Ben Holmes is a Liar!
robcap...@netscape.com
the WCR and could show from the report that what they said is not
true. Of course I'm reading the WCR in 2007 so I do have some
additional knowledge, like everyone else reading it in 2007, like your
beloved lurkers. I never said I was reading this in 1964 timeframe,
when Americans never had a clue they were being lied to. Even with
this in mind, I still showed there aren't enough bullets to cause 8
wounds, two large fragments, three tiny particles, a big dent in
chrome and a cracked windshield.
I don't get your attacks when you obviously don't even get my point of
the post, or the need to make someone look bad when they have stated a
consistent point from the beginning. I thought showing the WCR was
incorrect was a good thing, but obviously you would rather attack me
instead of focusing on this.
So I'll let the "lurkers" decide for themselves.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "I still showed there aren't enough bullets to cause 8 wounds, two large fragments, three tiny particles, a big dent in chrome and a cracked windshield." <<<
>
> beyond all doubt that are in completely opposition to what THE EXPERTS
> WHO INVESTIGATED
Investigated? When did this happen? I thought they wrapped up the
case in 48-72 hours?
THE ASSASSINATION SAID (and MULTIPLE experts for
> MULTIPLE investigations too...e.g. WC, HSCA, Clark Panel, Rockefeeler
> Commission, Dr. Olivier of the U.S. Army, etc.)??
I doubt they can back up most of this they claim happened, that is why
the CT community continues to grow and your group is like the
dwindling Idian tribes.
>
> >>> "8 wounds..." <<<
>
> All of JBC's & JFK's wounds were positively caused by TWO bullets that
> were fired from Lee Oswald's MC rifle.
Really, how do you know this? By the term "similar" after the test?
>
> The SBT is as a rock-solid fact. Common sense alone makes it true. And
> when the ONE bullet in evidence is coupled with the ZERO OTHER BULLETS
> in evidence and the ZERO BULLETS found in Kennedy & Connally and the
> LACK OF BODILY damage inside JFK's neck & back....then the SBT rises
> several more notches on the "Actually Happened" scale.
Sure it is, to nutjobs like you. Tomlinson said the bullet he turned
over was not the one he found. A bullet cannot traverse the neck area
and not at least nick the spine, it's (your favorite word) impossible.
How come the Connally's always said it didn't happen?
>
> Only a kook ignores all of those obvious "common sense" factors
> connected with the shooting and the SBT.
Did I miss something as I didn't see any "common sense" factors
written above.
>
> >>> "...Two large fragments {in the limo}..." <<<
>
> Which were from the head-shot bullet (from Oswald's rifle). So, we're
> still at TWO total bullets hitting the victims.
No we are not because the FBI and Frazier said they could not claim
the fragments were from the same bullet. Humor me. What other bullet
did one of them come from?
> >>> "...Three tiny particles {under Nellie Connally's jump seat in the limo}..." <<<
>
> Which were almost certainly also from the head-shot bullet (from
> Oswald's rifle). Nothing has knocked an "Oswald bullet" out of
> contention regarding these fragments. So, we're still at TWO total
> bullets hitting the victims. And both from LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano.
They were way too small for testing so you cannot claim they were from
LHO's alleged rifle. So where did they come from? I'll let you have
the head shot for now.
>
> Next....
>
> >>> "...A big dent in {the} chrome {at the front of the limousine}..." <<<
>
> Which is a dent in the chrome that was almost certainly caused by one
> of the two front-seat bullet fragments (from Oswald's gun) after those
> fragments exited President Kennedy's head after Lee Harvey Oswald's
> bullet crashed through JFK's cranium at approx. 2,100 to 2,200 feet
> per second.
This is malarky as no fragment the could cause a dent that large.
Also, why do we have all these fragments at all since the WC claimed
LHO used a full-metal jacketed bullet? Makes no sense like most of
the things in your theory.
>
> So, we're still at TWO total bullets hitting the victims. (Both from
> Oswald's MC weapon.)
No we are not as the FBI and Fraizer said they couldn't claim the two
fragments were from one bullet.
>
> Next....
>
> >>> "...And a cracked windshield." <<<
>
> Which is a cracked windshield that was almost certainly caused by the
> other of the two large bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's rifle that
> struck Kennedy in the head, causing FORWARD-MOVING fragments to exit
> his head, moving toward the front of the Presidential limousine,
> naturally.
Please, I thought I'd never hear anything more insane than the SBT,
BUT I think you may have at least matched that wacky claim above. A
small fragment cracked a special windshield? I have had bigger
pebbles hit my windshield and I didn't get a crack.
>
> This is, again, perfectly consistent with the "Lone-Assassin / LHO / 3-
> Shots-Fired / Oswald-In-TSBD" viewpoint.
Only in your wacky world of nuttiness.
>
> So, we are still at TWO total bullets striking the two victims in the
> car....with both of those bullets coming out of the barrel of
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766.
Again you are, the rest of us have moved on.
>
> Let's see the CT-Kooks ignore all of this LN-proving material (which,
> of course, they will ignore, without feeling a tiny bit of
> embarrassment while so doing).....
Great, more Mac crap. I'm sure this is unbiased reading.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham1.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/contents.htm
David Von Pein
LOL. Don't ya love it when a CTer thinks he knows certain things
beyond all doubt that are in complete opposition to what THE EXPERTS
WHO INVESTIGATED THE ASSASSINATION SAID (and MULTIPLE experts for
MULTIPLE investigations too...e.g. WC, HSCA, Clark Panel, Rockefeller
Commission, Dr. Olivier of the U.S. Army, etc.)??
>>> "8 wounds..." <<<
All of JBC's & JFK's wounds were positively caused by TWO bullets that
were fired from Lee Oswald's MC rifle.
That's a fact that was agreed upon by BOTH the Warren Commission and
the House Select Committee on Assassinations. (Both of those
organizations were full of liars, is that it Rob? Therefore, you think
you can just dismiss their "ONLY TWO BULLETS HIT THE VICTIMS"
conclusion out of hand. Right? It's nice being a nutcase, huh?)
The SBT is a rock-solid fact. Common sense alone makes it true. And
when the ONE bullet in evidence is coupled with the ZERO OTHER BULLETS
in evidence and the ZERO BULLETS found in Kennedy & Connally and the
LACK OF BODILY damage inside JFK's neck & back....then the SBT rises
several more notches on the "Actually Happened" scale.
Only a kook would ignore all of those obvious "common sense" factors
connected with the shooting and the SBT.
Plus: The viability of the SBT was given a big boost in late 2004 when
The Discovery Channel aired "JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET", which
proved that a WCC/MC missile just like CE399 can (and will) go through
two "mock-ups" of the two Dallas victims, with that test bullet
travelling a very similar trajectory and doing a similar amount of
damage to the two mock "victims"....with the test bullet then
emerging IN ONE PIECE, like this:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/6735.jpg
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/69758897e673c5a2
The excellent "Beyond The Magic Bullet" demonstration is just more
stuff that the conspiracy-loving clowns must totally ignore (or skew)
in order to forge ahead with their silly and mindless "The SBT Was
Impossible" drivel.
>>> "...Two large fragments {in the limo}..." <<<
Which were from the head-shot bullet (from Oswald's rifle). So, we're
still at TWO total bullets hitting the victims.
Next....
>>> "...Three tiny particles {under Nellie Connally's jump seat in the limo}..." <<<
Which were almost certainly also from the head-shot bullet (from
Oswald's rifle). Nothing has knocked an "Oswald bullet" out of
contention regarding these fragments. So, we're still at TWO total
bullets hitting the victims. And both from LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano.
Next....
>>> "...A big dent in {the} chrome {at the front of the limousine}..." <<<
Which is a dent in the chrome that was almost certainly caused by one
of the two front-seat bullet fragments (from Oswald's gun) after those
fragments exited President Kennedy's head after Lee Harvey Oswald's
bullet crashed through JFK's cranium at approx. 2,100 to 2,200 feet
per second.
So, we're still at TWO total bullets hitting the victims. (Both from
Oswald's MC weapon.)
Next....
>>> "...And a cracked windshield." <<<
Which is a cracked windshield that was almost certainly caused by the
other of the two large bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's rifle that
struck Kennedy in the head, causing FORWARD-MOVING fragments to exit
his head, moving toward the front of the Presidential limousine,
naturally.
This is, again, perfectly consistent with the "LN/LHO/3-Shots-Fired/
Oswald-In-TSBD" viewpoint.
So, we are still at TWO total bullets striking the two victims in the
car....with both of those bullets coming out of the barrel of
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766.
Let's see the CT-Kooks ignore all of this LN-proving material (which,
of course, they will ignore, without feeling a tiny bit of
embarrassment while so doing).....
aeffects
Dave, you're a disgrace to the human race.... not to mention nuttier
than a fucking fruit-cake.... carry on troop!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>I have had enough of your attacks and insults. I said I was reading
>the WCR and could show from the report that what they said is not
>true.
And yet, you've been completely unable to do so. In fact, I've stopped you
several times from bringing in evidence that is not contained in the WCR.
At this point, only lying about the testimony, and calling WCR witnesses liars,
is all you have in support of your position.
>Of course I'm reading the WCR in 2007 so I do have some
>additional knowledge, like everyone else reading it in 2007, like your
>beloved lurkers. I never said I was reading this in 1964 timeframe,
>when Americans never had a clue they were being lied to.
The WCR in 2007 is still the same as it was in 1964.
I've told you repeatedly that you can't impugn the WCR without going to the
primary evidence that they also used, but you've repeatedly denied that. Yet
can't prove the WCR false by only using the WCR.
You prove your thesis wrong, and my statement correct, almost every post you
make. Now you've sunk to calling me a liar, despite *zero* evidence... even as
I've proven you a liar several times now for your misquoting and
mis-characterization of the testimony and WCR.
>Even with
>this in mind, I still showed there aren't enough bullets to cause 8
>wounds, two large fragments, three tiny particles, a big dent in
>chrome and a cracked windshield.
No Rob, you haven't. Merely asserting it over and over is not proof.
The "proof" that you tried was by lying about what Frazier said.
>I don't get your attacks when you obviously don't even get my point of
>the post,
I understand quite well what you're trying to say - and it's simply wrong.
You cannot impugn the WCR based only on the information contained within it.
How many times have I said that now?
>or the need to make someone look bad
YOU make yourself look bad. You keep lying about the evidence.
I merely point it out.
>when they have stated a
>consistent point from the beginning.
Stating it, and proving it, are two different things...
>I thought showing the WCR was
>incorrect was a good thing,
It is, if you accept that you must use the same evidence that the WC had.
I've done it, *and done it honestly*, a number of times.
>but obviously you would rather attack me
>instead of focusing on this.
I'll "attack" any liar.
>So I'll let the "lurkers" decide for themselves.
Indeed, you will. You have no choice.
It's good that you finally stopped talking about the evidence, and focused on ad
hominem. This is characteristic of the LNT'ers and trolls... you're revealing
your true nature, I suspect.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
Nor could they claim that they could not have come from the same bullet.
You keep ducking that particular fact.
>Humor me. What other bullet
>did one of them come from?
>
>>>>> "...Three tiny particles {under Nellie Connally's jump seat in the limo}..."
>><<<
>>
>> Which were almost certainly also from the head-shot bullet (from
>> Oswald's rifle). Nothing has knocked an "Oswald bullet" out of
>> contention regarding these fragments. So, we're still at TWO total
>> bullets hitting the victims. And both from LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
>They were way too small for testing so you cannot claim they were from
>LHO's alleged rifle. So where did they come from? I'll let you have
>the head shot for now.
>>
>> Next....
>>
>> >>> "...A big dent in {the} chrome {at the front of the limousine}..." <<<
>>
>> Which is a dent in the chrome that was almost certainly caused by one
>> of the two front-seat bullet fragments (from Oswald's gun) after those
>> fragments exited President Kennedy's head after Lee Harvey Oswald's
>> bullet crashed through JFK's cranium at approx. 2,100 to 2,200 feet
>> per second.
>
>This is malarky as no fragment the could cause a dent that large.
Frazier certainly thought one could.
>Also, why do we have all these fragments at all since the WC claimed
>LHO used a full-metal jacketed bullet? Makes no sense like most of
>the things in your theory.
Are you under the impression that FMJ bullets don't fragment?
>> So, we're still at TWO total bullets hitting the victims. (Both from
>> Oswald's MC weapon.)
>
>No we are not as the FBI and Fraizer said they couldn't claim the two
>fragments were from one bullet.
Nor did he state that they couldn't be.
You never seem to get around to admitting this.
>> Next....
>>
>> >>> "...And a cracked windshield." <<<
>>
>> Which is a cracked windshield that was almost certainly caused by the
>> other of the two large bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's rifle that
>> struck Kennedy in the head, causing FORWARD-MOVING fragments to exit
>> his head, moving toward the front of the Presidential limousine,
>> naturally.
>
>Please, I thought I'd never hear anything more insane than the SBT,
>BUT I think you may have at least matched that wacky claim above. A
>small fragment cracked a special windshield? I have had bigger
>pebbles hit my windshield and I didn't get a crack.
Back to the theory that a full velocity bullet causing a crack?
Rob, you're making yourself look *awfully* stupid.
I'll take a pebble the size of either fragment in the limo, run it up to 1,000
fps or so, and put a very nice crack in your windshield. Come on out to
California and we'll try it out.
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
Ducking? I think I have answered this question like 100 times, but you
refuse to believe it. Two fragments are found. Test are done to
ballistically match them to one of the bullets that hit JFK and JBC.
The say they do appear to be "similar" (this is not saying they match
by the way) in composition, but they can't say BOTH fragments came
from the SAME bullet. In 1964 this was no big deal, because they had
two bullets, but as you mentioned over time the American people
learned much more about this situation. Based on Dr. Finck's
testimony at the Shaw trial we now know the magic bullet is NOT an
option, therefore, we are left with a conumdrum. If the FBI and
Frazier stated in 1964 that the fragements couldn't be said to be from
the SAME bullet and we add in Finck's comments, what conclusion do we
arrive at? For me, I think you have clear proof that their scenario
is not possible, because they have no other bullets to bail them out.
I guess in 1964 when they published the WCR they didn't forsee
mentioning this point as a possible problem - and in terms of the
media and academia it isn't - but to me it is as they cannot say what
bullet one of the fragments would have come from. They simply can't
explain away this fact based on what they presented in 1964.
>
> >Humor me. What other bullet
> >did one of them come from?
>
> >>>>> "...Three tiny particles {under Nellie Connally's jump seat in the limo}..."
> >><<<
>
> >> Which were almost certainly also from the head-shot bullet (from
> >> Oswald's rifle). Nothing has knocked an "Oswald bullet" out of
> >> contention regarding these fragments. So, we're still at TWO total
> >> bullets hitting the victims. And both from LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
> >They were way too small for testing so you cannot claim they were from
> >LHO's alleged rifle. So where did they come from? I'll let you have
> >the head shot for now.
>
> >> Next....
>
> >> >>> "...A big dent in {the} chrome {at the front of the limousine}..." <<<
>
> >> Which is a dent in the chrome that was almost certainly caused by one
> >> of the two front-seat bullet fragments (from Oswald's gun) after those
> >> fragments exited President Kennedy's head after Lee Harvey Oswald's
> >> bullet crashed through JFK's cranium at approx. 2,100 to 2,200 feet
> >> per second.
>
> >This is malarky as no fragment the could cause a dent that large.
>
> Frazier certainly thought one could.
Who cares, as I don't support Fraziers claims, if you or others do
that is your prerogative, but to call me a liar because I don't is a
cheap shot. Also, I can't believe I am DVP and Ben Holmes in the same
post.
>
> >Also, why do we have all these fragments at all since the WC claimed
> >LHO used a full-metal jacketed bullet? Makes no sense like most of
> >the things in your theory.
>
> Are you under the impression that FMJ bullets don't fragment?
They are desinged not to, if if there is slight disnegration it is not
to the point we see with the head shot.
>
> >> So, we're still at TWO total bullets hitting the victims. (Both from
> >> Oswald's MC weapon.)
>
> >No we are not as the FBI and Fraizer said they couldn't claim the two
> >fragments were from one bullet.
>
> Nor did he state that they couldn't be.
It goes without saying, if he thought they could be (the FBI too)
matched to one bullet he would say SO!! The fact that the WCR mentions
this point at all is because they can't match them to one bullet.
Common sense to me.
>
> You never seem to get around to admitting this.
There is nothing to admit, Ben you are the one who can't grasp what
this means, not me. Therefore, to call me a liar because you are not
getting something is again a cheap shot. You make no sense on this
issue. You are saying they can't match both fragments to one bullet,
but on the other hand they may be able to. This is not a scientific
standing. You have to reach a conclusion one way or the other. If
they could match them to one bullet there would have been no need to
mention they couldn't.
>
> >> Next....
>
> >> >>> "...And a cracked windshield." <<<
>
> >> Which is a cracked windshield that was almost certainly caused by the
> >> other of the two large bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's rifle that
> >> struck Kennedy in the head, causing FORWARD-MOVING fragments to exit
> >> his head, moving toward the front of the Presidential limousine,
> >> naturally.
>
> >Please, I thought I'd never hear anything more insane than the SBT,
> >BUT I think you may have at least matched that wacky claim above. A
> >small fragment cracked a special windshield? I have had bigger
> >pebbles hit my windshield and I didn't get a crack.
>
> Back to the theory that a full velocity bullet causing a crack?
I said 10 times I typed bullet instead of fragment, but I have also
said no fragment the size they mentioned could crack a special
windshield like the one in the limo.
>
> Rob, you're making yourself look *awfully* stupid.
No, I think that is what you are doing to yourself, and your showing
your true personality by calling me a liar so often. This should bond
you with other CTers real well. If you don't see things in Ben's
convoluted way, you'll be called a liar.
>
> I'll take a pebble the size of either fragment in the limo, run it up to 1,000
> fps or so, and put a very nice crack in your windshield. Come on out to
> California and we'll try it out.
Good for you, but do what you are always saying to me and everyone
else, get people to film this for us so we can see it. Get a pepple
the size of the fragment 44 grains, have it verified for proper
weight, and have an independent third party film it. Also, get a new
windshield the type with laminated plastic in between two layers of
glass. I'll be happy to watch it, otherwise your *assertion* above
has no merit as you are constantly pointing out to everyone else.
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
> >I have had enough of your attacks and insults. I said I was reading
> >the WCR and could show from the report that what they said is not
> >true.
>
> And yet, you've been completely unable to do so. In fact, I've stopped you
> several times from bringing in evidence that is not contained in the WCR.
No you are not able to get what I'm saying is more like it, this does
not make what I say any less true because of that. Wow, isn't it great
of you to do that. This is 2007, using outside evidence has been going
on for many years. The key part of this post was the shots and the
damage and I stayed true to the WCR in that regard. I did not mention
a frontal head shot for example.
>
> At this point, only lying about the testimony, and calling WCR witnesses liars,
> is all you have in support of your position.
No, this is what you have been doing to me and your charges don't
change the point I have made, no matter how many times you put "Rob
lied" in a post. Talk about juvenile behavior.
>
> >Of course I'm reading the WCR in 2007 so I do have some
> >additional knowledge, like everyone else reading it in 2007, like your
> >beloved lurkers. I never said I was reading this in 1964 timeframe,
> >when Americans never had a clue they were being lied to.
>
> The WCR in 2007 is still the same as it was in 1964.
Of course it is, but we know much more now then was known in 1964 in
regards to the events of that day.
>
> I've told you repeatedly that you can't impugn the WCR without going to the
> primary evidence that they also used, but you've repeatedly denied that. Yet
> can't prove the WCR false by only using the WCR.
You full of it and yourself, as I have impugned the WCR in their 3
shot/2 hit scenario using just the statements they made about this.
They also listed all the damage, I did not add that in.
>
> You prove your thesis wrong, and my statement correct, almost every post you
> make. Now you've sunk to calling me a liar, despite *zero* evidence... even as
> I've proven you a liar several times now for your misquoting and
> mis-characterization of the testimony and WCR.
Who needs evidence to call you a liar? You have none against me and
yet you persist in calling me one. You almost always never support
your "evidence" with any cites and it doesn't stop you from passing
judgement on others in here. I made a typo, you don't have that
problem since you add nothing of value here for the most part.
>
> >Even with
> >this in mind, I still showed there aren't enough bullets to cause 8
> >wounds, two large fragments, three tiny particles, a big dent in
> >chrome and a cracked windshield.
>
> No Rob, you haven't. Merely asserting it over and over is not proof.
It is to me and probably most people. IF you do not have enough
bullets to account for all the wounds, fragments and damage then it is
proved.
>
> The "proof" that you tried was by lying about what Frazier said.
I mistyped what he said which does not alter the fact that what he
said is impossible in the first place. It was actually more possible
if it had been a bullet instead of a fragment.
>
> >I don't get your attacks when you obviously don't even get my point of
> >the post,
>
> I understand quite well what you're trying to say - and it's simply wrong.
In your mind, and again, your mind is not the end all, be all for the
CT world.
>
> You cannot impugn the WCR based only on the information contained within it.
> How many times have I said that now?
You have said it many times and you were wrong each and every time you
said it.
>
> >or the need to make someone look bad
>
> YOU make yourself look bad. You keep lying about the evidence.
Not lying about any evidence as it is all on pages 76 & 77 of the WCR.
>
> I merely point it out.
Boy, it is big of you. I'll do the same for you.
>
> >when they have stated a
> >consistent point from the beginning.
>
> Stating it, and proving it, are two different things...
I think not having enough bullets to cause the wounds, fragments and
damage to the car proves it by itself. Also, by disproving the WCR my
point is proven at the same time.
>
> >I thought showing the WCR was
> >incorrect was a good thing,
>
> It is, if you accept that you must use the same evidence that the WC had.
Which is? We know (I should say CTers know) that the WC had tons of
info and evidence they never used because it didn't support the
official theory, so it is impossible for me to use "what the WCR had"
since they didn't make a general announcement of what they ignored,
omitted or changed.
>
> I've done it, *and done it honestly*, a number of times.
Sure, you are the white knight here. Nice to think of yourself in
such glowing terms I guess.
>
> >but obviously you would rather attack me
> >instead of focusing on this.
>
> I'll "attack" any liar.
Sure you will. Start attacking yourself then.
>
> >So I'll let the "lurkers" decide for themselves.
>
> Indeed, you will. You have no choice.
What a lame answer.
>
> It's good that you finally stopped talking about the evidence, and focused on ad
> hominem. This is characteristic of the LNT'ers and trolls... you're revealing
> your true nature, I suspect.
Me, you defend DVP and a few other LNers and I notice they have come
to your defense a few times in these posts as well. None are backing
me up so I'll let others decide who is the LNer and troll. You are
supporting the WCR position so of course they are backing you. You're
a traitor.
justm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Although I think Robcrap is a bag of hot wind, I'll congratulate him
on having the ability to see exactly the type of person Holmes is.
What the rest of the LN's on this group have been saying right along.
Robcrap needed to be on Holmes list of liars and duckers before it
opened his eyes.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
They can't say that they don't, as well. You never seem to grasp this.
Tell us where that second pencil came from, Rob?
I've proven your logic flawed, and you keep running away from that simple fact.
The inability to prove one thing, does not necessarily prove *another* thing -
other than that it's not possible to prove the one thing.
>In 1964 this was no big deal, because they had
>two bullets,
No-one, in 1964, ever presumed that the two fragments came from two separate
bullets. It's a lie to suggest otherwise.
Produce a citation to this effect, or retract your statement.
>but as you mentioned over time the American people
>learned much more about this situation. Based on Dr. Finck's
>testimony at the Shaw trial we now know the magic bullet is NOT an
>option, therefore, we are left with a conumdrum.
You're a liar, Rob. That CE399 could not have been the source of either of the
two larger fragments in the limo WAS KNOWN WHEN THE WCR WAS PUBLISHED.
It was *NEVER* presumed to be the source of either of the two fragments under
discussion.
>If the FBI and Frazier
Who in the FBI tested those fragments, Rob?
>stated in 1964 that the fragements couldn't be
>said to be from the SAME bullet
Nor could be said *NOT* to have come from the same bullet...
>and we add in Finck's comments,
Not contained in the WCR... you *STILL* keep trying to sneak in material *NOT*
found in the WCR to impugn the WCR - despite your assertion that it's not
needed. (Thereby proving *MY* thesis... by the way)
>what conclusion do we
>arrive at?
Don't presume "we"... I doubt if you could find *ANY* other CT'er (and certainly
no LNT'ers) who would swallow this tripe.
Anyone? Speak up, or email me privately, if Rob's argument about the inability
to prove that the two fragments came from one bullet mean that they must have
come from two bullets sounds convincing to you.
>For me, I think you have clear proof that their scenario
>is not possible, because they have no other bullets to bail them out.
No other bullets were needed. Frazier testified that the two fragments could
have come from the same bullet.
You STILL can't tell anyone where that second pencil is, can you?
>I guess in 1964 when they published the WCR they didn't forsee
>mentioning this point as a possible problem - and in terms of the
>media and academia it isn't - but to me it is as they cannot say what
>bullet one of the fragments would have come from.
They did. They honestly gave their opinion that it was not a provable thing.
Just like you can't "prove" that you only have one pencil - despite knowing that
you only started with one pencil.
>They simply can't
>explain away this fact based on what they presented in 1964.
Of course they can! Frazier *DID*.
>> >Humor me. What other bullet
>> >did one of them come from?
>>
>>>>>>> "...Three tiny particles {under Nellie Connally's jump seat in the
>>limo}..."
>> >><<<
>>
>> >> Which were almost certainly also from the head-shot bullet (from
>> >> Oswald's rifle). Nothing has knocked an "Oswald bullet" out of
>> >> contention regarding these fragments. So, we're still at TWO total
>> >> bullets hitting the victims. And both from LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano.
>>
>> >They were way too small for testing so you cannot claim they were from
>> >LHO's alleged rifle. So where did they come from? I'll let you have
>> >the head shot for now.
>>
>> >> Next....
>>
>> >> >>> "...A big dent in {the} chrome {at the front of the limousine}..." <<<
>>
>> >> Which is a dent in the chrome that was almost certainly caused by one
>> >> of the two front-seat bullet fragments (from Oswald's gun) after those
>> >> fragments exited President Kennedy's head after Lee Harvey Oswald's
>> >> bullet crashed through JFK's cranium at approx. 2,100 to 2,200 feet
>> >> per second.
>>
>> >This is malarky as no fragment the could cause a dent that large.
>>
>> Frazier certainly thought one could.
>
>Who cares,
Of course! If testimony is presented that contradicts your faith - simply throw
it away and disregard it!
LNT'ers do this ALL THE TIME! They have no choice. CT'ers *do* have a choice,
because the evidence proves a conspiracy.
>as I don't support Fraziers claims,
It was Frazier who stated that the two fragments could not be proven to have
come from the same bullet, or PROVEN NOT TO HAVE COME FROM THE SAME BULLET.
When you disregard what Frazier said, then you have no evidence that the two
fragments COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO COME FROM THE SAME BULLET.
So where's your citation, that does not utilize Frazier; that the two fragments
were not from the same bullet?
Your entire argument has just fallen apart...
>if you or others do
>that is your prerogative, but to call me a liar because I don't
No Rob... I label your *lies* as lies, and call you a liar for your known lies
about the evidence. Quite frankly, I don't care what you think about Frazier,
or what you keep asserting about missing bullets.
Your "logic" is silly, and I'll be happy to demonstrate that over and over - but
I've *NEVER* called you a liar because of what you believe. I call you a liar
for lying about the evidence, or lying about what I've stated.
>is a cheap shot. Also, I can't believe I am DVP and Ben Holmes in the same
>post.
When you're a liar, you get it from both sides... ask Tony or Martin about that.
>> >Also, why do we have all these fragments at all since the WC claimed
>> >LHO used a full-metal jacketed bullet? Makes no sense like most of
>> >the things in your theory.
>>
>> Are you under the impression that FMJ bullets don't fragment?
>
>They are desinged not to, if if there is slight disnegration it is not
>to the point we see with the head shot.
Unfortunately for you, the ballistics testing conducted by the WC proves you
wrong on this point.
You clearly don't understand the concept of an FMJ bullet...
I've asked you before... what does the copper cladding on an FMJ bullet actually
*DO* for the lead when it goes through a human body?
What does the lead *NOT* do because of the copper cladding?
>> >> So, we're still at TWO total bullets hitting the victims. (Both from
>> >> Oswald's MC weapon.)
>>
>> >No we are not as the FBI and Fraizer said they couldn't claim the two
>> >fragments were from one bullet.
>>
>> Nor did he state that they couldn't be.
>
>It goes without saying, if he thought they could be (the FBI too)
Tell us who in the FBI did the testing on the fragments, Rob.
>matched to one bullet he would say SO!! The fact that the WCR mentions
>this point at all is because they can't match them to one bullet.
>Common sense to me.
Where's your second pencil, Rob?
Your "common sense" tells you that you must have had one... where is it?
You presume that it's *always* possible to prove that two fragments came from
the same bullet.
I've given you examples that *PROVE* you wrong.
>> You never seem to get around to admitting this.
>
>There is nothing to admit, Ben you are the one who can't grasp what
>this means, not me. Therefore, to call me a liar because you are not
>getting something is again a cheap shot.
Your a liar, Rob. I've *NEVER* labeled you a liar for your faulty grasp of
logic. I label you a liar for telling lies.
I defy you to produce a quote of mine labeling you a liar for "me not getting
something"
You can't do it. Each time I've labeled you a liar, it's because you have
*LIED*. As right here, for example.
>You make no sense on this
>issue. You are saying they can't match both fragments to one bullet,
>but on the other hand they may be able to.
No Rob, I've *NEVER* stated that.
Take a car at random, sandblast every speck of paint off of it, then prove to
me, based only on the newly sandblasted car, that it was originally painted red.
You can't do it.
You can't prove it was painted blue either.
Nor can you prove it was painted yellow.
You can't argue that it must have been painted green because it cannot be proven
that it was painted red.
Yet this is precisely what you're doing with bullet fragments (pencils too!)
>This is not a scientific
>standing. You have to reach a conclusion one way or the other.
The conclusion is simple - it cannot be proven. Just like your pencil... *YOU*
know that you started with one pencil - but you will be completely unable to
prove to anyone else that your two remaining 'fragments' originally came from
one pencil - or came from two pencils. Unless the pencil is fragmented *along
the axis* - and one part of fragment #1 matches an missing part of fragment #2.
>If
>they could match them to one bullet there would have been no need to
>mention they couldn't.
How stupid is this?
You presume that it's impossible to ever present a situation where it simply
cannot be proven... I've given you two perfectly good examples... one with a
pencil, and one with a sandblasted car.
>> >> Next....
>>
>> >> >>> "...And a cracked windshield." <<<
>>
>> >> Which is a cracked windshield that was almost certainly caused by the
>> >> other of the two large bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's rifle that
>> >> struck Kennedy in the head, causing FORWARD-MOVING fragments to exit
>> >> his head, moving toward the front of the Presidential limousine,
>> >> naturally.
>>
>> >Please, I thought I'd never hear anything more insane than the SBT,
>> >BUT I think you may have at least matched that wacky claim above. A
>> >small fragment cracked a special windshield? I have had bigger
>> >pebbles hit my windshield and I didn't get a crack.
>>
>> Back to the theory that a full velocity bullet causing a crack?
>
>I said 10 times I typed bullet instead of fragment, but I have also
>said no fragment the size they mentioned could crack a special
>windshield like the one in the limo.
Tell us about the "special" windshield, Rob.
And if a bullet could not have cracked it (since it would have punched right on
through) and a fragment could not have cracked it (according to you), then what
caused the 'crack'?
>> Rob, you're making yourself look *awfully* stupid.
>
>No, I think that is what you are doing to yourself, and your showing
>your true personality by calling me a liar so often.
Simply stop lying, Rob; and I won't be forced to use that word.
Utilize the evidence *accurately*, even if you don't believe it, and take the
time to understand my points *ACCURATELY*, and simply refuse to lie about my
position or assertions, and I'll have nothing to label a lie.
>This should bond
>you with other CTers real well. If you don't see things in Ben's
>convoluted way, you'll be called a liar.
Again you lie, Rob. You can't defend such an assertion, for there's many people
I disagree with that I've never needed to call a liar.
Walt is an excellent example - I disagree with some of his stances on this case,
yet Walt never feels the need to lie about the evidence.
We simply don't place the same emphasis on particular bits of evidence...
But we are *BOTH* honest in our citations.
>>I'll take a pebble the size of either fragment in the limo, run it up to 1,000
>> fps or so, and put a very nice crack in your windshield. Come on out to
>> California and we'll try it out.
>
>Good for you, but do what you are always saying to me and everyone
>else, get people to film this for us so we can see it. Get a pepple
>the size of the fragment 44 grains, have it verified for proper
>weight, and have an independent third party film it. Also, get a new
>windshield the type with laminated plastic in between two layers of
>glass. I'll be happy to watch it, otherwise your *assertion* above
>has no merit as you are constantly pointing out to everyone else.
Unfortunately for you, I have expert testimony *already* in my corner. You have
nothing but your uninformed opinion - with *NOTHING* to support it.
If I decided that I'd want to challenge what Frazier said, the only way to do it
is to either come up with expert opinion that contradicts Frazier, or run some
experiments.
You've done neither. And I merely point it out.
Burly...@gmail.com
wrote:
Mr. Holmes has already been exposed as a most dishonest person,
with his recent having taken the liberty of what he terms as a
''clean up'' of a person's' post( where it need not be cleaned up at
all), for there were no words quoted that were offensive in the least
within the post, by me, unless, of course, words such as "Not harping"
and "hate" are classified as ''offensive".
He admitted to doing the ''clean up'' saying the following:
"As everyone may have noted in the past, I usually try to 'clean up'
posts as I
respond to them.
I invite everyone to read the post below - which is the post I
*started* with to
clean up and respond to. Below that you'll see my response and
efforts to clean
it up."
We still have not received an answer from Mr. Holmes as to what,
exactly, is objectionable concerning the words "Not harping" and
"hate" ("harping" and "hate'' both used by Gil Jesus in the post) to
the point that Mr. Holmes felt the need to "clean up" the post.
To top it off, in anoither thread, titled "Lurkers beware of Ben
Holmes" he then states that I: "Don't know much about news-servers, do
you?" But then again, I knew that." apparently trying to put the
balme on his server! From what I have seen,a gentleman by the name of
Mark took him to task on that one. So, there you have it.
To top it off, within another thread, he said "Don't know much about
news servers, do you?"
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects
wrote:
> In article <5b8d5d4c-dbf0-42a3-bb11-334d2fccf...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> read more >>
perfect example of one CT KNOWING case related evidence.... So
lurkers, it's really no wonder why Lone Nut KOOKS stay far away from
Holmes and the majority of CT posters to this board. Best the Lone Nut
Hoaxes have are copy & paste specialists.... LMFAO!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 30, 12:29 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>> >I have had enough of your attacks and insults. I said I was reading
>> >the WCR and could show from the report that what they said is not
>> >true.
>>
>> And yet, you've been completely unable to do so. In fact, I've stopped you
>> several times from bringing in evidence that is not contained in the WCR.
>
>No you are not able to get what I'm saying is more like it, this does
>not make what I say any less true because of that. Wow, isn't it great
>of you to do that. This is 2007, using outside evidence has been going
>on for many years.
Certainly. But it was *YOU* that asserted that the WCR could be impugned based
only on reading it.
You've unfortunately been unable to demonstrate that other than by lying about
what the WCR said.
>The key part of this post was the shots and the
>damage and I stayed true to the WCR in that regard.
Despite the simple fact that based only on the evidence presented by the WCR,
there's nothing impossible, and nothing not understandable happening... your
opinion nonwithstanding.
>I did not mention
>a frontal head shot for example.
Nor could you, based only on the evidence presented by the WCR.
>> At this point, only lying about the testimony, and calling WCR
>> witnesses liars, is all you have in support of your position.
>
>No, this is what you have been doing to me and your charges don't
>change the point I have made, no matter how many times you put "Rob
>lied" in a post. Talk about juvenile behavior.
Where's your evidence? Cite the WCR, Rob. Tell us where they contradict
themselves.
>> >Of course I'm reading the WCR in 2007 so I do have some
>> >additional knowledge, like everyone else reading it in 2007, like your
>> >beloved lurkers. I never said I was reading this in 1964 timeframe,
>> >when Americans never had a clue they were being lied to.
>>
>> The WCR in 2007 is still the same as it was in 1964.
>
>Of course it is, but we know much more now then was known in 1964 in
>regards to the events of that day.
Yep... that *IS* my thesis... that the WCR cannot be impugned based only on the
evidence presented by the WCR - but only by examining the same evidence that
*THEY* used to create the WCR.
>> I've told you repeatedly that you can't impugn the WCR without going to the
>> primary evidence that they also used, but you've repeatedly denied that.
>> Yet can't prove the WCR false by only using the WCR.
>
>You full of it and yourself, as I have impugned the WCR in their 3
>shot/2 hit scenario using just the statements they made about this.
>They also listed all the damage, I did not add that in.
None of what the WCR said is impossible or even unlikely - given only the
evidence contained in the WCR.
Nor have you been able to demonstrate otherwise.
>> You prove your thesis wrong, and my statement correct, almost every
>> post you make. Now you've sunk to calling me a liar, despite *zero*
>> evidence... even as I've proven you a liar several times now for your
>> misquoting and mis-characterization of the testimony and WCR.
>
>Who needs evidence to call you a liar?
Anyone who's honest.
>You have none against me
Other than your own words and assertions, you mean...
>and yet you persist in calling me one. You almost always never support
>your "evidence" with any cites
My quotes from the testimony don't mean anything, one presumes...
>and it doesn't stop you from passing
>judgement on others in here.
Yep... when you lie about what a witness testified to, I'm happy to point it
out.
>I made a typo, you don't have that
>problem since you add nothing of value here for the most part.
You made more than just a typo. Even after I quoted Frazier, you were still
lying about his "fairly high velocity" comment.
In fact, I don't recall you *ever* admitting that it was meant by Frazier to
indicate a speed LOWER than a normal bullet.
>> >Even with
>> >this in mind, I still showed there aren't enough bullets to cause 8
>> >wounds, two large fragments, three tiny particles, a big dent in
>> >chrome and a cracked windshield.
>>
>> No Rob, you haven't. Merely asserting it over and over is not proof.
>
>It is to me and probably most people. IF you do not have enough
>bullets to account for all the wounds, fragments and damage then it is
>proved.
Tell us why a bullet striking JFK's head, and exiting as three fragments, one
which struck the chrome, one which cracked the windshield, and one which flew
out of the limo is impossible. CITE for your assertion.
Tell us why the SBT is not possible given only the information presented by the
WCR. CITE for your assertion.
You assert these things, yet you can't prove your case... you don't even argue
it... you just keep asserting it as if it must be true.
>> The "proof" that you tried was by lying about what Frazier said.
>
>I mistyped what he said which does not alter the fact that what he
>said is impossible in the first place.
It's impossible to *NOT* prove that two fragments from the same bullet are
indeed from the same bullet?
You're a raving lunatic!!
Tell us just how this can be accomplished... Frazier was specific in detailing
how it would have been done. But you clearly disbelieve him. So tell us, Rob -
how do you *PROVE* that two fragments are from the same bullet.
Tell us how you PROVE that your two pencil pieces are from the same pencil.
>It was actually more possible
>if it had been a bullet instead of a fragment.
Of course! That's why you lied and put "bullet" in Frazier's mouth rather than
"fragment". Here it is again:
***********************************************************************
>We have cracked windshield due to
>a hit from the inside according to the WC and there is a dent in the
>chrome strip caused by a bullet travelling at "a fairly high
>velocity".
Rob lies here... I invite everyone to read page 77 of the WCR, and see what
Frazier *ACTUALLY* is quoted as saying.
************************************************************************
By asserting that Frazier had argued that a bullet had caused the dent, you
automatically have proven another bullet that is unaccounted for.
Bingo! You've PROVEN your assertion.
But you lied in order to do it. When you put back what Frazier *actually* said,
then your "proof" disappears. There's no longer any "proof" (by the WCR) that
there were more than three bullets.
>> >I don't get your attacks when you obviously don't even get my point of
>> >the post,
>>
>> I understand quite well what you're trying to say - and it's simply wrong.
>
>In your mind, and again, your mind is not the end all, be all for the
>CT world.
That's okay... I'll just keep right on pointing out lies and inconsistencies,
regardless of whether a person claims to be a CT'er or LNT'er.
>> You cannot impugn the WCR based only on the information contained within it.
>> How many times have I said that now?
>
>You have said it many times and you were wrong each and every time you
>said it.
Yet you've still been unable to refute it with example.
That's all it would take... just one example. I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong
if you can produce an example.
>> >or the need to make someone look bad
>>
>> YOU make yourself look bad. You keep lying about the evidence.
>
>Not lying about any evidence as it is all on pages 76 & 77 of the WCR.
You *lied* about what was said there. I quoted it.
Now you don't have any evidence for your stance that the WCR proves that there
was more than three bullets required.
>> I merely point it out.
>
>Boy, it is big of you. I'll do the same for you.
Certainly... I expect that. That's why I'm so careful to stick with topics that
I can cite for.
>> >when they have stated a
>> >consistent point from the beginning.
>>
>> Stating it, and proving it, are two different things...
>
>I think not having enough bullets to cause the wounds, fragments and
>damage to the car proves it by itself.
But you've presented *NO* evidence that the three bullets were not enough to
cause the known damage.
The only evidence you *DID* have, turned out to be a lie.
>Also, by disproving the WCR my
>point is proven at the same time.
Yet you still haven't done so.
>> >I thought showing the WCR was
>> >incorrect was a good thing,
>>
>> It is, if you accept that you must use the same evidence that the WC had.
>
>Which is?
Are you stupid, Rob? You can find much of it in the 26 Volumes. You *have*
heard of the 26 volumes, right?
>We know (I should say CTers know) that the WC had tons of
>info and evidence they never used because it didn't support the
>official theory,
And a great deal of it is to be found in the 26 volumes.
>so it is impossible for me to use "what the WCR had"
Only if you're stupid. Try researching the "Provable Lies of the Warren
Commission" for numerous examples.
>since they didn't make a general announcement of what they ignored,
>omitted or changed.
Of course not. That's why you have to go and take a look at the SAME evidence
that they had. Most of it is available now.
>> I've done it, *and done it honestly*, a number of times.
>
>Sure, you are the white knight here. Nice to think of yourself in
>such glowing terms I guess.
Citable and provable. Feel free to research my previous posts. "Facts LNT'ers
Just HATE!" is one series, "Provable Lies" is another, and of course, the 45
questions that the LNT'ers just despise is another.
>> >but obviously you would rather attack me
>> >instead of focusing on this.
>>
>> I'll "attack" any liar.
>
>Sure you will. Start attacking yourself then.
Quote my "lie", then provide the citation that makes it a lie.
Exactly as I've done with your lies about Frazier's testimony.
>> >So I'll let the "lurkers" decide for themselves.
>>
>> Indeed, you will. You have no choice.
>
>What a lame answer.
Tis true, nonetheless...
>> It's good that you finally stopped talking about the evidence, and
>> focused on ad hominem. This is characteristic of the LNT'ers and
>> trolls... you're revealing your true nature, I suspect.
>
>Me, you defend DVP and a few other LNers and I notice they have come
>to your defense a few times in these posts as well. None are backing
>me up so I'll let others decide who is the LNer and troll. You are
>supporting the WCR position so of course they are backing you. You're
>a traitor.
ROFTLMAO!!!
As the WC famously lied: 'The truth was our only client' (or something to that
effect. Only I actually accept it... You don't *need* to lie about the evidence
to prove a conspiracy.
I've not seen any LNT'ers "come to my defense", but I suppose that you must be
referring to the trolls that I have killfiled. I'm quite sure that it would irk
them to be thought of as "coming to my defense"
Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Oh, I really don't do all of this "off the top of my head"... a lot of times, I
have a vague memory, and I simply go search for the exact quote or bit of
information I need.
Rob *could* do this if he were honest.
Burly...@gmail.com
> In article <149f6a1e-b09c-4969-a6c2-55d476f68...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> BurlyGu...@gmail.com says...
Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Holmes.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy? No one can get near Holmes (not that any of us would want too)
because you're too busy nipping at his panties 24 hours a day. Trying
to find a place to bury your head again?