refuse to
debate. How cowardly!
>How can any self-respecting CTer (of the rabid persuasion) possibly
>look at themselves in the mirror ever again after admitting that sweet
>Lee Harvey ever hurt a fly? (Even in jest.)
Attempting to be the clown?
>And you call yourself a conspiranoid?? You don't deserve such a title.
>
>~rips the 18x22 Oswald poster from Ben's ceiling~
*this* is what passes for debate on the JFK assassination in the LNT'er world...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"I just wanted to look at the link, and it is not in this particular thread."
>
>Yes, it certainly is (multiple times). And I even specifically
>mentioned that Bud's (non-linkable) data matched the figures in the
>link I provided.
In times past, it *didn't*. I'd be absolutely amazed if he was sticking to the
truth nowadays.
>Maybe a better pair of glasses might help. The pair you got back in '95
>must be worn out.
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2006 20:00:01 -0700, "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In article <1144282000....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> >> says...
> >> >
> >> >> Why can't you cite a recent poll giving the numbers who believe in a
> >> >> conspiracy in the killing of JFK?"
> >> >
> >> >Bud just did (above)....
> >>
> >> I doubt it. I stopped reading Bud's posts months ago - and he already *knows*
> >> the cites - he was provided them when *he* tried the same stupid argument that
> >> you're doing here.
> >
> > <snicker> Can anyone still be under the impression that this is a
> >rational human being? Wasn`t Ben just claiming that I didn`t supply any
> >polls? Ben asks for recent polls, when they are provided, he acts as if
> >they aren`t. The guy is a real kook.
>
> What poll did you cite, Bud?
I produced data from various polls, Robert. If you are interested, I
provided more information in the post entitled "Bud Just Can`t Stop
Lying - Polls...". If you read that post, you`ll see we are only
travelling down roads we`ve been down before, with Ben repeating the
same lies, and ignoring any and all refutation.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1144297675.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >>>"I just wanted to look at the link, and it is not in this particular thread."
> >
> >Yes, it certainly is (multiple times). And I even specifically
> >mentioned that Bud's (non-linkable) data matched the figures in the
> >link I provided.
>
> In times past, it *didn't*.
<snicker> Now, Ben admis that I have posted poll data in the past.
In an earlier response here, he had this to say... "Bud is too silly to
look up the polling numbers." Perhaps he should choose one lie and
stick to it.
> I'd be absolutely amazed if he was sticking to the
> truth nowadays.
Ben will continue to lie and dance on this subject, and continue to
lie about this 90% figure, despite his inability to back it up. I
notice now he is refering to a completely different article than the
one he used in previous discussions to back up his lies. It doesn`t
matter, this new article doesn`t support a 90% figure either. In fact,
it doesn`t exist outside of message boards.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1144293140....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >>> "But I *STILL* haven't seen a retraction from you. Lied, didn't you?"
> >
> >Anybody know what this lunatic is babbling about now??
> >
> >Retraction regarding WHAT? The fact that you were wrong? You're getting
> >more senile by the minute.
> >
> >Why can't you provide a weblink to your provable "90%" figure...
>
> Actually, I already have... but here you go:
This is just a lie. In discussions with me, he referenced this
article to support his "90%" figure...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/20/national/main584668.shtml
Anyone checking will easily see that this article does not support
Ben`s "90%" figure. Here is that poll in a more detailed form...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/11/20/opinion/main23166.sthml
Anyone interested can check the post "Bud Just Can`t Stop Lying -
Polls..."., and see this is indeed the source Ben referenced. Now, Ben
indulges in a little misdirection, and offers a different source, one
even worse, one Marsh supplied in the same thread. The problem with
this article is it just doesn`t exist outside of the message board it
was posted on. Ask Ben or Marsh for a link to this article and see, or
go to CBSnews.com and look for this poll yourself.
> ***********************************
> UPn 11/16 1830 CBS poll: Americans believe CIA helped assassinate JFK
The first bit of information that should ring alarms is that the
date the poll was taken is not given (unless the poll was conducted in
1830). Every single poll you will look at contains this critical
information, yet here it isn`t. Any wonder why? If it was included, the
poll figures could be checked, and verified.
Ok, lets review this "article" as if it truly does exist. First off,
it isn`t a poll, it is an article that supposedly is using data from a
poll. Where is the CBS poll supposedly used as a source? Secondly,
where in this "article" is Ben`s 90% figure supported? Anyone see 90%
in there anywhere?
> ***********************************
>
> Now, gutless that you are, when do *YOU* plan to cite for any of your
> statements?
<snicker> For those keeping score at home, Ben challenged DVP to
"Produce a *recent* poll that puts numbers closer to your figure than
mine". DVP supplied this link, which did just that, supported the
numbers he was giving...
http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#kennedy
So, we have DVP citing a source that contains multiple polls, all
supporting his assertions, and you have Ben supplying an article that
supposedly is using data from a poll that isn`t identified, and in
fact, doesn`t exist.
> Or retract your lie?
When are you going to support yours. Or maybe take a crack at this
other lie you told..."And if CTers are inflating it, it`s because it`s
been going *up* each year." When I asked Ben to supply poll data for
consecutive years to support this assertion, he didn`t even try. The
truth is, the poll figures go up and down, which is probably more
telling about polls than assassination belief.
> >similar
> >to the one I've provided
>
> Oh, BS! You've not provided anything...
Except a link that supports his assertions. When will you stop
dancing and do likewise, or better yet, retract your lies about this
"90%" figure?
> you've quoted someone else's cite - and
> one that isn't complete. Bud knows full well about the cite above.
Yah, Marsh provided that article, not you, you only lifted what he
provided and are claiming it as your own. The problem is, Marsh lifted
this article from a message board. This CBS poll that the article uses
but doesn`t name doesn`t exist. Other than that, it`s an excellent
source.
> If he gave it to you, you deleted it, if he didn't give it to you, it's merely
> one liar lying to another liar...
Anyone can look at the "Bud Just Can`t Stop Lying - polls.." post
and easily see who is lying here. Ben has now dropped the source he was
initially using, and has claimed Marsh`s as his own. It doesn`t matter,
Marsh`s source doesn`t back up his claims any more than the source he
was originally citing does.
> >(with Bud's help and initially-posted data
> >from that link)? Or is it a big secret of some kind, with only certain
> >CTers privy to this data?
> >
> >Once more, we're apparently residing in the topsy-turvy world of CT
> >kookatics.....a world where providing VISIBLE, READABLE PROOF such as
> >this......
> >
> >www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
> >
> >......is considered a "lie".
>
> You see? You can't tell the truth, and you can't argue against the truth, so
> you make up lies.
And thus starts the non-responsive responses Ben goes into when
cornered. He will now dance rather than address the polls that DVP
provided the link to.
> >Similarly, the CT world is a nifty little
> >place in the middle of "Kooksville USA" someplace where a
> >double-murderer is considered totally innocent even though all the
> >evidence points right at him.
> >
> >Don't you ever want to escape that nightmarish world, Ben? If not...why
> >not?
>
> Why would I want to leave the truth for a world of lies, misrepresentations,
> inability to cite, and gutless cowardice?
Can any one believe this is a rational human being? Ben keeps using
this "90%" figure. DVP supllies a link to a number of polls, all of
which have figure much lower than the one Ben keeps using. Ben starts
sputtering about "lies, misrepresentations, inability to cite", ect. Is
he saying Pollingreport.com is posting false polls, giving false
figures, what? Can anyone even figure out Ben`s objection to the polls
that DVP provided a link to? Who knows, but he does a better job of
showing himself to be a kook than I could ever do.
> >Did you even read that Kennedy Poll? Are do you just want to pretend it
> >was never linked right before your eyes, just as you pretend the 101
> >pieces of real evidence against Oswald don't exist?
>
> When you decide that honesty is a good character trait, you can retract your
> comment about the CBS poll.
Ask Ben for a link to the CBS poll used in this article. Good luck.
One last point here. There is a real distinction about the general term
"conspiracy". I for one am not that opposed to the idea that portions
of the WCR were written in a way to make the case against Oz appear
stronger than it was. The polls that ask specific questions about "one
shooter/more than one shooter" are better to figure out what people
believe than polls that just use the general term "conspiracy".
Robert Harris
>>> "David, we already know she was mistaken in failing to realize that her
>husband was hit at 223. My question to you is, in which frame do you
>think she heard the shot that she *thought* hit her husband?"
>
>
>Beats me. That cannot be determined, because you'd be trying to
>determine a non-existent or mis-interpreted shot.
David, why is it impossible to determine when Mrs. Connally thought
she heard a shot? If this was an error on her part, we can still
determine when she suffered this hallucination, based on her
statements.
Do you think she heard what she believed, was the second shot, before
or after frame 223? This part of her interview with Texas Monthly,
will be helpful to you David.
http://jfkhistory.com/nellie.mov
>Because apparently
>even you realize that JBC was hit at 223-224, which was (given the
>preponderance of the evidence) the SECOND shot.
That is correct.
>That pinpoints the
>second shot right there, at 224,
But I did not ask you when the second shot was fired.
I asked you when Mrs. Connally thought the second shot was fired.
Do you have access to her WC testimony, David? If not, please let me
know and I will provide it for you.
Robert Harris
>regardless of Nellie's
>(proven-to-be-slightly-incorrect) testimony.
tomnln
Are you an "Egomaniac"?
I offer you an Oportunity to Educate people in my Live Audio Chat Room.
That is your chance to prove the WCR was Correct.
That is your chance to prove me Wrong.
That is your chance to get yourself out of the Sewer.
That is your chance to Rescue the WCR.
That is your chance to Defend your Felon Heroes.
That is your chance to Salvage some of your Credibility.
That is your chance to Prove you believe in the U S Constitution.
That is your chance to Prove you believe in Truth/Justice.
That is your chance to Prove you Respect the 58,000 Nam kids who came home
in Body Bags.
"THAT" is what You can use my Live Audio Chat Room FOR.
So, Show your Patriotism (OR, LACK OF.) You G D Felon Supporter.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144273139....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tomnln,
>
>>Because a FOUR (4) year old could Beat the SNOT outta you on this
>>subject.<
>
>
> It's statements like this that show how idiotic you are.
>
>
>>Post the WCR's Exhibit of the Walker Bullet here on this Forum?
>>(can't be done can it?) THAT is your Refuge. THAt is
>>How
>>you get away with You're Lying!
>>We CAN do it in my Chat Room!
>>THAT's Why you will NOT come there. (it's called "Cowardice")
>
>
> Hey, Captain Geritol, I have the 26 volumes.
>
> And you know that.
>
> I don't need your silly chat room to see a WCR exhibit.
>
> Try and keep up with the real world.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> Todd
>
tomnln
All you need do is Prove me Wrong with Evidence/Testimony.
Gutless Felon Supporter.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144273643.2...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> "I don't need your silly chat room to see a WCR exhibit."
>
> Nor the physical 26 volumes even. Every WC exhibit and all the witness
> testimony are available online at a moment's notice.
>
> Surely, Tom-boy realizes that....
>
> Surely????
>
tomnln
>>> "Seeing that you answer FOR VB, can I expect to see a citation in his
>>> book to
> that effect?"
>
> Only if I can find ONE conspiracy theorist who can put on the table a
> semi-believable CT scenario that blows away the WC/SBT/LN/LHO version.
>
> I'm still searching. Wanna help me gain that citation by offering up a
> non-laughable CT version of 11/22 events?*
>
> * = And if you can avoid utilizing the following words in your theory,
> it'd be nice (just for a change-of-pace anyway): "planted", "coerced",
> "manipulated", "faked", "imposter", "umbrella", "sewer", "back and to
> the left", "Groden", "Garrison", "Ferrie", "Marrs", "Fetzer", "Z-Film
> Hoax", and "bald-faced liar".
>
> Any takers?
=========================================================================
Thank You for Asking;
Start with THESE FELONIES.
Destroy/Alter/Withhold Evidence
1.. Destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI Office
2.. Withholding Hosty's name, address, phone number and license plate
number from Oswald's notebook.
3.. Destroying Walker back yard photo.
4.. Changing Walker bullet from "Steel-Jacketed" to Copper Jacketed.
5.. Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate.
6.. Lying when claiming Paper for gun bag matched TSBD paper.
7.. Lying by stating Oswald had No connection to CIA.
8.. Lying about Oswald going to Mexico City.
9.. Washing out Limo at Parkland Hospital thus Destroying Evidence. Within
minutes.
10.. Stealing body from Dallas jurisdiction under Gun Point.
11.. Stealing limo from Dallas Jurisdiction.
12.. Destroying part 3 of P O Box Rental Application.
13.. Showed LHO 133A BEFORE it was Found. WCR App XI
14.. Dry Cleaning/Pressing JBS's Clothing.
15.. Switch Entrance/Exit wounds on JBC's Wrist would.
16.. JFK's brain missing.
17.. Autopsy slides missing.
18.. Alteration of "Z" film.
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144282000....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> "Why can't you cite a recent poll giving the numbers who believe in a
>>> conspiracy in the killing of JFK?"
>
> Bud just did (above)....and it was fabulous (in a Ben-bashing sort of
> fashion)....and it also exhibited my ability to toss out a pure guess
> re. the % of conspiracy believers and get it pretty damn close too.
>
> The 7% figure is beautiful too. Thanks, Bud. I admire you more with
> each passing common-sense post you make.
>
>
>>> "Why do you bother to lie, Davy-boy? If you *haven't* looked at my
>>> previous cites, or searched yourself for the polling data, then you're
>>> lying about me "over-stating" the numbers."
>
> After seeing the numbers Bud provided in a prior post above, would you
> like to retract your last silly-sounding comments here?
>
>
>>> "Facts to LNT'ers are like Kryptonite to Superman."
>
>
> And getting a rabid CTer/kook to face the FACT that Lee Harvey Oswald
> was NOT the innocent, halo-encased saint that many CTers seem to want
> to make this bastard out to be is like pulling teeth from a charging
> bull. ("Bull" seems a fitting analogy to use here when talking about CT
> inadequacies.) ;)
David;
Please address the poinrs Belos?
tomnln
Bud is indeed the Official Spokesperson for the Cultists LN's.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144283845.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Follow-Up Re. Polls..........
>
> I want to thank Bud (again) for the info re. polling data on the
> Internet. I had never bothered to even search for that type of info
> online (which WAS kinda silly of me, I'll admit, since everything from
> soup to {conspiracy} nuts are available at the click of a mouse these
> days).
>
aeffects
Studley, I'd say ANYTHING over 20% and you guy's gotta a HUGE PR
problem -- can't cover up bullshit.... You're try'in, ain't work'in
Which is why I suspect you're here in the first place -- soften the
blow, perhaps? Divert attention from the questions now on the
table....?
tomnln
JBC states he was hit between frames 231-234.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144302967.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>> "David, we already know she was mistaken in failing to realize that her
> husband was hit at 223. My question to you is, in which frame do you
> think she heard the shot that she *thought* hit her husband?"
>
>
> Beats me. That cannot be determined, because you'd be trying to
> determine a non-existent or mis-interpreted shot. Because apparently
> even you realize that JBC was hit at 223-224, which was (given the
> preponderance of the evidence) the SECOND shot. That pinpoints the
> second shot right there, at 224, regardless of Nellie's
> (proven-to-be-slightly-incorrect) testimony.
>
David VP
All of the following apply to this quote by Tomnut.......
WTF???
Huh??!!!
What the hell????
The CT Gas is on too high in your house.
David VP
Who cares? He's wrong...and this proves it......
David VP
worn-out (and proven-silly) theories that have all been answered in the
past in non-conspiratorial ways. But certain CTers just cannot let go
of the past it appears.
The "missing brain" nonsense is always one of my favorites. And the
theory that has the brain "missing" from JFK's head even BEFORE autopsy
(per Paul O'Connor's obviously-wrong observations) is one of the
biggest hunks of crap revolving around the whole JFK case.
The other "brain" theory that has the brain disappearing after being
examined to "hide the bullet track" is nothing but pure CT conjecture.
Robert Kennedy probably had the brain destroyed to keep it from
becoming a morbid curiosity piece; and even the HSCA said that this was
the most-likely cause for this "missing material"......
"Consequently, although the committee has not been
able to uncover any direct evidence of the fate of the missing
materials, circumstantial evidence tends to show that Robert
Kennedy either destroyed these materials or otherwise rendered
them inaccessible." -- HSCA; Vol. 7
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/brain.txt
And -- The "no brain in the head" CTers (double meaning might aptly
apply to that passage) must therefore believe that CE391 (the
Supplementary Autopsy Report) is a total fabrication, which describes
the "Gross Description Of Brain" at autopsy; and further states that
"multiple sections {of the brain} from representative areas as noted
above are examined".
All of this "brain" stuff could never have happened per O'Connor (and
many CTers). Humes' signature on that Supplementary Report was just one
more example of the large number of "felonies" that he committed in
Nov. of '63....right Tom?
Not a one of Tom's 18 points of so-called "Felonies" changes Lee Harvey
Oswald from a guilty man into one of pure "Patsydom" (i.e., an innocent
dupe). If Tom thinks he's fooling anyone by dragging out his neat
little "list of 18", he's a fool.
Regardless of IN WHAT CITY the President's body was examined and IN
WHAT CITY the limousine was examined, the evidence in this case is
rock-solid in favor of Oswald's guilt, and no one else's.
And the "Limo Wash-out" was not a wise move in hindsight (I think the
SS would agree). But was it done to "hide/fake evidence"? CTers say
yes. I say those CTers aren't thinking that theory through logically.
Because, per these same CTers, it wouldn't have mattered at all WHEN
exactly the limo evidence was "altered", these grandiose "cover-uppers"
are gonna "control" all the evidence anyhow. Right?
So my question would be....WHY the need to wipe out some evidence at
Parkland and in front of a gob of CAMERAS snapping away, no less? Why
couldn't this hinkiness have been accomplished at the White House
garage on the night of November 22 (which is the same time that these
same rabid "Everything Was Faked" CTers think the two large bullet
fragments from Oswald's gun were "planted" in the front seat of the
limo.*
* = A goodly number of CTers DO believe those M-C fragments were
"planted" too...right? They must think so; because Oswald's rifle
wasn't even being used in the shooting, per many CT accounts. It was a
Mauser up on the 6th Floor, wasn't it?
What a great Patsy Plot it was, wasn't it -- shoot JFK a dozen times
from 3 angles and don't even use the patsy's gun. That'll surely
convict the Commie Patsy from New Orleans, right?
------------------
"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy. .... There
may have been fifty people firing at President Kennedy that day; but if
there were, they ALL missed; only bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano
rifle hit the President." -- V. Bugliosi
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> Top Post only
>
> Studley, I'd say ANYTHING over 20% and you guy's gotta a HUGE PR
> problem --
No problem, you can`t please all the people all the time. The issue
here is that Ben keep saying 9 out of 10 people believe in conspiracy.
It ain`t so, as every poll shows. The real number is closer to 3 out of
4, still too high as you say, but I`m not aware of any requirements
that popular opinion be correct.
> can't cover up bullshit.... You're try'in, ain't work'in
Ain`t trying. Just indulging in my hobby, kook spotting. You`ve been
tagged and bagged long ago, Healy.
> Which is why I suspect you're here in the first place -- soften the
> blow, perhaps?
You may be right, it might be an issued best left ignored, certainly
reality doesn`t require the acceptance of kooks.
> Divert attention from the questions now on the
> table....?
The issue we are examining here is whether Ben the Kook can read
poll results correctly. No surprise his number one groupie showed up.
<snip>
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Top Post only
>
>Studley, I'd say ANYTHING over 20% and you guy's gotta a HUGE PR
>problem -- can't cover up bullshit.... You're try'in, ain't work'in
>
>Which is why I suspect you're here in the first place -- soften the
>blow, perhaps? Divert attention from the questions now on the
>table....?
It's amusing, really... to see the dismay of the LNT'er crowd over this
'betrayal' of the American people.
Anthony Marsh
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1144293140....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>> says...
>>>>> "But I *STILL* haven't seen a retraction from you. Lied, didn't you?"
>>> Anybody know what this lunatic is babbling about now??
>>>
>>> Retraction regarding WHAT? The fact that you were wrong? You're getting
>>> more senile by the minute.
>>>
>>> Why can't you provide a weblink to your provable "90%" figure...
>> Actually, I already have... but here you go:
>
> This is just a lie. In discussions with me, he referenced this
> article to support his "90%" figure...
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/20/national/main584668.shtml
>
> Anyone checking will easily see that this article does not support
> Ben`s "90%" figure. Here is that poll in a more detailed form...
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/11/20/opinion/main23166.sthml
>
More lies. Click on that link and it points only to recent news headlines.
> Anyone interested can check the post "Bud Just Can`t Stop Lying -
> Polls..."., and see this is indeed the source Ben referenced. Now, Ben
> indulges in a little misdirection, and offers a different source, one
> even worse, one Marsh supplied in the same thread. The problem with
> this article is it just doesn`t exist outside of the message board it
> was posted on. Ask Ben or Marsh for a link to this article and see, or
> go to CBSnews.com and look for this poll yourself.
>
>> ***********************************
>> UPn 11/16 1830 CBS poll: Americans believe CIA helped assassinate JFK
>
> The first bit of information that should ring alarms is that the
> date the poll was taken is not given (unless the poll was conducted in
> 1830). Every single poll you will look at contains this critical
Again, more proof that you are an uneducated moron. The date is clear
11/16, which means November 16th. You know, as in getting close to the
anniversary of the JFK assassination. The 1830 is the time. For morons
like you that means 6:30 PM.
And that is not the date and time that the poll was taken. That is the
date and time that CBS released the results. As in quarantined until
after they used it on the evening news.
> information, yet here it isn`t. Any wonder why? If it was included, the
> poll figures could be checked, and verified.
>
>> NEW YORK (UPI) - Nearly half of Americans believe the CIA was involved
>> in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and only 11 percent
>> believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he shot Kennedy, a poll
>> released Tuesday by CBS News shows.
>> CBS surveyed 1,117 people on their beliefs about who orchestrated the
>> shooting of Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.
>> Eighty-nine percent of those questioned said they do not think Oswald
>> acted alone in assassinating Kennedy.
OK, I admit it. Eighty-nine is not the same thing as 90%. But I was not
the one who cited 90%.
>> Asked who they believe was involved, 13 percent of those surveyed said
>> the Soviet Union was behind the assassination. Twenty-two percent blamed
>> the Cubans. And 37 percent said the Mafia was responsible.
>> Forty-nine percent said the CIA was involved in murdering Kennedy. Four
>> out of five people surveyed said the government covered up the truth about
>> the assassination.
>> Although a sizable majority in all age groups believe an entity other
>> than Oswald was involved in a conspiracy to murder Kennedy, a pattern
>> based on generational differences emerged in the CBS poll.
>> Eighty-six percent of those surveyed who were 18 to 29 years old --
>> born after the assassination -- believe there was an official cover-up,
>> compared to 77 percent of those 45 to 64 years old.
>> Sixty-four percent of 18- to 29-year-olds said the CIA was involved,
>> compared to 42 percent of those 45 to 64 years old.
>> CBS pointed out there has always been skepticism that Oswald acted by
>> himself; a 1963 Gallup poll showed two-thirds believed others were
>> involved. But the news agency said its poll shows there are many
>> explanations plausible to Americans today.
>> The poll had a three percent margin of error in either direction.
>
> Ok, lets review this "article" as if it truly does exist. First off,
> it isn`t a poll, it is an article that supposedly is using data from a
> poll. Where is the CBS poll supposedly used as a source? Secondly,
> where in this "article" is Ben`s 90% figure supported? Anyone see 90%
> in there anywhere?
>
It's a CBS press release announcing the results of a poll.
Ben probably rounded up the 89% to 90%. OK, so he should be boiled in
oil for making such a mistake. But you are even denying the 89%. You are
even denying that there ever was a CBS poll.
>> ***********************************
>>
>> Now, gutless that you are, when do *YOU* plan to cite for any of your
>> statements?
>
> <snicker> For those keeping score at home, Ben challenged DVP to
> "Produce a *recent* poll that puts numbers closer to your figure than
> mine". DVP supplied this link, which did just that, supported the
> numbers he was giving...
>
How recent? Yesterday?
> http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#kennedy
>
> So, we have DVP citing a source that contains multiple polls, all
> supporting his assertions, and you have Ben supplying an article that
> supposedly is using data from a poll that isn`t identified, and in
> fact, doesn`t exist.
>
Lie.
>> Or retract your lie?
>
> When are you going to support yours. Or maybe take a crack at this
> other lie you told..."And if CTers are inflating it, it`s because it`s
> been going *up* each year." When I asked Ben to supply poll data for
> consecutive years to support this assertion, he didn`t even try. The
> truth is, the poll figures go up and down, which is probably more
> telling about polls than assassination belief.
>
>>> similar
>>> to the one I've provided
>> Oh, BS! You've not provided anything...
>
> Except a link that supports his assertions. When will you stop
> dancing and do likewise, or better yet, retract your lies about this
> "90%" figure?
>
>> you've quoted someone else's cite - and
>> one that isn't complete. Bud knows full well about the cite above.
>
> Yah, Marsh provided that article, not you, you only lifted what he
> provided and are claiming it as your own. The problem is, Marsh lifted
> this article from a message board. This CBS poll that the article uses
> but doesn`t name doesn`t exist. Other than that, it`s an excellent
> source.
>
Fuck you it doesn't exist.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
David VP
11/16, which means November 16th."
He meant the YEAR of the poll is not revealed there.
It's obviously Nov. 16th ... but of what year?? (Moron.)