The SBT Cowardice of Davey-boy
Ben Holmes
In article <1149902968.2...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> And yet, it doesn't seem to bother you that you are unable to defend it.
>
>Only a rabid CT-Kook could possibly say such a thing and not burst out
>laughing.
>
>You REALLY don't think I've "defended" the SBT in my posts?
>
>In a word -- Amazing.
>
>No worries, though, Ben....VB's a-coming. You'll soon be able to take
>off the CT chains.
>
>"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.B.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1fb1e67721e35822
Seems impressive, does it not? He's forcefully defended the "fact" that he
always defends the SBT...
But let's look at the post he was REPLYING to:
*******************************************************************
In article <e6d4m...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>In article <1149890840.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>says...
>>
>>> Crimes are solved through VERY specific and detailed analysis, David --
>>> not through sweeping and often unproven generalities.
>>
>>Sure. But that doesn't mean you just toss common sense out the window.
>
>
>"Common Sense" is Davey-boy's phrase for "speculation".
>
>
>
>>In the JFK case, there are various angles and trajectories that CANNOT
>>EVER be determined right down to the Nth degree or inch -- e.g., the
>>exact position of JFK in relation to JBC in the car; the exact position
>>of JFK when he was struck by the SBT shot (OK, the "alleged" SBT shot),
>>because he was not in view of Zapruder's lens at all. Nor can the exact
>>location of the limo be determined when the first shot struck. It's a
>>"best guess" all the way around.
>
>
>And "best guesses" like that could with virtually no effort whatsoever put the
>assassin in the Daltex building. Or on the roof of the TSBD.
>
>
>>How on Earth can anybody think that Dale Myers (even if a CTer thinks
>>he has fudged his computer model a little bit one way or another) could
>>have possibly simulated a perfect SBT-favoring scenario via his
>>animation IF THE SBT WAS, IN FACT, SO FAR OFF THE BEAM TO BE DEEMED
>>UTTERLY "IMPOSSIBLE" BY CT PROPONENTS?
>
>
>His model has virtually nothing to do with the factors that make it impossible.
>
>
>>Even CTers must admit that Myers' model is not skewed to the point of
>>utter lunacy re. the angles, positions of the men, etc.
>
>Untrue. Provide Myers' model, and let us examine it.
>
>No-one in their right mind is going to "admit" that there's nothing wrong
>with a model they can't examine.
>
>Let me know when you're ready to provide Myer's modeling programs and data.
>
>>If they do
>>believe that it's skewed crazily out-of-whack...those CTers are
>>severely in need of a mental tune-up IMO. Because the model WORKS for
>>the SBT, and the angles are representative of the likely trajectory
>>path through both victims, and the flight path that would take it back
>>up to the SN in the Depository.
>
>
>Of 'course' it does. With a tad bit of work, I could do the same thing that
>shows the assassin in the Daltex building... or the Grassy Knoll.
>
>You know the phrase... let's all say it together now.... G I G O.
>
>One more time, G I G O.
>
>You may repeat it in the privacy of your own home now...
>
>>That fact alone, whether Dale's figures are 100% accurate the the
>>square inch or not) should indicate, should cause a CTer to AT THE VERY
>>LEAST admit to the "possibility" (at least) of the SBT being a viable
>>alternative to the way the shooting on Elm Street could have
>>conceivably occurred.
>
>
>Nope. His model has *nothing* to do with the factors that make the SBT
>improbable at best.
>
>
>>To think otherwise, as I've said 1,001 times before, is to believe that
>>a multi-bullet, multi-shooter scenario occurred in DP that almost
>>perfectly mimicked what the SBT would have done if given the chance via
>>just a SN's single bullet.
>
>How silly.
>
>>The odds of such a multi-bullet attack that mirrors in many ways just a
>>single-bullet event must certainly be off the charts in favor of "No
>>Way In Hell This Could Have Happened".
>
>
>Toss that straw... it's getting moldy.
>
>
>>If the Z-Film did not exist, no one can for sure what the final
>>official conclusion re. the shooting would have been (with respect to
>>the "SBT" wounds on the victims).
>
>
>There would have been *no* SBT.
>
>
>Without the extant Z-film, there would be no timing problems with having the
>lone assassin firing as many shots as needed.
>
>
>>But I truly believe, via common sense, that even without the Z-Film to
>>aid the WC, et al, that the SBT would have been officially adopted.
>
>How silly! It not only would not have been needed, but there wouldn't
>have been even the faintest bit of evidence for it.
>
>
>>This because of many factors that favor no other non-SBT conclusion
>>being the likely-to-be-accurate one -- e.g., lack of bullets; lack of
>>limo damage in back seat;
>
>Show me the photos that prove this.
>
>>tumbling bullet into Connally probable;
>>general SBT-like alignment of the victims; no other victims in car
>>besides JFK & JBC; lack of a valid, commonsense reason for any
>>bullet(s) to have suddenly stopped a forward motion through JFK's
>>back/neck.
>
>
>And not a single one of those reasons rule out multiple shots from multiple
>locations. But that's okay, Davey-boy... just snip and run.
>
>
>>It continues to boggle my mind as to how many people scoff at the ONE &
>>ONLY likely-to-be-correct scenario for the simultaneous wounding of
>>Kennedy & Connally -- the Single-Bullet Scenario.
>
>And yet, it doesn't seem to bother you that you are unable to defend it.
*******************************************************************
And finally, right there at the end, the very *LAST* sentence, is the only thing
that Davey-boy "defended". Amazing!! The *ONLY* thing he responded to is the
very last sentence!
Like as not, Davey-boy didn't even bother reading the refutation of his silly
assertions... merely jumped to the end, and make everyone *believe* that he's
seriously responding.
When in fact, he's a coward who snips and runs. EACH AND EVERY SINGLE TIME.
So yes, when I say that Davey-boy is unable to defend the SBT, it's merely a
fact based on his posting history, nothing more.
David VP
Ben MUST be related to Anthony Frank over at Lancer (and Todd Teachout
and Charlie Black too). Those kooks there just loved to create new
threads as offshoots of already-existing ones for some reason.
And Benji's insistence that every little hunk of Ben-ism be responded
to in an anti-snip fashion has gotten to be a CT obsession with you,
Ben, to the point of hysteria practically.
Why on Earth would I respond to a post filled with.....
"GIGO."
"How silly."
"Toss that straw... it's getting moldy."
"How silly!" (Again.)
""Common Sense" is Davey-boy's phrase for "speculation"."
"His model has virtually nothing to do with the factors that make it
impossible."
~~~~~~~~~~~
I have no idea what that last cryptic hunk re. Myers is supposed to
even mean.
And the rest of Ben's remarks are things that have been covered several
times previously.
Can Ben's "Kook" status reach a higher zenith than its current lofty
heights? Stay tuned to TNC (The Nut Channel) for further kook
developments.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> Here is a recent reply by Davey-boy:
>
> In article <1149902968.2...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> And yet, it doesn't seem to bother you that you are unable to defend it.
> >
> >Only a rabid CT-Kook could possibly say such a thing and not burst out
> >laughing.
> >
> >You REALLY don't think I've "defended" the SBT in my posts?
> >
> >In a word -- Amazing.
> >
> >No worries, though, Ben....VB's a-coming. You'll soon be able to take
> >off the CT chains.
> >
> >"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.B.
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1fb1e67721e35822
>
>
> Seems impressive, does it not? He's forcefully defended the "fact" that he
> always defends the SBT...
>
> But let's look at the post he was REPLYING to:
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> In article <e6d4m...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
> >
> >In article <1149890840.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> >says...
> >>
> >>> Crimes are solved through VERY specific and detailed analysis, David --
Then Ben can cite cases where exact and precise trajectories were
necessary to convict a suspect. Are they producing charts in the
Beltway Sniper case underway now showing precise trajectories of all
the bullets fired and accounting for all fragments? If they are shown
to be wrong in any of thier assessments about the trajectories, will
that show the suspect to be innocent? If these things are are
requirement in this case, can Ben show other cases where this precision
was required?
> >>> not through sweeping and often unproven generalities.
> >>
> >>Sure. But that doesn't mean you just toss common sense out the window.
> >
> >
> >"Common Sense" is Davey-boy's phrase for "speculation".
What else can be offered? Non-kooks apply reason to the evidence.
Kooks cannot.
> >>In the JFK case, there are various angles and trajectories that CANNOT
> >>EVER be determined right down to the Nth degree or inch -- e.g., the
> >>exact position of JFK in relation to JBC in the car; the exact position
> >>of JFK when he was struck by the SBT shot (OK, the "alleged" SBT shot),
> >>because he was not in view of Zapruder's lens at all. Nor can the exact
> >>location of the limo be determined when the first shot struck. It's a
> >>"best guess" all the way around.
> >
> >
> >And "best guesses" like that could with virtually no effort whatsoever put the
> >assassin in the Daltex building. Or on the roof of the TSBD.
If people saw rifle barrels firing from these locations, and shells
were found at those locations, sure. Then you have indications of
bullets being fired, and indications of bullets hitting in the
evidence. Like we have now with the 6th fllor and the wounds on these
men. It`s only kooks setting the bar so high that it is unattainable,
that each bullet needs to be precisely traced back to that location and
no other. Is that the standard in shooting crimes?
> >>How on Earth can anybody think that Dale Myers (even if a CTer thinks
> >>he has fudged his computer model a little bit one way or another) could
> >>have possibly simulated a perfect SBT-favoring scenario via his
> >>animation IF THE SBT WAS, IN FACT, SO FAR OFF THE BEAM TO BE DEEMED
> >>UTTERLY "IMPOSSIBLE" BY CT PROPONENTS?
> >
> >
> >His model has virtually nothing to do with the factors that make it impossible.
And the Australian effort to test the SBT just happened to have a
bullet deflect from the Connally model`s "wrist" and bounce of his
"thigh". Just coincidence.
> >>Even CTers must admit that Myers' model is not skewed to the point of
> >>utter lunacy re. the angles, positions of the men, etc.
> >
> >Untrue. Provide Myers' model, and let us examine it.
> >
> >No-one in their right mind is going to "admit" that there's nothing wrong
> >with a model they can't examine.
> >
> >Let me know when you're ready to provide Myer's modeling programs and data.
<snicker> Ben cites kook information all the time without examing
the data. It`s only when it is information he doesn`t want to accept
that it suddenly needs scrutinizing.
> >>If they do
> >>believe that it's skewed crazily out-of-whack...those CTers are
> >>severely in need of a mental tune-up IMO. Because the model WORKS for
> >>the SBT, and the angles are representative of the likely trajectory
> >>path through both victims, and the flight path that would take it back
> >>up to the SN in the Depository.
> >
> >
> >Of 'course' it does. With a tad bit of work, I could do the same thing that
> >shows the assassin in the Daltex building... or the Grassy Knoll.
Yah, why not raise the barhigher? Nobody said they saw the bullet,
how can we *prove* that any were flying?
> >You know the phrase... let's all say it together now.... G I G O.
Where would kooks be without it? What stories would they need to
concoct if the neck wound was disected, or the autopists did a better
job? Garbage information is fuel for kook blather.
> >One more time, G I G O.
> >
> >You may repeat it in the privacy of your own home now...
Kooks demand precise trajectories to be given, and when attempts are
made to satisfy thier demands, they don`t like that either. Much like
the HSCA. And the attempts to validate the z-film. When the kooks don`t
like the findings, they claim it`s garbage.
> >>That fact alone, whether Dale's figures are 100% accurate the the
> >>square inch or not) should indicate, should cause a CTer to AT THE VERY
> >>LEAST admit to the "possibility" (at least) of the SBT being a viable
> >>alternative to the way the shooting on Elm Street could have
> >>conceivably occurred.
> >
> >
> >Nope. His model has *nothing* to do with the factors that make the SBT
> >improbable at best.
I assume Ben is referring to the "pristine" bullet. The bullet fired
by the Australlian team (replicating, to some extent, the wounds on
these two men), the bullet did not break up, but was merely deformed.
As is the one found on the stretcher.
> >>To think otherwise, as I've said 1,001 times before, is to believe that
> >>a multi-bullet, multi-shooter scenario occurred in DP that almost
> >>perfectly mimicked what the SBT would have done if given the chance via
> >>just a SN's single bullet.
> >
> >How silly.
> >
> >>The odds of such a multi-bullet attack that mirrors in many ways just a
> >>single-bullet event must certainly be off the charts in favor of "No
> >>Way In Hell This Could Have Happened".
> >
> >
> >Toss that straw... it's getting moldy.
It`s a valid point. The Australian re-enactment positioned two
replicas of the men, fired one bullet, and it just happened to hit in
the vicitity of all the wounds of the two men? Have kooks fired bullets
from thier favored shooting locals and duplicated the wounds on these
men? Easy to call other people`s work garbage, lets see the kook model
in action.
> >>If the Z-Film did not exist, no one can for sure what the final
> >>official conclusion re. the shooting would have been (with respect to
> >>the "SBT" wounds on the victims).
> >
> >
> >There would have been *no* SBT.
If it went to trial, would a precise detemination of bullet
trajectories be required to convict him?
> >
> >Without the extant Z-film, there would be no timing problems with having the
> >lone assassin firing as many shots as needed.
He only needed one.
> >
> >>But I truly believe, via common sense, that even without the Z-Film to
> >>aid the WC, et al, that the SBT would have been officially adopted.
> >
> >How silly! It not only would not have been needed, but there wouldn't
> >have been even the faintest bit of evidence for it.
It would have remained a possibility, even without the z-film. When
you have a good idea where the shots are fired from, any rough lining
up of the wounds from that point raises the possibility of one bullet
doing all the damage to both.
It`s also a fact that Ben is too cowardly to engage me in
discussion.
Ben Holmes
Davey-boy has finally reached the penultimate of cowardice... he snipped the
ENTIRE post...
In article <1149923161.5...@m38g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
Below is the post that the coward snipped, and can't answer:
*********************************************************************
Here is a recent reply by Davey-boy:
In article <1149902968.2...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> And yet, it doesn't seem to bother you that you are unable to defend it.
>
>Only a rabid CT-Kook could possibly say such a thing and not burst out
>laughing.
>
>You REALLY don't think I've "defended" the SBT in my posts?
>
>In a word -- Amazing.
>
>No worries, though, Ben....VB's a-coming. You'll soon be able to take
>off the CT chains.
>
>"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.B.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1fb1e67721e35822
Seems impressive, does it not? He's forcefully defended the "fact" that he
always defends the SBT...
But let's look at the post he was REPLYING to:
*******************************************************************
In article <e6d4m...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>In article <1149890840.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
>says...
>>
>>> Crimes are solved through VERY specific and detailed analysis, David --
>>> not through sweeping and often unproven generalities.
>>
>>Sure. But that doesn't mean you just toss common sense out the window.
>
>
>"Common Sense" is Davey-boy's phrase for "speculation".
>
>
>
>>In the JFK case, there are various angles and trajectories that CANNOT
>>EVER be determined right down to the Nth degree or inch -- e.g., the
>>exact position of JFK in relation to JBC in the car; the exact position
>>of JFK when he was struck by the SBT shot (OK, the "alleged" SBT shot),
>>because he was not in view of Zapruder's lens at all. Nor can the exact
>>location of the limo be determined when the first shot struck. It's a
>>"best guess" all the way around.
>
>
>And "best guesses" like that could with virtually no effort whatsoever put
>the assassin in the Daltex building. Or on the roof of the TSBD.
>
>
>>How on Earth can anybody think that Dale Myers (even if a CTer thinks
>>he has fudged his computer model a little bit one way or another) could
>>have possibly simulated a perfect SBT-favoring scenario via his
>>animation IF THE SBT WAS, IN FACT, SO FAR OFF THE BEAM TO BE DEEMED
>>UTTERLY "IMPOSSIBLE" BY CT PROPONENTS?
>
>
>His model has virtually nothing to do with the factors that make it impossible.
>
>
>Toss that straw... it's getting moldy.
>
>
Robert Harris
>What a kook/mental case.
>
>Ben MUST be related to Anthony Frank over at Lancer (and Todd Teachout
>and Charlie Black too). Those kooks there just loved to create new
>threads as offshoots of already-existing ones for some reason.
Translation: I can't refute the facts or deal with the evidence, so I
will post insults and personal attacks, instead.
>
>And Benji's insistence that every little hunk of Ben-ism be responded
>to in an anti-snip fashion
David, you snip the large majority of facts and evidence that are
presented to you. By refusing to deal with data that contradicts you,
you only prove that you are dishonest.
And your excuse that you evade evidence because your adversaries
"demand" that you respond, doesn't cut it - because the demands don't
begin until you have evaded the evidence at least, several times.
Robert Harris
>has gotten to be a CT obsession with you,
>Ben, to the point of hysteria practically.
>
>Why on Earth would I respond to a post filled with.....
>
>"GIGO."
>
>"How silly."
>
>"Toss that straw... it's getting moldy."
>
>"How silly!" (Again.)
>
>""Common Sense" is Davey-boy's phrase for "speculation"."
>
>"His model has virtually nothing to do with the factors that make it
>impossible."
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>I have no idea what that last cryptic hunk re. Myers is supposed to
>even mean.
>
>And the rest of Ben's remarks are things that have been covered several
>times previously.
>
>Can Ben's "Kook" status reach a higher zenith than its current lofty
>heights? Stay tuned to TNC (The Nut Channel) for further kook
>developments.
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
David VP
It's no wonder that Ben won't debate you on your pro-LN points. If I
were a CTer, I wouldn't want to tackle such "CS&L" either. It's
impossible to combat. Just like when Vince Bugliosi's book comes
out...which no doubt will be filled with remarks just exactly like that
of Bud's last post in this thread -- IOW, riddled with common sense and
reasoned thinking.
Are you sure you're not related to VB, Bud? You exhibit many VB
characteristics. I'd like to think I have a little of VB's CS&L in my
arguments as well....but I'm not ashamed to admit something right here
and now......Bud possesses some of the very best LN arguments and
reasoned thoughts I've ever encountered on any JFK board. I appreciate
your contributions in this never-ending effort in battling the kooks in
Kooksville. I tip my cap.
DVP
Robert Harris
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
Look for yourself, Bud:
http://www.alexanderjason.com/snipercase4.htm
As I understand it, you are claiming that we should not consider the
angles and trajectories of the shots because those issues are not
considered in some other murder cases.
Is that your reasoning?
> If they are shown
> to be wrong in any of thier assessments about the trajectories, will
> that show the suspect to be innocent?
That would depend on exactly which trajectories you are talking about.
But the important issue here is not whether Oswald was guilty or not. It
is about the presence of other snipers.
> If these things are are
> requirement in this case, can Ben show other cases where this precision
> was required?
Bud, you should visit your local PD sometime and talk to people who
investigate capital crimes these days. You have no idea how detailed
these investigations are.
Blood spatter patterns and complete re-enactments are conducted to
determine the angles and paths of the bullet trajectories. Without such
confirmations, many murderers would have been acquitted.
What you are doing here is just another variation on a very old nutter
theme - your message is that we need to stop looking at the evidence.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
>That last post by Bud is pure gold. Thanks Bud. Absolutely beautiful.
Are you referring to this one?
> Then Ben can cite cases where exact and precise trajectories were
> necessary to convict a suspect. Are they producing charts in the
> Beltway Sniper case underway now showing precise trajectories of all
> the bullets fired and accounting for all fragments?
Look for yourself, Bud:
http://www.alexanderjason.com/snipercase4.htm
As I understand it, you are claiming that we should not consider the
angles and trajectories of the shots because those issues are not
considered in some other murder cases.
Is that your reasoning?
> If they are shown
> to be wrong in any of thier assessments about the trajectories, will
> that show the suspect to be innocent?
That would depend on exactly which trajectories you are talking about.
But the important issue here is not whether Oswald was guilty or not.
It
is about the presence of other snipers.
> If these things are are
> requirement in this case, can Ben show other cases where this precision
> was required?
Bud, you should visit your local PD sometime and talk to people who
investigate capital crimes these days. You have no idea how detailed
these investigations are.
Blood spatter patterns and complete re-enactments are conducted to
determine the angles and paths of the bullet trajectories. Without
such
confirmations, many murderers would have been acquitted.
What you are doing here is just another variation on a very old nutter
theme - your message is that we need to stop looking at the evidence.
Robert Harris
>
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Anthony Marsh
> On 11 Jun 2006 01:16:22 -0700, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> That last post by Bud is pure gold. Thanks Bud. Absolutely beautiful.
>
> Are you referring to this one?
>
>
>> Then Ben can cite cases where exact and precise trajectories were
>> necessary to convict a suspect. Are they producing charts in the
>> Beltway Sniper case underway now showing precise trajectories of all
>> the bullets fired and accounting for all fragments?
>
> Look for yourself, Bud:
>
> http://www.alexanderjason.com/snipercase4.htm
>
Thanks for the link. I am not sure it will satisfy Ben's criteria. He is
just being ridiculous as usual. I would also recommend some of the TV
shows where Dr. Henry Lee analyzes precise trajectories.
Anthony Marsh
> That last post by Bud is pure gold. Thanks Bud. Absolutely beautiful.
>
Pure crap.
> It's no wonder that Ben won't debate you on your pro-LN points. If I
> were a CTer, I wouldn't want to tackle such "CS&L" either. It's
> impossible to combat. Just like when Vince Bugliosi's book comes
> out...which no doubt will be filled with remarks just exactly like that
> of Bud's last post in this thread -- IOW, riddled with common sense and
> reasoned thinking.
>
No, it will be full of strawman arguments. I've heard that the Bug alone
is responsible for the straw shortage in the West.
For example, on page 742 he will repeat the WC factoid that modern
firearms never emit smoke.
> Are you sure you're not related to VB, Bud? You exhibit many VB
> characteristics. I'd like to think I have a little of VB's CS&L in my
> arguments as well....but I'm not ashamed to admit something right here
> and now......Bud possesses some of the very best LN arguments and
> reasoned thoughts I've ever encountered on any JFK board. I appreciate
> your contributions in this never-ending effort in battling the kooks in
> Kooksville. I tip my cap.
>
Maybe instead of spending all your time covering up you should try
looking at the evidence.
> DVP
>
Steve
I'd say that DVP, as well as Bud *have* already done a great job at
"looking at the evidence" and that they have not, in fact spent " all
his time covering up".
The big difference here, Tony, is, instead of looking at the evidence
the way you and your conspiracy advocates look at it,( which is closes
minded with your mind(s) already made up) they look at it objectively.
So, put *that* in your beverage and drink it!
Bud
David VP wrote:
> That last post by Bud is pure gold. Thanks Bud. Absolutely beautiful.
Glad you liked it.
> It's no wonder that Ben won't debate you on your pro-LN points. If I
> were a CTer, I wouldn't want to tackle such "CS&L" either. It's
> impossible to combat.
No, pretty easy, actually. The kooks have all the advantages. They
can attack our position, because we have one. They don`t. They can put
shooters anywhere. We can`t. They can exploit any discrepancies,
errors, muddle, ommissions, ambiguities, anything poorly worded, ect.
We can`t. In a human endeavour like this case, a large amount of these
things are bound to exist, they exist in anything humans do. Only in
this case, a great effort has been made to exploit this inevitability.
Wherever there is desire, this can be done, whatever humans produce can
be criticized (see the 9-11 conspiracy kooks for confirmation). They
raise issues with the z-film, when an effort is made to address these
issues, they both criticize the effort, and raise further issues. They
raise issues with the trajectories, when efforts are made that tackle
these issues (like Meyer`s), they merely criticize the effort. Anything
that can be produced can be criticized, thats why you do see the kooks
putting theories on the table, because then we could go on the attack,
scrutize what they produce, show how it conflicts with parts of the
evidence. Thats why, when pressed, Ben will take a coward`s tact, and
offer Six Seconds In Dallas as a conspiracy theory, but mentions it has
"problems", thus offering himself an escape. He gets to both offer a
theory without endorsing it, so even if we scrutinize and attack SSID,
we don`t harm Ben`s position. Likewise, an effort to scrutinize and
debunk Harris` work does no harm to conspiracy. All such effort is
wasted for the most part, but you and Jean Davison do a better job than
most in fighting kooks on the terms they choose. My take is that the
problems of the case don`t lie with the case itself, but with the
kooks. That is where the focus needs to be, at the source of the
problem, not at its many manifestations. And thats why Ben won`t talk
with me, because I don`t play by his rules, fight on the ground he
chooses, or focus on what he decides should be focused on.
> Just like when Vince Bugliosi's book comes
> out...which no doubt will be filled with remarks just exactly like that
> of Bud's last post in this thread -- IOW, riddled with common sense and
> reasoned thinking.
Wasted, I fear. More study needs to be done on the phenomenon of
kookiness, that is the root. It can be seen all over the internet, and
you can find some study on it, but they really just nibble around the
edges. A real indepth study needs to be done on personality types and
the belief in stupid things. Get Bugs on that.
> Are you sure you're not related to VB, Bud? You exhibit many VB
> characteristics. I'd like to think I have a little of VB's CS&L in my
> arguments as well....but I'm not ashamed to admit something right here
> and now......Bud possesses some of the very best LN arguments and
> reasoned thoughts I've ever encountered on any JFK board.
Thats probably more a function of contrast to the people I`m usually
responding to. I consider myself average, at best, in any aspect of
intellect. The question is, why are CT so devoid of common sense, and
unable to think reasonably?
> I appreciate
> your contributions in this never-ending effort in battling the kooks in
> Kooksville. I tip my cap.
Thanks David, you`re no slouch, either.
> DVP
Bud
Then you don`t understand it, but I`m to blame. I should have said
"Beltway Sniper
*trial* underway now", not case. Are charts like these being used in
the trial, how necessary are precise trajectories to convict?
> Is that your reasoning?
No. This guy seems to be doing these trajectories as a hobby, he
isn`t connected with the case at all. Even so, it was interesting, this
guy did all this work apparently because he is interested in such
things. But, since you produced this, let me use it to make a point. Do
you think if I scrutized the medical testimony, autopsies, witness
testimony,ect in this case, that I couldn`t find fault or dispute
everything he produced? You have to understand that anything offered,
even the 100% accurate truth, could likely be disputed with some
aspects of the evidence? All I`d need to find is some mention of powder
burns, or abrasion collar information contrary to the official
explaination, and I`d have ammunition to dispute. And you can believe
it`s in there too, if not these things I mentioned, than something
similar Have a few thousand zealots descend on this evidence, and holes
would be poked, questions raised, contrary evidence uncovered. It`s a
natural result of effort.
In any case, I liked this on his site...
http://www.alexanderjason.com/jfk.htm
> > If they are shown
> > to be wrong in any of thier assessments about the trajectories, will
> > that show the suspect to be innocent?
>
> That would depend on exactly which trajectories you are talking about.
Fair enough. If the prosecution in the Beltway Sniper case would
produce charts showing trajectories of bullets, and the defense were to
successfully dispute these findings, would that necessarily mean the
jury would find the defendant innocent?
> But the important issue here is not whether Oswald was guilty or not. It
> is about the presence of other snipers.
If the defense in the Beltway Sniper case could dispute the
trajectories in that case, wouldn`t that raise the possibility of other
shooters? Isn`t that true in any shooting? If you can raise questions
about the suspect`s ability to cause any particular wounds, doesn`t
that automatically open the door that someone else did?
> > If these things are are
> > requirement in this case, can Ben show other cases where this precision
> > was required?
>
> Bud, you should visit your local PD sometime and talk to people who
> investigate capital crimes these days. You have no idea how detailed
> these investigations are.
My point is, anything that can be put on the table can be
criticized, disputed, questioned, attacked. What does the ability to do
these things actually mean within the confines of a courtroom?
> Blood spatter patterns and complete re-enactments are conducted to
> determine the angles and paths of the bullet trajectories. Without such
> confirmations, many murderers would have been acquitted.
So, is it your position that an exact re-enactment is a legal
requirement? No conviction possible unless you can positively track
every bullet and fragment? A sucessful dispute of any part of a
prosecutor`s projected trajectory would mean an acquittal?
> What you are doing here is just another variation on a very old nutter
> theme - your message is that we need to stop looking at the evidence.
<snicker> Kooks will be scrutinizing this case forever, don`t let me
stop you. Just examining if they have put the bar in a realistic
position. Just how meaningful are kook demands of precision in a court
of law?
David VP
Your last two posts are, once more, gold-plated. And filled with
additional common sense. (And note how Ben won't touch them with a
10-foot battering ram....or with any of his "evidence" of "conspiracy".
Quite telling.)
BUD WROTE:
>> "More study needs to be done on the phenomenon of kookiness, that is the root. It can be seen all over the internet, and you can find some study on it, but they really just nibble around the edges. A real indepth study needs to be done on personality types and the belief in stupid things. Get Bugs on that."
DVP NOW WRITES:
I wouldn't be at all surprised in the least if Mr. Bugliosi HAS,
indeed, spent a great deal of time and effort in combatting just
exactly that topic (i.e., battling the "Conspiracy-Mindedness" that
seems to permeate virtually every "big event" in recent, or even
not-so-recent years).
In fact, I'm quite certain that I have hinted in past posts to this
aggregation (and certainly within tons of posts at JFK-Lancer, one of
which is linked below) that Vince will probably offer up many pages
worth of info on what he calls the "In-The-Air Phenomenon"...very
similar to what he did in his work on the O.J. Simpson case (both in
his book and in his 12-hour video program all about that trial and its
crackpot verdict).
Quite a number of parallels can be drawn between the O.J. case and the
JFK assassination....e.g., conspiracy claims, allegations of faked and
"planted" evidence, police corruption and misconduct, contamination of
evidence, chain-of-custody issues and "Cover-Up". Lots of similarities.
.....
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=22153
And I'd be very, very surprised if Vincent B. didn't spend a goodly
number of pages in "Final Verdict" discussing (via his usual logical
and forthright style) the issue of the kooky "Everything's Always A
Conspiracy" mentality that seems to have a grip over a decent-sized
percentage of Americans.
I agree with you, Bud.....such a detailed "study" of this "phenomenon"
should be undertaken with vigor. And I hope that VB will attack it in
"Final Verdict". As I said, I'm actually quite confident that he shall
do so....and convincingly.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>That last post by Bud is pure gold. Thanks Bud. Absolutely beautiful.
>
>It's no wonder that Ben won't debate you on your pro-LN points.
Actually, I did for quite some time, until it became apparent that when faced
with facts he'd rather not deal with, he turned flippant and stupid.
Bud and Grizzlie both have this in common, so my newsreader has been adjusted to
eliminate their posts.
>If I
>were a CTer, I wouldn't want to tackle such "CS&L" either.
You, presumably, believe that you're presented "CS&L", and I never have any
problems refuting what you assert.
Do you really suppose Bud is so dramatically better than you? If so, simply
take his statements, and repost 'em as your own.
And then, when I refute them with the evidence, you can snip and run as usual.
>It's
>impossible to combat. Just like when Vince Bugliosi's book comes
>out...which no doubt will be filled with remarks just exactly like that
>of Bud's last post in this thread -- IOW, riddled with common sense and
>reasoned thinking.
And it will be refuted *at least* as well as Posner's garbage...
>Are you sure you're not related to VB, Bud? You exhibit many VB
>characteristics. I'd like to think I have a little of VB's CS&L in my
>arguments as well....but I'm not ashamed to admit something right here
>and now......Bud possesses some of the very best LN arguments and
>reasoned thoughts I've ever encountered on any JFK board.
Then by all means, appropriate some of them. Lurkers know that we could use a
half decent defense of the WCR.
>I appreciate
>your contributions in this never-ending effort in battling the kooks in
>Kooksville. I tip my cap.
>
>DVP
Of course, your accolades for Bud simply place you more firmly as a nut than
ever before...
Ben Holmes
>
>Robert Harris wrote:
>> On 11 Jun 2006 01:16:22 -0700, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That last post by Bud is pure gold. Thanks Bud. Absolutely beautiful.
>>
>> Are you referring to this one?
>>
>>
>>> Then Ben can cite cases where exact and precise trajectories were
>>> necessary to convict a suspect. Are they producing charts in the
>>> Beltway Sniper case underway now showing precise trajectories of all
>>> the bullets fired and accounting for all fragments?
>>
>> Look for yourself, Bud:
>>
>> http://www.alexanderjason.com/snipercase4.htm
>>
>
>Thanks for the link. I am not sure it will satisfy Ben's criteria. He is
>just being ridiculous as usual.
I defy you, Tony, to QUOTE the sentence I wrote that you are now referring to.
But, yellow coward that you are, you simply won't. I predict that you'll refuse
to do so right here and now.
David VP
I have never done that...and never shall (i.e., use someone else's
words as my own). With the one exception regarding the use of the word
"Kook" in many of my posts. But even in THAT example of "stealing" (if
you want to call it that) from Bud, I expressly asked him permission to
do so. I asked him if he would mind if I borrowed his perfect
CTer-fitting "kook" phrase in future posts of mine. "Permission" was
granted.
Now....I'm not saying that some other people's THOUGHTS and/or IDEAS on
the subject of the JFK case (or other topics) have been off-limits in
my posts. Far from it....I've gotten several good "thoughts" and
snippets of good work from other people (Bud included).
But as far as "re-posting" someone else's posts as my own -- I've never
once done that. I would regard that practice as an underhanded tactic
and reprehensible at best.
Don't you agree, Ben?
Or do you?
Ben Holmes
says...
Interestingly, it took several posts, even with my hints, before Davey-boy
realized what Dr. Humes had actually testified to with regards to the angle of
the back wound.
This "approval" of Davey-boy's knowledge of the evidence shows only how ignorant
*YOU* must also be.
> The big difference here, Tony, is, instead of looking at the evidence
>the way you and your conspiracy advocates look at it,( which is closes
>minded with your mind(s) already made up) they look at it objectively.
>So, put *that* in your beverage and drink it!
Then Davey-boy shouldn't have any problems dealing with evidence-based
refutations of his assertions, should he?
Can you explain why he snips and runs all the time? Any reasonable theory?
Bud
Yah, I strongly believe that anything can be disputed, muddle and
confusion can be created, issued raised, ect, about anything, if the
effort is there. Obviously, the effort has been there in the JFK case,
and OJ had the money to buy the experts needed to dispute much of what
the prosecution had in that case. As much as it was portrayed as a
black/white thing, it was in reality a rich/poor thing. With the same
evidence against me, I wouldn`t have the resources to buy experts to
dispute the lab evidence in that case, and would certainly be convicted
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1150013782....@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >That last post by Bud is pure gold. Thanks Bud. Absolutely beautiful.
> >
> >It's no wonder that Ben won't debate you on your pro-LN points.
>
>
> Actually, I did for quite some time, until it became apparent that when faced
> with facts he'd rather not deal with, he turned flippant and stupid.
Thats bullshit, I was flippant and stupid throughout, it wasn`t a
recent development. What happened was that I became familiar with my
adversary, and found his use of the word "facts" wanting, and his
interpretation of "rather not deal with" to mean "stay within the
parameters Ben dictates". Who would fight to his opponents strengths,
especially when it was so easy to spot his weaknesses? Tired of being
spanked until he was unable to sit, Ben could only stop replying to me,
or stop posting here (and he has too much time invested being a
assassination guru for that option). At least this is my take on
things, Ben might disagree.
> Bud and Grizzlie both have this in common, so my newsreader has been adjusted to
> eliminate their posts.
>
>
> >If I
> >were a CTer, I wouldn't want to tackle such "CS&L" either.
>
> You, presumably, believe that you're presented "CS&L", and I never have any
> problems refuting what you assert.
>
> Do you really suppose Bud is so dramatically better than you? If so, simply
> take his statements, and repost 'em as your own.
Ben wants to debate by proxy? What a silly concept.
> And then, when I refute them with the evidence, you can snip and run as usual.
>
> >It's
> >impossible to combat. Just like when Vince Bugliosi's book comes
> >out...which no doubt will be filled with remarks just exactly like that
> >of Bud's last post in this thread -- IOW, riddled with common sense and
> >reasoned thinking.
>
> And it will be refuted *at least* as well as Posner's garbage...
>
>
> >Are you sure you're not related to VB, Bud? You exhibit many VB
> >characteristics. I'd like to think I have a little of VB's CS&L in my
> >arguments as well....but I'm not ashamed to admit something right here
> >and now......Bud possesses some of the very best LN arguments and
> >reasoned thoughts I've ever encountered on any JFK board.
>
> Then by all means, appropriate some of them. Lurkers know that we could use a
> half decent defense of the WCR.
See, thats Ben`s strength. He wants to attack the WC, and wants to
assign his opponent the role of WC defender. But, it`s not about the
WC at all. It`s about what is reasonable to believe, and what is not.
Ben`s ability to attack the WC doesn`t mean a thing.
> >I appreciate
> >your contributions in this never-ending effort in battling the kooks in
> >Kooksville. I tip my cap.
> >
> >DVP
>
> Of course, your accolades for Bud simply place you more firmly as a nut than
> ever before...
Hey, watch the namecalling...
Ben Holmes
Snip and run, again... Davey-boy's yellow stripe just gets wider...
In article <1150068062.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
I've been quite clear, Davey-boy... if you think Bud has presented an argument,
testimony, citation, "CS&L", or anything else that bears on the JFK case that I
can't answer, POST IT.
Stop being a coward and simply do it, Davey-boy. No more excuses...
David VP
Jesus Christ! If I did that, I'd be typing for at least the next 2 days
(solid).....because virtually EVERYTHING that Bud has posted in
response to your CT notions has firmly debunked your pro-conspiracy
postings.
You silly-willy...I thought that was all too obvious.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>> If you think Bud has presented an argument, testimony, citation, "CS&L", or
>> anything else that bears on the JFK case that I can't answer, POST IT.
>
>Jesus Christ! If I did that, I'd be typing for at least the next 2 days
>(solid).....because virtually EVERYTHING that Bud has posted in
>response to your CT notions has firmly debunked your pro-conspiracy
>postings.
I cut & paste all the time. Is this technology alien to you?
This is really simple, Davey-boy... if, as you assert, Bud is providing
argument, testimony, citation, or "CS&L" that you think can't be refuted, then
by all means, post it... and be prepared to respond to it.
But you can't respond to it, so you refuse to post it to begin with... it's a
smart move on your part. Don't provide any argument - just hint that it exists.
Much like Bugliosi's book...
>You silly-willy...I thought that was all too obvious.
Bud isn't going to save you, Davey-boy. *YOU* can't respond to the refutations
of your assertions... Bud has nothing to do with it. By the way, this silly
tactic isn't new... Papa Andy tried it too. In fact, here's a snippet:
***********************************************************************
>I said that Bud had cut down many of his arguments in the Bugliosi
>thread but he is unwilling to look
You're free to *QUOTE* them at any time. I'll be happy to rebut anything that
you are in error about.
***********************************************************************
Needless to say, Papa Andy couldn't figure out how to cut & paste either...
And when I *was* responding to Bud, he was being made just as silly as you are
when I supplied the citations and evidence. Feel free to go back and look...
the posts and threads are still all archived.
But, posts like this, where you don't discuss the evidence at *all*, is what
LNT'ers seem to prefer.
By the way, although a number of LNT'ers have put me in *their* killfile, *NONE*
of them has stated that they will still refute points I make if reposted by
others. Sorta shouts the truth of what is actually happening, doesn't it? I
killfile because people aren't worth my time, LNT'ers killfile because the
*arguments* are un-refutable.
Robert Harris
>
>David VP wrote:
>> That last post by Bud is pure gold. Thanks Bud. Absolutely beautiful.
>
> Glad you liked it.
>
>> It's no wonder that Ben won't debate you on your pro-LN points. If I
>> were a CTer, I wouldn't want to tackle such "CS&L" either. It's
>> impossible to combat.
>
> No, pretty easy, actually. The kooks have all the advantages. They
>can attack our position, because we have one.
>They don`t.
Bullshit!!
Don't you ever get tired of spouting lie after lie after lie???
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
Or do you have a rebuttal in the works, Bud??
Or do you intend to continue running from this evidence as you have
for all these years???
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Robert Harris
The goons seem to have a new battle plan, to overcome poor David's
inablity to confront evidence and facts.
First, Bud posts some ludicrous crap of some kind - doesn't really
matter what. And then David posts - probably, without even reading it,
about how brilliant it is.
It is really sad to see what has happened to the nutters in recent
years. I can still remember when their supporters in this newsgroup
were mostly professors, scientists, and even a bonafied NASA engineer.
The problem was, that those guys were also smart enought to see the
writing on the wall, and have long since, deserted the nutters sinking
ship.
Sadly, these mental heavyweights have been replaced by barely
literate types like David, Bud and Grizzlie - none of whom could
debate his way out of a proverbial paper bag.
So, instead of intelligent analysis we get this endless spam, which
never, ever addresses anything even remotely related to evidence, or
feeble attempts at humor with the obvious purpose of trivializing the
murder of this President.
But through all this excrement, these guys do manage to get one
message across to us - the nutters can no longer support their theory.
Robert Harris
There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2006 14:08:40 -0700, "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >David VP wrote:
> >> That last post by Bud is pure gold. Thanks Bud. Absolutely beautiful.
> >
> > Glad you liked it.
> >
> >> It's no wonder that Ben won't debate you on your pro-LN points. If I
> >> were a CTer, I wouldn't want to tackle such "CS&L" either. It's
> >> impossible to combat.
> >
> > No, pretty easy, actually. The kooks have all the advantages. They
> >can attack our position, because we have one.
> >They don`t.
>
> Bullshit!!
Bless you!
> Don't you ever get tired of spouting lie after lie after lie???
Don`t you ever tire of believing stupid shit?
> http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/k/answers.html
>
> Or do you have a rebuttal in the works, Bud??
<snicker> What could I possibly hope to achieve? Any sucessful
rebuttal to your ideas would do what harm to the idea there was a
conspiracy to kill JFK?
> Or do you intend to continue running from this evidence as you have
> for all these years???
Got any pictures of Nessie?
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> The goons seem to have a new battle plan, to overcome poor David's
> inablity to confront evidence and facts.
>
> First, Bud posts some ludicrous crap of some kind - doesn't really
> matter what.
I didn`t read it. I took Ben`s advice and plonked him.
> And then David posts - probably, without even reading it,
> about how brilliant it is.
Harris doesn`t know or care what I wrote, yet seems capable of
rendering judgement on it. Then he criticizes DVP, because he images
DVP commtted the same offense Harris admits to. Judging it without
reading it.
> It is really sad to see what has happened to the nutters in recent
> years. I can still remember when their supporters in this newsgroup
> were mostly professors, scientists, and even a bonafied NASA engineer.
What the fuck were they thinking? That it was possible to reason
with kooks? Thats why I never confuse intelligence with wisdom.
> The problem was, that those guys were also smart enought to see the
> writing on the wall, and have long since, deserted the nutters sinking
> ship.
So, you think we should continue to bang our heads on the same brick
walls they did? To what effect?
> Sadly, these mental heavyweights have been replaced by barely
> literate types like David, Bud and Grizzlie - none of whom could
> debate his way out of a proverbial paper bag.
Sadly, we don`t play by rules dictated by kooks. Given a choice
between making a point, expressing an idea, or annoying a kook, I`ll
opt to annoy the kook. It didn`t take me long to figure out how things
work here. Kooks point to some specific thing and say "explain this to
my satisfaction, or else I`ll believe stupid shit". I say kooks will
believe stupid shit regardless, so what difference does it make?
Ridicule is as good a response as any to nonsense. For instance, some
kook has offered an article about the CIA knowing about the
capabilities of silencers. I would have thought the CIA would never
have looked at them to see how they could be used, but there it was, I
was wrong. You might wonder why kooks look right past a photo of the
murderer holding the murder weapon to focus on a paper about silencers
written by the CIA, but that would require a lengthy explaination
involving saying the word "kook" a lot.
> So, instead of intelligent analysis we get this endless spam,
Give us the "intellegent analysis" of the Tippit murder. Can you
offer something that isn`t ridiculous?
> which
> never, ever addresses anything even remotely related to evidence,
Shut up about the evidence. You kooks disregard anything you want
for any reason you want. Did you know Oz`s wife said that this wasn`t
Oz`s first attempt at political assassination? Said that Oz was on a
downward spiral with his political obsessions.
But Oz`s politics don`t even show on the kook radar. Kooks throw out
the best indications of what happened to embrace the worst. Somehow,
they think it`s the job of LN to dissuade them of the parts they
embrace.
> or
> feeble attempts at humor with the obvious purpose of trivializing the
> murder of this President.
Kooks cover-up for man`s murderer, so can select others they prefer
to blame. They see themselves at championing this cause on JFK`s
behalf, does anyone see the Kenndy family showing interest in this
pursuit? Are they claiming more concern for JFK than his own family?
> But through all this excrement, these guys do manage to get one
> message across to us - the nutters can no longer support their theory.
Yah, yah, I hear it all the time. The SBT is dead, the WCR is dead.
A hundred years from now, they still will be the only reasonable
explainations on the table.
Anthony Marsh
YOU, DVP and Bud are here ONLY to cover up the Kennedy assassination.
Bud
Yah, because of our efforts, almost nobody knows Kennedy was
assassinated.
David VP
LOL.
Instead of focusing on the almost-certain-to-be-true reason as to why
"those guys" "deserted" the NG, Robert chooses to believe these guys
were whipped into submission, tail between the ol' legs no doubt.
When, if I were a betting man, I'd say that those guys simply got tired
of arguing with kooks. Simple as that.
Semi Off-Topic, but related........
I posted hundreds of logical pro-LN posts over at Lancer for years,
only to actually be berated and demeaned by the site's OWNER (no less),
the grand "Ms. Conway" (who, btw, NEVER posts anything of substance on
her OWN SITE, for some reason). Conway told me I was an "embarrassment"
to her and her group of pro-CT cronies at "Conspiracy Lancer Central".
Then, when another very informed LNer joined my side at battling the
Lancer Kook population, it became too much, and we both had to be
expelled from their little "CTers Only Please" clique. (And I know that
was the ONLY real reason for my expulsion...I'll never believe
otherwise; mainly due to the fact that certain CTers there "break the
forum rules" of decency, et al, far more often than I ever did....but
guess who still remains and who is now gone? I'll give you 1 guess.)
As long as the kooks can argue amongst themselves they seem to be
happy. But when someone like Bud comes along, who oozes common sense
from every pore as far as I can detect, it upsets the CT ship. Because
it's far easier to argue kook-to-kook about the unsupportable CT
trifles than it is to take on someone like Bud (or, soon, Vincent
Bugliosi, who'll be burying all CT claims forever if my prediction is
accurate...and it will be ~wink~), who actually mixes in some CS&L with
the evidence....as opposed to CTers, who prefer to let the evidence
that they say proves conspiracy just dangle in mid-air, with no visible
means of support.
And I resent being told I couldn't debate my way out of something
"proverbial". After all, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last
night. So there.
David VP
Spoken like the true "Finder Of The Truth" that you must be. Thanks.
(And just when I was almost certain that Anthony Marsh was turning away
from CT-Kookdom, he posts a silly message like this one. Tony, however,
is definitely not the CT-Kook he once was. I've noted that for quite a
while now. I think some LN-ism is seeping in through the cracks. Am I
right, Tony?)
rob.s...@gmail.com
And that Bud is the answer to the $99 question
Had the omnipotent FBI had their "kook radar" up and manned, this whole
thing would never have happened. Unfortunately, too little staff and
too little funding to go after every kook.
Spence
David VP
Plus the unfortunate fact that Oswald had gotten away with shooting at
General Walker in April. If only the bastard (LHO) had tripped up in
some way on April 10th and had been caught in the act.
But his general lack of a violent "rap sheet" meant he was free to roam
at will on 11/22.
Robert Harris
> Shut up about the evidence.
Hehe, that pretty much sums up everything Bud has to say:-)
Robert Harris
lazu...@webtv.net
Grizzlie Antagonist
Robert Harris wrote:
> Sadly, these mental heavyweights have been replaced by barely
> literate types like David, Bud and Grizzlie - none of whom could
> debate his way out of a proverbial paper bag.
>
> So, instead of intelligent analysis we get this endless spam, which
> never, ever addresses anything even remotely related to evidence, or
> feeble attempts at humor with the obvious purpose of trivializing the
> murder of this President.
It's YOU that we're trivializing.
Bud
Robert Harris wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2006 12:49:14 -0700, "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Shut up about the evidence.
>
> Hehe, that pretty much sums up everything Bud has to say:-)
When you`re watching a dog chase it`s tail, you can either watch
him, join him, or try to stop him. As you noted, prior LN had attemped
to stop the kooks from chasing thier tales/tails. This LN is enjoying
the show, and will occassionally insert comments pertaining to form and
progress.
rob.s...@gmail.com
yes, but not a violent one.
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >> "The problem was, that those guys {the scientists, NASA dude, et al} were also smart enought [sic] to see the writing on the wall, and have long since, deserted the nutters sinking ship."
>
> LOL.
> Instead of focusing on the almost-certain-to-be-true reason as to why
> "those guys" "deserted" the NG, Robert chooses to believe these guys
> were whipped into submission, tail between the ol' legs no doubt.
Some would say those (that deserted) chose to be in the good ole boy
network, their arguments were based on some much bs the deceided their
EGO'S had had enough... we can still see those remnants today....
> When, if I were a betting man, I'd say that those guys simply got
tired
> of arguing with kooks. Simple as that.
keep your money in your pocket, or hope a plane here in Las Vegas -- we
need your logic out here
> Semi Off-Topic, but related........
>
> I posted hundreds of logical pro-LN posts over at Lancer for years,
> only to actually be berated and demeaned by the site's OWNER (no less),
> the grand "Ms. Conway" (who, btw, NEVER posts anything of substance on
> her OWN SITE, for some reason). Conway told me I was an "embarrassment"
> to her and her group of pro-CT cronies at "Conspiracy Lancer Central".
Conspiracy central, Lancer? roflmfao!
> Then, when another very informed LNer joined my side at battling the
> Lancer Kook population, it became too much, and we both had to be
> expelled from their little "CTers Only Please" clique. (And I know that
> was the ONLY real reason for my expulsion...I'll never believe
> otherwise; mainly due to the fact that certain CTers there "break the
> forum rules" of decency, et al, far more often than I ever did....but
> guess who still remains and who is now gone? I'll give you 1 guess.)
Lurkers, we call this the last vestiage for Lone Neuterer's..."they're
all crazy except us Lone neuter's - they just don't understand complex
scenario's....." LOL!
> As long as the kooks can argue amongst themselves they seem to be
> happy. But when someone like Bud comes along, who oozes common sense
> from every pore as far as I can detect, it upsets the CT ship. Because
> it's far easier to argue kook-to-kook about the unsupportable CT
> trifles than it is to take on someone like Bud (or, soon, Vincent
> Bugliosi, who'll be burying all CT claims forever if my prediction is
> accurate...and it will be ~wink~), who actually mixes in some CS&L with
> the evidence....as opposed to CTers, who prefer to let the evidence
> that they say proves conspiracy just dangle in mid-air, with no visible
> means of support.
more highbrow nonesense -- VonPain must be looking for a few points on
DaBug's sales, perhaps?
> And I resent being told I couldn't debate my way out of something
> "proverbial". After all, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last
> night. So there.
Better make use of that freeby 'continental breakfast' then, you'll
need the strength!
Robert Harris
<lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Like the wallpaper sticks to the wall
>Like the seashore clings to the sea
>Like you'll never get rid of your shadow
>You'll never get rid of me
Sigh.. I really am looking forward to some cloudy weather soon:-)
Robert Harris
>
"Shut up about the evidence." Bud 6-12-2006
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On 12 Jun 2006 22:50:21 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Sadly, these mental heavyweights have been replaced by barely
> >> literate types like David, Bud and Grizzlie - none of whom could
> >> debate his way out of a proverbial paper bag.
> >>
> >> So, instead of intelligent analysis we get this endless spam, which
> >> never, ever addresses anything even remotely related to evidence, or
> >> feeble attempts at humor with the obvious purpose of trivializing the
> >> murder of this President.
> >
> >
> >It's YOU that we're trivializing.
> >Like the wallpaper sticks to the wall
> >Like the seashore clings to the sea
> >Like you'll never get rid of your shadow
> >You'll never get rid of me
>
> Sigh.. I really am looking forward to some cloudy weather soon:-)
How about a tempest?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALONSO
Prithee, no more: thou dost talk nothing to me.
GONZALO
I do well believe your highness; and did it to minister occasion to
these gentlemen, who are of such sensible and nimble lungs that they
always use to laugh at nothing.
ANTONIO
'Twas you we laughed at.
GONZALO
Who in this kind of merry fooling am nothing to you: so you may
continue and laugh at nothing still.
Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act 2, Scene 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David VP
"Strength"? To fight CT nutjobs? Come now. One "Cheez-It" snack cracker
would be enough to supply the "strength" needed for such a task.
But keep trying...at least your posts are getting slightly longer,
David. They're still "say nothing" 100% of the time, but it's an
improvement (bulk-wise).
curtj...@webtv.net
> David praises the mirror. Lol.
Davey high-fiving Bud is equivalent to the last scene in Dumb and
Dumber about the girls in the bus asking for an oil rub.
CJ
Bud
Thats funny, I was thinking recently how kooks remind me of a
scene in "Doc Hollywood". A lady goes to the doctor and complains
about seeing spots everywhere she looks. The doctor takes her glasses
off, cleans them, and renders her cured. Kind of like how kooks see
indications of conspiracy everywhere they look. I suggest they have
thier brains taken out for cleaning.
> CJ
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >> "Better make use of that freeby 'continental breakfast' then, you'll need the strength!"
>
> "Strength"? To fight CT nutjobs? Come now. One "Cheez-It" snack cracker
> would be enough to supply the "strength" needed for such a task.
>
> But keep trying...at least your posts are getting slightly longer,
> David.
lol -- Ben and the others have more patience with you 'cheeze-it'
wonders than I.... there IS nor has there
EVER been a fight here, Holmes and company have seen to that. The
initial competition is gone for now (hiding out at .john's place) --
ONLY thing new these day's is a new crop of Lone Neuter's looking for
writing gigs..... read the same old shit, just new names --
So buck up bucko, you'll get promoted to the .john board, give it a few
more years, you'll be certified sooner than you think! Neuter loons
have become more frequent than ever
David VP
Of course it's the "same old shit" (Fuhrman's anti-SBT silliness
notwithstanding). That's because the JFK case IS "the same old shit"
(re. the true facts, evidence, and KNOWN KILLER OSWALD).
Why WOULD there be anything "new" when the truth's been out there for
all to see for decades...pert-near since Day 1 in 1963.
>> "You'll get promoted to the .john board, give it a few more years..."
I don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about here.
"Promoted to the Dot-John board"??? WTF does that even mean? Anybody
know? I sure don't.
And can anybody tell me what these 2 things mean (not being sarcastic
here; I truly haven't a clue):
Why is John's first name always written with a "dot"/"period" in front
of it by most posters here?
and:
What in the world is this "Skull & Bones" stuff I've been reading
lately? (More CT make-believe names for "the evil Govt. shills"
possibly? Just guessing.)
Bud
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> David VP wrote:
> > >> "Better make use of that freeby 'continental breakfast' then, you'll need the strength!"
> >
> > "Strength"? To fight CT nutjobs? Come now. One "Cheez-It" snack cracker
> > would be enough to supply the "strength" needed for such a task.
> >
> > But keep trying...at least your posts are getting slightly longer,
> > David.
>
> lol -- Ben and the others have more patience with you 'cheeze-it'
> wonders than I.... there IS nor has there
> EVER been a fight here, Holmes and company have seen to that.
You must have missed the white flag he waved at me and Griz. Kooks
like Ben see conspiracy everywhere they look, to them it permeates
every aspect of the case. That in itself shows that it`s him.
> The
> initial competition is gone for now (hiding out at .john's place) --
"competition"? When a dog chases his tail, the tail is the
competition.
> ONLY thing new these day's is a new crop of Lone Neuter's looking for
> writing gigs..... read the same old shit, just new names --
Maybe you haven`t noticed pardner, theres a new sheriff in town.
Rode that tinhorn Holmes out on a shutter.
> So buck up bucko, you'll get promoted to the .john board, give it a few
> more years, you'll be certified sooner than you think! Neuter loons
> have become more frequent than ever
I`ve noticed a decrease in CT babbling. I hope the derision and
abuse I heap upon you kooks has played some small part in that. It`s my
wish to squeeze out all the enjoyment you kooks get out of this sick
hobby.
> They're still "say nothing" 100% of the time, but it's an
> > improvement (bulk-wise).
Repeat after me in a high, nasally voice... "Why won`t they talk
about the evidence!".
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >> "Same old shit, just new names..."
>
> Of course it's the "same old shit" (Fuhrman's anti-SBT silliness
> notwithstanding). That's because the JFK case IS "the same old shit"
> (re. the true facts, evidence, and KNOWN KILLER OSWALD).
then why bother with your incessant Lone Neuter postings and ramblings?
Can't imagine I'd be doing this for as long as you have when there's no
interest on your part.... THAT seems rather silly, don't you think --
then again, if your being paid to be a ....
> Why WOULD there be anything "new" when the truth's been out there for
> all to see for decades...pert-near since Day 1 in 1963.
>
>
> >> "You'll get promoted to the .john board, give it a few more years..."
>
> I don't have the slightest idea what you're babbling about here.
> "Promoted to the Dot-John board"??? WTF does that even mean? Anybody
> know? I sure don't.
sure you don't, don't worry, I won't tell a soul...
> And can anybody tell me what these 2 things mean (not being sarcastic
> here; I truly haven't a clue):
>
> Why is John's first name always written with a "dot"/"period" in front
> of it by most posters here?
silly you, that's the way he's always signed his post[s], I suspect he
still does
> and:
>
> What in the world is this "Skull & Bones" stuff I've been reading
> lately? (More CT make-believe names for "the evil Govt. shills"
> possibly? Just guessing.)
Who cares about Skull & Bones? We got us a REAL Texas sized conspiracy
to deal with. Or are we about to hear from the Lone Neuter camp: "Hi,
I'm from the government, I'm here to help...."? Eh? LOL!
David VP
Oops, I tipped my disinfo hand again, didn't I? Dang-it. I must learn
to watch that.
~~Note to VB: Dock DVP $29.50 for 06/13/2006 gaffe on the
Google-Nuthouse Forum~~
>> "Sure you don't ... don't worry, I won't tell a soul."
Yep...just another small way I'm putting myself into the "cover-up" and
"spiracycon" (er...conspiracy), feigning ignorance about the "Dot-John
Clique". It's small taters...but at least it's somethin'.
Sam
> Who cares about Skull & Bones? We got us a REAL Texas sized conspiracy
> to deal with. Or are we about to hear from the Lone Neuter camp: "Hi,
> I'm from the government, I'm here to help...."? Eh? LOL!
with at least one member of skull & bones on 11-22-63 in the proximity of
the assassination
and total +/- 800 members on 11-22-63 in virtually all branches of
government (executive - including averill harriman who was one of the major
players in starting the vietnam war; administrative; and judicial), the
agencies, and private industry
creators of time and life magazines, captors of the zapruder film until
liberation by robert groden
and ties to their german illuminati (nazi in ww2, neonazi now) counterpart
organization since 1832
the conspiracy is bigger than texas
the conspiracy which killed jfk was illuminati in origin, with participation
by the feeder groups (former nazi war criminals, neonazi, etc.) under
illuminati
the media has traditionally hid the identity as well as the works of
illuminati and bones, so unfamiliarity with them is commonplace
understanding the conpspiracy which killed jfk is impossible without
knowledge of skull & bones
alexandra robbins' book, secrets of the tomb, is a great place to start for
those interested
a secret organization with what appear to be ties to .joe mccarthy, lawyer,
politician, and marquette university alumni who died of alcoholism in 1957
Grizzlie Antagonist
Bud wrote:
> aeffects wrote:
> > David VP wrote:
> > > >> "Better make use of that freeby 'continental breakfast' then, you'll need the strength!"
> > >
> > > "Strength"? To fight CT nutjobs? Come now. One "Cheez-It" snack cracker
> > > would be enough to supply the "strength" needed for such a task.
> > >
> > > But keep trying...at least your posts are getting slightly longer,
> > > David.
> >
> > lol -- Ben and the others have more patience with you 'cheeze-it'
> > wonders than I.... there IS nor has there
> > EVER been a fight here, Holmes and company have seen to that.
>
> You must have missed the white flag he waved at me and Griz. Kooks
> like Ben see conspiracy everywhere they look, to them it permeates
> every aspect of the case. That in itself shows that it`s him.
Yeah, given that Ben boasts about having "killfiled" me, he has about
as much "patience" with me as a boiling tea kettle.
Of course, that means that I can say whatever I want to about him now
and STILL avoid an argument.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> David VP wrote:
> > >> "Better make use of that freeby 'continental breakfast' then, you'll need the strength!"
> >
> > "Strength"? To fight CT nutjobs? Come now. One "Cheez-It" snack cracker
> > would be enough to supply the "strength" needed for such a task.
> >
> > But keep trying...at least your posts are getting slightly longer,
> > David.
>
> lol -- Ben and the others have more patience with you 'cheeze-it'
> wonders than I....
Both of you have long hair and beards. Both of you live with your
parents and sniff glue. Both of you listen to noisy eardrum-shattering
heavy metal music. Both of you think that you're impressing the chicks
by using the word "fuck" a lot.
It's the conspiracy theorist lifestyle.
aeffects
Ah...Griz, I didn't know you cared, how sweet!
cdddraftsman
calling a hippie or CTer and see what happens . Brain adrift . Tom
Lowry
cdddraftsman
the opposite of the scientific method . In other words , prove to me
that my , inanely stupid theory , slight of word trick , isn't what
it's cracked up to be ! And if you can't beat that round peg into a
square hole with your sledgehammer , then join us at the
www.shallowmindsdontthink.com . In lieu of not suceeding with any LNer
, raise hands above head , retreat , then declare victory . Tom Lowry
Bud wrote:
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > The goons seem to have a new battle plan, to overcome poor David's
> > inablity to confront evidence and facts.
> >
> > First, Bud posts some ludicrous crap of some kind - doesn't really
> > matter what.
>
> I didn`t read it. I took Ben`s advice and plonked him.
>
> > And then David posts - probably, without even reading it,
> > about how brilliant it is.
>
> Harris doesn`t know or care what I wrote, yet seems capable of
> rendering judgement on it. Then he criticizes DVP, because he images
> DVP commtted the same offense Harris admits to. Judging it without
> reading it.
>
> > It is really sad to see what has happened to the nutters in recent
> > years. I can still remember when their supporters in this newsgroup
> > were mostly professors, scientists, and even a bonafied NASA engineer.
>
> What the fuck were they thinking? That it was possible to reason
> with kooks? Thats why I never confuse intelligence with wisdom.
>
> > writing on the wall, and have long since, deserted the nutters sinking
> > ship.
>
> walls they did? To what effect?
>
> > literate types like David, Bud and Grizzlie - none of whom could
> > debate his way out of a proverbial paper bag.
>
> between making a point, expressing an idea, or annoying a kook, I`ll
> opt to annoy the kook. It didn`t take me long to figure out how things
> work here. Kooks point to some specific thing and say "explain this to
> my satisfaction, or else I`ll believe stupid shit". I say kooks will
> believe stupid shit regardless, so what difference does it make?
> Ridicule is as good a response as any to nonsense. For instance, some
> kook has offered an article about the CIA knowing about the
> capabilities of silencers. I would have thought the CIA would never
> have looked at them to see how they could be used, but there it was, I
> was wrong. You might wonder why kooks look right past a photo of the
> murderer holding the murder weapon to focus on a paper about silencers
> written by the CIA, but that would require a lengthy explaination
> involving saying the word "kook" a lot.
>
>
> offer something that isn`t ridiculous?
>
> > never, ever addresses anything even remotely related to evidence,
>
> for any reason you want. Did you know Oz`s wife said that this wasn`t
> Oz`s first attempt at political assassination? Said that Oz was on a
> downward spiral with his political obsessions.
> But Oz`s politics don`t even show on the kook radar. Kooks throw out
> the best indications of what happened to embrace the worst. Somehow,
> they think it`s the job of LN to dissuade them of the parts they
> embrace.
>
> > feeble attempts at humor with the obvious purpose of trivializing the
> > murder of this President.
>
> to blame. They see themselves at championing this cause on JFK`s
> behalf, does anyone see the Kenndy family showing interest in this
> pursuit? Are they claiming more concern for JFK than his own family?
>
> > But through all this excrement, these guys do manage to get one
> > message across to us - the nutters can no longer support their theory.
>
> Yah, yah, I hear it all the time. The SBT is dead, the WCR is dead.
> A hundred years from now, they still will be the only reasonable
> explainations on the table.
>
> >
> >
> > Robert Harris
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11 Jun 2006 18:41:45 -0700, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> "If you think Bud has presented an argument, testimony, citation, "CS&L", or anything else that bears on the JFK case that I can't answer, POST IT."
> > >
> > >Jesus Christ! If I did that, I'd be typing for at least the next 2 days
> > >(solid).....because virtually EVERYTHING that Bud has posted in
> > >response to your CT notions has firmly debunked your pro-conspiracy
> > >postings.
> > >
> > >You silly-willy...I thought that was all too obvious.
> > >
> >
lazu...@webtv.net
just writes under several aliases. The major tipoff is that the poster
is always congratulating (him)self, regardless of how clueless or stupid
the remarks.
David VP
Yeah....regardless.
And don't forget the fact that a few of us here like to use the word
"kook" constantly. THAT might be a "clue" too. Better include that in
your LN analysis too. Make a note of it.
In fact, laz just used that word up above....so that must mean that
he/she/it is really somebody else too.
Confusingly Yours,
Dave "Really Bud/Chuck/Steve/Tom L." VP
Bud
Dissatisfied with reality, Lazy continues to write his own.
curtj...@webtv.net
CJ