Z-369 and Proof that Zapruder & Nix Have Been Altered.
Ben Holmes
Bob has admitted as much when he said: "You have to look at the positions of Nix
and Zapruder. Nix shows the limo passing those same four people [seen in Z-369]
a bit later than Zapruder does, but only because of the angle he was filming
from."
So Bob is well aware that there's *FOUR* people there.
Bob also knows that the Nix film shows *MORE* than four people, since he's
stated: "The two people behind that group (in Nix) are taller than the four near
the road, because they were well back from the road and out of Zapruder's view."
But Bob certainly knows THAT THERE IS NO PORTION OF THE GRASS THAT IS *NOT* IN
VIEW OF ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA!
We know this with great certainty - because at the top of Z-369, you can see
Main street. There can't be any grass that is *NOT* visible to Zapruder. So
Bob just lied. "The two people behind that group (in Nix)" can't possibly be on
the grass - since Zapruder doesn't show them on the grass - AND *ALL* OF THE
GRASS UP TO MAIN STREET IS IN VIEW - yet they are clearly on the grass in the
Nix film.
This is only half the problem, of course... because there are a further *two*
people to the right of this 'group of four' seen standing in the grass in the
extant Z-film... yet Nix shows *THREE* people. (Looks like a woman wearing
yellow pants, dark coat, tan purse on left side... my opinion, of course)
Bob can't explain these facts - indeed, he resorts to lies in order to make his
case - he pretends that there's a part of the grass in back of the Franzen
family that is not in view of the Zapruder camera - yet it's clear that Bob
simply lied.
He accepts that Mrs Franzen has "moved", yet can show this movement in the
video...
Why do you have to lie, Bob?
Of course, Bob isn't the only liar around here... Martin & Tony come to mind,
and *ALL* LNT'ers... since I'm unaware of any LNT'er who admits photographic
fraud in this case yet still maintains that the WCR was correct.
YoHarvey
Proof? From Benny Holmes????????????? roflmao, roflmao
muc...@gmail.com
You recently implied that Stu Wexler was a liar - but also that he was
an LN'er, so perhaps you were just confused.
> and *ALL* LNT'ers... since I'm unaware of any LNT'er who admits photographic
> fraud in this case yet still maintains that the WCR was correct.
The only LN'er posts you see are presumably those that have been
deemed suitable by your obedient manservant, making you blissfully
unaware of all kinds of things.
Btw, did the WC officially rule out photographic fraud? Citation,
please.
Robert Harris
wrote:
> As anyone who's viewed Z-369 knows, there's four people standing on the
> grass.
>
> Bob has admitted as much
Ben, why do you use such horrible distortions?
Why do you pretend that I made some kind of concession by "admitting"
that there were four people standing in the grass? Do you feel a
compulsion to pretend that I or anyone on the planet am unable to count
to four?
These are NOT the words of someone seeking truth. They are the words of
someone trying to salvage his ego, and "win" debates. It is that very
attitude that prevents you from objectively analyzing your beliefs Ben.
Fast reverse the zfilm back to where you see that "7 foot" lady in the
background, to the rear of Mary Moorman. Now, imagine what this scene
would look like if Zapruder tilted his camera downward, to the point
where the giant lady was out of the frame. If you did that, you would
see a frame similar to 369, with almost no background visible above the
heads of the four bystanders.
THAT is what you are seeing at 369, Ben. And that is why you do not see
the two people who had been moving toward Elm St and were well behind
the four along the road.
It doesn't matter that in the next frame we see part of Main St, mostly
to the southwest, because these two were to the south and slightly east.
I'm sure you will not grasp any of this and will go into another series
of accusations that I am a liar, but your accusations will not be
impressive to anyone who has a copy of the film, or has seen your
previous bogus claims about statements from both the witnesses and
myself.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>In article <fqmn3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>
>wrote:
>
>> As anyone who's viewed Z-369 knows, there's four people standing on the
>> grass.
>>
>> Bob has admitted as much
>
>Ben, why do you use such horrible distortions?
>
>Why do you pretend that I made some kind of concession by "admitting"
>that there were four people standing in the grass? Do you feel a
>compulsion to pretend that I or anyone on the planet am unable to count
>to four?
It's simple, Bob. I *repeatedly* asked you - and you ducked each and every
instance... you simply refused to answer.
So quite clearly, when you *DO* answer the question obliquely to someone else,
yes, it *IS* an admission Bob.
There's no "distortion" of those facts, Bob.
You were afraid to respond to me, because you clearly knew what was coming up.
>These are NOT the words of someone seeking truth.
Bob - this is ironic coming from a man who claims that there is no question that
an honest man will evade, yet has been consistently evading my questions for a
week.
The evidence doesn't support your theory... it's as simple as that. There's no
need to *LIE* about the evidence, you can easily simply state that you don't
find it persuasive.
>They are the words of
>someone trying to salvage his ego, and "win" debates.
Bob - when you duck and run, when you lie about points I raise, I *HAVE* "won".
I feel very comfortable with the truth, Bob.
>It is that very
>attitude that prevents you from objectively analyzing your beliefs Ben.
And yet, it's *I* that's simply citing facts and evidence, and *YOU* that's
lying about them. Why is that, Bob?
>Fast reverse the zfilm back to where you see that "7 foot" lady in the
>background, to the rear of Mary Moorman.
Toni Foster, presumably.
>Now, imagine what this scene
>would look like if Zapruder tilted his camera downward, to the point
>where the giant lady was out of the frame. If you did that, you would
>see a frame similar to 369, with almost no background visible above the
>heads of the four bystanders.
Simply untrue. THE ENTIRE AREA OF GRASS FROM ELM TO MAIN STREET IS PLAINLY
VISIBLE. There is *NO* area of the grass from front to back that is not
completely in view.
So there cannot be *ANYONE* else on that grass. It's certainly true that if
there had been, we may only be looking at their feet - BUT WE WOULD SEE THEIR
FEET!!
Bob, when you need to lie, you really should simply do what Martin and Tony do
nowadays - and simply refuse to debate me. There's *NOTHING* you can say to the
simple fact that *ALL* of the grass is visible behind the Franzen family in
Z-369. Trying to make the argument that there could have been additional people
back there *unseen* is an impossible argument. (and an outright lie)
>THAT is what you are seeing at 369, Ben. And that is why you do not see
>the two people who had been moving toward Elm St and were well behind
>the four along the road.
They can be anywhere they want to be, Bob. What they *can't* be is anywhere on
the grass as demonstrated by Zapruder.
These are videos, Bob; not photographs. You don't have *anything* - and you're
grasping at straws.
Lying in order to do so too. You know, I know, and anyone who views Z-369 knows
that there's *NO GRASS AREA AT ALL THAT PEOPLE COULD HAVE BEEN "HIDDEN" FROM
ZAPRUDER'S VIEW*.
You're a liar, Bob.
>It doesn't matter that in the next frame we see part of Main St, mostly
>to the southwest, because these two were to the south and slightly east.
No Bob... we see the edge of Main Street in Z-369. Not the "next" frame...
There's no sense in lying about it, because *ANYONE* can view Z-369 by merely
typing "Z-369" in Google, and doing an image search.
THE EDGE OF MAIN STREET IS VISIBLE IN Z-369, BOB!!
Can you admit this? Probably not...
>I'm sure you will not grasp any of this and will go into another series
>of accusations that I am a liar,
Of course, Bob! You *ARE* lying! You pretend that Zapruder's view was such
that three people could go completely unseen - even try to imply that Main
Street can't be seen in Z-369...
You have no-where to go, and no explanation to make. Your attempted explanation
fails to the actual facts.
>but your accusations will not be
>impressive to anyone who has a copy of the film,
Speak up... anyone who finds Bob's lie that Zapruder's view would have missed
seeing *ANYONE* on the grass from Z-369 to the end of the film (and end of the
grass) persuasive - speak up. Let's see if anyone else believes your nonsense,
Bob.
>or has seen your previous bogus claims about statements from both
>the witnesses and myself.
You *still* can't explain the contradiction between the eyewitnesses and your
assertion that they never claimed a limo stop.
And despite repeated requests - you *REFUSE* to name these eyewitnesses. The
act of a dishonest coward, Bob. It just gets deeper and deeper, Bob.
>Robert Harris
Now let's look below to see what Bob was too frightened of, or too dishonest to
respond to:
>> when he said: "You have to look at the positions of
>> Nix and Zapruder. Nix shows the limo passing those same four people [seen in
>> Z-369] a bit later than Zapruder does, but only because of the angle he
>> was filming from."
>>
>> So Bob is well aware that there's *FOUR* people there.
Despite the fact that Bob *REFUSED* to answer that question from me. (In fact,
there's quite a few threads that Bob has simply stopped responding to)
Coward, aren't you Bob?
>> Bob also knows that the Nix film shows *MORE* than four people, since he's
>> stated: "The two people behind that group (in Nix) are taller than the four
>> near the road, because they were well back from the road and out of
>> Zapruder's view."
>>
>> But Bob certainly knows THAT THERE IS NO PORTION OF THE GRASS THAT IS *NOT*
>> IN VIEW OF ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA!
Yet, as we see above, he's *STILL* willing to lie about it. Bob keeps trying to
make the argument that Zapruder's view simply couldn't have seen these people,
DESPITE THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT *ALL* OF THE GRASS WAS VISIBLE IN ZAPRUDER'S...
>> We know this with great certainty - because at the top of Z-369, you can see
>> Main street. There can't be any grass that is *NOT* visible to Zapruder. So
>> Bob just lied.
And lied again in this post, when he tried to imply that it wasn't visible in
Z-369 with his "next frame" remark.
Bob - anyone can view Z-369 and see that you're lying... why would you embarrass
yourself like this?
>> "The two people behind that group (in Nix)" can't possibly be on
>> the grass - since Zapruder doesn't show them on the grass - AND *ALL* OF THE
>> GRASS UP TO MAIN STREET IS IN VIEW - yet they are clearly on the grass in the
>> Nix film.
>>
>> This is only half the problem, of course... because there are a further *two*
>> people to the right of this 'group of four' seen standing in the grass in the
>> extant Z-film... yet Nix shows *THREE* people. (Looks like a woman wearing
>> yellow pants, dark coat, tan purse on left side... my opinion, of course)
Bob was simply dead silent about this. He clearly has no explanation
whatsoever... so he runs.
Rather cowardly of you, Bob.
>> Bob can't explain these facts - indeed, he resorts to lies in order to make
>> his case - he pretends that there's a part of the grass in back of the
>> Franzen family that is not in view of the Zapruder camera - yet it's clear
>> that Bob simply lied.
Let's hear you admit it, Bob. The edge of Main Street can be seen in Z-369.
Can you say this, Bob?
My crystal ball tells me "no."
>> He accepts that Mrs Franzen has "moved", yet can show this movement in the
>> video...
Dead silence... these aren't static photographs, Bob. You should be able to
show movement if you wish to claim that it existed. Why can't you, Bob?
Ben Holmes
Just an update... looks like David has found the two men behind the Franzen
family in Z-348. I believe that he's right. That makes me wrong about the two
additional men behind the Franzen family
Sadly, there's still no explanation for Mrs. Franzen's position, or the lady
wearing yellow pants. Nor has Bob addressed this problem.
And sadly, Bob's lie about the area visible to the Zapruder film still stands.
In article <fqp1m...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
Burly...@gmail.com
> Just an update... looks like David has found the two men behind the Franzen
> family in Z-348. I believe that he's right. That makes me wrong about the two
> additional men behind the Franzen family
>
> Sadly, there's still no explanation for Mrs. Franzen's position, or the lady
> wearing yellow pants. Nor has Bob addressed this problem.
>
> And sadly, Bob's lie about the area visible to the Zapruder film still stands.
>
Sadly, you are mistaken, Mr. Holmes.
I suppose that you believe that the film taken by Mark Bell is also a
fake?
I urge you to take a close look at the first frames taken as he first
begins filming as the limo is beginning to enter the underpass. Be
careful. Those first few frames are blurred, but you can clarly make
out the people in quetion. Those frames reveal but 3 people standing
in the same position they are standing in the Nix film. Mrs.
Franzen, in black dress, standing to the left of the man some believed
to be holding a "JFK S.O.B." sign.
Where you are coming up with a woman dressed in ''yellow pants" is
beyond me, but, then, anyone who plays with a "crystal ball" can't be
taken seriously.
> In article <fqp1ml02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <reharris1-F64538.08483006032...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
> >says...
>
> >>In article <fqmn3h0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>
> >>> fraud in this case yet still maintains that the WCR was correct.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects
> On Mar 6, 11:34 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> > Just an update... looks like David has found the two men behind the Franzen
> > family in Z-348. I believe that he's right. That makes me wrong about the two
> > additional men behind the Franzen family
>
> > Sadly, there's still no explanation for Mrs. Franzen's position, or the lady
> > wearing yellow pants. Nor has Bob addressed this problem.
>
> > And sadly, Bob's lie about the area visible to the Zapruder film still stands.
>
> Sadly, you are mistaken, Mr. Holmes.
>
> I suppose that you believe that the film taken by Mark Bell is also a
> fake?
perhaps you can do for Lone Nutter's what no one has been able to
accomplish in 10 years, show us uninterrupted film flow ref the limo
through Dealey Plaza, from Huston Street thru the left turn onto
around Elm and then dwon Elm.... sync up ALL the films of Dealey Plaza
best you can, get back to us where you posted the results.... till
you, or any other loud mouth Lone Nutter does this, you're wasting the
lurkers to this boards valuable time, posting your nonsense above....
Hop to, SCAB!
You have my permission to recruit any Nutter on this board you choose,
even 3 or 4, knock yourself out and show us your worth, establish a
little credibility.....
> ...
>
> read more »
Burly...@gmail.com
> On Mar 6, 10:38 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 11:34 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> > > Just an update... looks like David has found the two men behind the Franzen
> > > family in Z-348. I believe that he's right. That makes me wrong about the two
> > > additional men behind the Franzen family
>
> > > Sadly, there's still no explanation for Mrs. Franzen's position, or the lady
> > > wearing yellow pants. Nor has Bob addressed this problem.
>
> > > And sadly, Bob's lie about the area visible to the Zapruder film still stands.
>
> > Sadly, you are mistaken, Mr. Holmes.
>
> > I suppose that you believe that the film taken by Mark Bell is also a
> > fake?
>
> perhaps you can do for Lone Nutter's what no one has been able to
> accomplish in 10 years, show us uninterrupted film flow ref the limo
> through Dealey Plaza, from Huston Street thru the left turn onto
> around Elm and then dwon Elm.... sync up ALL the films of Dealey Plaza
> best you can, get back to us where you posted the results.... till
> you, or any other loud mouth Lone Nutter does this, you're wasting the
> lurkers to this boards valuable time, posting your nonsense above....
> Hop to, SCAB!
>
> You have my permission to recruit any Nutter on this board you choose,
> even 3 or 4, knock yourself out and show us your worth, establish a
> little credibility.....
First of all, Mr. Healy, I don't like your tone.
Secondly, I fail to see what providing filmed proof of constant
flowing motorcade footage has to do with the evidence that I just
provided that proves that the Nix film reveals the same thing the Bell
film reveals; that Mrs Fanzen is standing to the left of the man
holding an alleged sign. I just gave t you proof that those two film
confirm each other, as far as where this woman is standing when this
sequence was taken.
Obviously, you choose to ignore this, and demand now that I do
something you say resarchers havent been able to do for "10 years".
Lets stick to the issue at hand, okay? Do you think you can handle
that?
aeffects
frankly SCAB, I could give two-fucks what you like either get on with
it, or get the fuck out of the way.... you're a drag on progress
> Secondly, I fail to see what providing filmed proof of constant
> flowing motorcade footage has to do with the evidence that I just
> provided that proves that the Nix film reveals the same thing the Bell
> film reveals; that Mrs Fanzen is standing to the left of the man
> holding an alleged sign.
either you fools or Harris and Company back up you or contention that
the Zapruder is pristine, as in authentic, or shit the fuck up...
simple as that son.... where's the beef?
<snip the Neuter nonsense>
Burly...@gmail.com
Thank you for proving my initial point that people who believe that
the Zapruder film is ''fake'' simply cannot be taken seriously, Mr.
Healy.
Where is your degnity, Mr. Healy? Real men do not use profanity.
>
> <snip the Neuter nonsense>- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Mar 6, 10:38 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 11:34 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Just an update... looks like David has found the two men behind the
>> > Franzen family in Z-348. I believe that he's right. That makes me
>> > wrong about the two additional men behind the Franzen family
>>
>> > Sadly, there's still no explanation for Mrs. Franzen's position,
>> > or the lady wearing yellow pants. Nor has Bob addressed this problem.
>>
>> > And sadly, Bob's lie about the area visible to the Zapruder film
>> > still stands.
>>
>> Sadly, you are mistaken, Mr. Holmes.
Ah! Another liar...
Bob tried to imply that there was grass that couldn't be seen in Z-369... but
it's a simple matter to verify: lurkers simply need to type in "Z-369" in Google
Images search, take a look at the frame, and note the edge of Main Street at the
top.
Tis simple...
>> I suppose that you believe that the film taken by Mark Bell is also a
>> fake?
Haven't bothered to look at it recently. I'm merely proving that two of the
best known films don't show the same thing. Thus one or both of them have been
altered.
It's amusing to see that you can't address this issue.
>perhaps you can do for Lone Nutter's what no one has been able to
>accomplish in 10 years, show us uninterrupted film flow ref the limo
>through Dealey Plaza, from Huston Street thru the left turn onto
>around Elm and then dwon Elm.... sync up ALL the films of Dealey Plaza
>best you can, get back to us where you posted the results.... till
>you, or any other loud mouth Lone Nutter does this, you're wasting the
>lurkers to this boards valuable time, posting your nonsense above....
>Hop to, SCAB!
>
>You have my permission to recruit any Nutter on this board you choose,
>even 3 or 4, knock yourself out and show us your worth, establish a
>little credibility.....
It's amusing when these trolls can't address the evidence.
>> I urge you to take a close look at the first frames taken as he first
>> begins filming as the limo is beginning to enter the underpass. Be
>> careful. Those first few frames are blurred, but you can clarly make
>> out the people in quetion. Those frames reveal but 3 people standing
>> in the same position they are standing in the Nix film. Mrs.
>> Franzen, in black dress, standing to the left of the man some believed
>> to be holding a "JFK S.O.B." sign.
>>
>> Where you are coming up with a woman dressed in ''yellow pants" is
>> beyond me, but, then, anyone who plays with a "crystal ball" can't be
>> taken seriously.
>>
>> > In article <fqp1ml02...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> > >In article <reharris1-F64538.08483006032...@news.verizon.net>, Robert H=
>arris
>> > >says...
>>
>> > >>In article <fqmn3h0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com=
>>
>> > >>wrote:
>>
>> > >>> As anyone who's viewed Z-369 knows, there's four people standing on =
>the
>> > >>> grass.
>>
>> > >>> Bob has admitted as much
>>
>> > >>Ben, why do you use such horrible distortions?
>>
>> > >>Why do you pretend that I made some kind of concession by "admitting"
>> > >>that there were four people standing in the grass? Do you feel a
>> > >>compulsion to pretend that I or anyone on the planet am unable to coun=
>t
>> > >>to four?
>>
>> > >It's simple, Bob. I *repeatedly* asked you - and you ducked each and e=
>very
>> > >instance... you simply refused to answer.
>>
>> > >So quite clearly, when you *DO* answer the question obliquely to someon=
>e else,
>> > >yes, it *IS* an admission Bob.
>>
>> > >There's no "distortion" of those facts, Bob.
>>
>> > >You were afraid to respond to me, because you clearly knew what was com=
>ing up.
>>
>> > >>These are NOT the words of someone seeking truth.
>>
>> > >Bob - this is ironic coming from a man who claims that there is no ques=
>tion that
>> > >an honest man will evade, yet has been consistently evading my question=
>s for a
>> > >week.
>>
>> > >The evidence doesn't support your theory... it's as simple as that. Th=
>ere's no
>> > >need to *LIE* about the evidence, you can easily simply state that you =
>don't
>> > >find it persuasive.
>>
>> > >>They are the words of
>> > >>someone trying to salvage his ego, and "win" debates.
>>
>> > >Bob - when you duck and run, when you lie about points I raise, I *HAVE=
>* "won".
>>
>> > >I feel very comfortable with the truth, Bob.
>>
>> > >>It is that very
>> > >>attitude that prevents you from objectively analyzing your beliefs Ben=
>.
>>
>> > >And yet, it's *I* that's simply citing facts and evidence, and *YOU* th=
>at's
>> > >lying about them. Why is that, Bob?
>>
>> > >>Fast reverse the zfilm back to where you see that "7 foot" lady in the=
>
>> > >>background, to the rear of Mary Moorman.
>>
>> > >Toni Foster, presumably.
>>
>> > >>Now, imagine what this scene
>> > >>would look like if Zapruder tilted his camera downward, to the point
>> > >>where the giant lady was out of the frame. If you did that, you would
>> > >>see a frame similar to 369, with almost no background visible above th=
>e
>> > >>heads of the four bystanders.
>>
>> > >Simply untrue. THE ENTIRE AREA OF GRASS FROM ELM TO MAIN STREET IS PLA=
>INLY
>> > >VISIBLE. There is *NO* area of the grass from front to back that is no=
>t
>> > >completely in view.
>>
>> > >So there cannot be *ANYONE* else on that grass. It's certainly true th=
>at if
>> > >there had been, we may only be looking at their feet - BUT WE WOULD SEE=
> THEIR
>> > >FEET!!
>>
>> > >Bob, when you need to lie, you really should simply do what Martin and =
>Tony do
>> > >nowadays - and simply refuse to debate me. There's *NOTHING* you can s=
>ay to the
>> > >simple fact that *ALL* of the grass is visible behind the Franzen famil=
>y in
>> > >Z-369. Trying to make the argument that there could have been addition=
>al people
>> > >back there *unseen* is an impossible argument. (and an outright lie)
>>
>> > >>THAT is what you are seeing at 369, Ben. And that is why you do not se=
>e
>> > >>the two people who had been moving toward Elm St and were well behind
>> > >>the four along the road.
>>
>> > >They can be anywhere they want to be, Bob. What they *can't* be is any=
>where on
>> > >the grass as demonstrated by Zapruder.
>>
>> > >These are videos, Bob; not photographs. You don't have *anything* - an=
>d you're
>> > >grasping at straws.
>>
>> > >Lying in order to do so too. You know, I know, and anyone who views Z-=
>369 knows
>> > >that there's *NO GRASS AREA AT ALL THAT PEOPLE COULD HAVE BEEN "HIDDEN"=
> FROM
>> > >ZAPRUDER'S VIEW*.
>>
>> > >You're a liar, Bob.
>>
>> > >>It doesn't matter that in the next frame we see part of Main St, mostl=
>y
>> > >>to the southwest, because these two were to the south and slightly eas=
>t.
>>
>> > >No Bob... we see the edge of Main Street in Z-369. Not the "next" fram=
>e...
>>
>> > >There's no sense in lying about it, because *ANYONE* can view Z-369 by =
>merely
>> > >typing "Z-369" in Google, and doing an image search.
>>
>> > >THE EDGE OF MAIN STREET IS VISIBLE IN Z-369, BOB!!
>>
>> > >Can you admit this? Probably not...
>>
>> > >>I'm sure you will not grasp any of this and will go into another serie=
>s
>> > >>of accusations that I am a liar,
>>
>> > >Of course, Bob! You *ARE* lying! You pretend that Zapruder's view was=
> such
>> > >that three people could go completely unseen - even try to imply that M=
>ain
>> > >Street can't be seen in Z-369...
>>
>> > >You have no-where to go, and no explanation to make. Your attempted ex=
>planation
>> > >fails to the actual facts.
>>
>> > >>but your accusations will not be
>> > >>impressive to anyone who has a copy of the film,
>>
>> > >Speak up... anyone who finds Bob's lie that Zapruder's view would have =
>missed
>> > >seeing *ANYONE* on the grass from Z-369 to the end of the film (and end=
> of the
>> > >grass) persuasive - speak up. Let's see if anyone else believes your n=
>onsense,
>> > >Bob.
>>
>> > >>or has seen your previous bogus claims about statements from both
>> > >>the witnesses and myself.
>>
>> > >You *still* can't explain the contradiction between the eyewitnesses an=
>d your
>> > >assertion that they never claimed a limo stop.
>>
>> > >And despite repeated requests - you *REFUSE* to name these eyewitnesses=
>. The
>> > >act of a dishonest coward, Bob. It just gets deeper and deeper, Bob.
>>
>> > >>Robert Harris
>>
>> > >Now let's look below to see what Bob was too frightened of, or too dish=
>onest to
>> > >respond to:
>>
>> > >>> when he said: "You have to look at the positions of
>> > >>>Nix and Zapruder. Nix shows the limo passing those same four people [=
>seen in
>> > >>> Z-369] a bit later than Zapruder does, but only because of the angle=
> he
>> > >>> was filming from."
>>
>> > >>> So Bob is well aware that there's *FOUR* people there.
>>
>> > >Despite the fact that Bob *REFUSED* to answer that question from me. (=
>In fact,
>> > >there's quite a few threads that Bob has simply stopped responding to)
>>
>> > >Coward, aren't you Bob?
>>
>> > >>> Bob also knows that the Nix film shows *MORE* than four people, sinc=
>e he's
>> > >>> stated: "The two people behind that group (in Nix) are taller than t=
>he four
>> > >>> near the road, because they were well back from the road and out of
>> > >>> Zapruder's view."
>>
>> > >>> But Bob certainly knows THAT THERE IS NO PORTION OF THE GRASS THAT I=
>S *NOT*
>> > >>> IN VIEW OF ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA!
>>
>> > >Yet, as we see above, he's *STILL* willing to lie about it. Bob keeps =
>trying to
>> > >make the argument that Zapruder's view simply couldn't have seen these =
>people,
>> > >DESPITE THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT *ALL* OF THE GRASS WAS VISIBLE IN ZAPRUDE=
>R'S...
>>
>> > >>> We know this with great certainty - because at the top of Z-369, you=
> can see
>> > >>>Main street. There can't be any grass that is *NOT* visible to Zapru=
>der. So
>> > >>> Bob just lied.
>>
>> > >And lied again in this post, when he tried to imply that it wasn't visi=
>ble in
>> > >Z-369 with his "next frame" remark.
>>
>> > >Bob - anyone can view Z-369 and see that you're lying... why would you =
>embarrass
>> > >yourself like this?
>>
>> > >>> "The two people behind that group (in Nix)" can't possibly be on
>> > >>> the grass - since Zapruder doesn't show them on the grass - AND *ALL=
>* OF THE
>> > >>>GRASS UP TO MAIN STREET IS IN VIEW - yet they are clearly on the gras=
>s in the
>> > >>> Nix film.
>>
>> > >>>This is only half the problem, of course... because there are a furth=
>er *two*
>> > >>>people to the right of this 'group of four' seen standing in the gras=
>s in the
>> > >>> extant Z-film... yet Nix shows *THREE* people. (Looks like a woman w=
>earing
>> > >>> yellow pants, dark coat, tan purse on left side... my opinion, of co=
>urse)
>>
>> > >Bob was simply dead silent about this. He clearly has no explanation
>> > >whatsoever... so he runs.
>>
>> > >Rather cowardly of you, Bob.
>>
>> > >>> Bob can't explain these facts - indeed, he resorts to lies in order =
>to make
>> > >>> his case - he pretends that there's a part of the grass in back of t=
>he
>> > >>> Franzen family that is not in view of the Zapruder camera - yet it's=
> clear
>> > >>> that Bob simply lied.
>>
>> > >Let's hear you admit it, Bob. The edge of Main Street can be seen in Z=
>-369.
>> > >Can you say this, Bob?
>>
>> > >My crystal ball tells me "no."
>>
>> > >>> He accepts that Mrs Franzen has "moved", yet can show this movement =
>in the
>> > >>> video...
>>
>> > >Dead silence... these aren't static photographs, Bob. You should be ab=
>le to
>> > >show movement if you wish to claim that it existed. Why can't you, Bob=
>?
>>
>> > >>> Why do you have to lie, Bob?
>>
>> > >>>Of course, Bob isn't the only liar around here... Martin & Tony come =
>to mind,
>> > >>> and *ALL* LNT'ers... since I'm unaware of any LNT'er who admits phot=
Burly...@gmail.com
> In article <1b0c0377-119b-49ad-be4b-0b4aca240...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Mar 6, 10:38 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Mar 6, 11:34 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Just an update... looks like David has found the two men behind the
> >> > Franzen family in Z-348. I believe that he's right. That makes me
> >> > wrong about the two additional men behind the Franzen family
>
> >> > Sadly, there's still no explanation for Mrs. Franzen's position,
> >> > or the lady wearing yellow pants. Nor has Bob addressed this problem.
>
> >> > And sadly, Bob's lie about the area visible to the Zapruder film
> >> > still stands.
>
> >> Sadly, you are mistaken, Mr. Holmes.
>
> Ah! Another liar...
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Bob tried to imply that there was grass that couldn't be seen in Z-369... but
> it's a simple matter to verify: lurkers simply need to type in "Z-369" in Google
> Images search, take a look at the frame, and note the edge of Main Street at the
> top.
>
> Tis simple...
"Tis" it, now?
>
> >> I suppose that you believe that the film taken by Mark Bell is also a
> >> fake?
>
> Haven't bothered to look at it recently.
Well, I suggest you take a look.
I'm merely proving that two of the
> best known films don't show the same thing. Thus one or both of them have been
> altered.
Well, I just provided proof that the Nix film is authentic, by
pointing out that the frame from the Bell footage shows Mrs. Franzen
standing in the same position she is seen in in the Nx film, which is
to the left of the man alleged by some to be holding a sign. I still
see no woman dressed in "yellow pants", and still see only 3 adults
standing in that spot.
>
> It's amusing to see that you can't address this issue.
Good. I am glad you find it as such.
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
ROTFLMAO!!
>frankly SCAB, I could give two-fucks what you like either get on with
>it, or get the fuck out of the way.... you're a drag on progress
They lie, they duck and run from the evidence, then they don't like it when we
point it out.
Why not simply move to the censored group where such dishonest behavior isn't
commented on?
>> Secondly, I fail to see what providing filmed proof of constant
>> flowing motorcade footage has to do with the evidence that I just
>> provided that proves that the Nix film reveals the same thing the Bell
>> film reveals; that Mrs Fanzen is standing to the left of the man
>> holding an alleged sign.
Really *do* need to learn to spell... it's Mrs. *FRANZEN*. And trying to argue
that the Bell film is going to reconcile the differences seen in the Nix &
Zapruder film is a stretch...
>either you fools or Harris and Company back up you or contention that
>the Zapruder is pristine, as in authentic, or shit the fuck up...
>simple as that son.... where's the beef?
Yep... that's the problem however... LNT'ers *can't* debate the evidence... it's
not in their favor.
><snip the Neuter nonsense>
Burly...@gmail.com
> In article <4fb8a9ec-0b30-40cb-8c4c-4d41f6317...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Darn, these sausage fingers of mine!
And trying to argue
> that the Bell film is going to reconcile the differences seen in the Nix &
> Zapruder film is a stretch...
Ah...ah...ah...Mr. Holmes. You'd better take a good look at the Bell
film, before you make such a statement.
>
> >either you fools or Harris and Company back up you or contention that
> >the Zapruder is pristine, as in authentic, or shit the fuck up...
> >simple as that son.... where's the beef?
>
> Yep... that's the problem however... LNT'ers *can't* debate the evidence... it's
> not in their favor.
Dreamer easy in the chair that really fit's you...
>
>
>
> ><snip the Neuter nonsense>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
Orville Nix told Mark Lane that his film was "lost at the processing
plant" and when he got it back, that "some frames were ruined"
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <reharris1-F6453...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
> says...
> >
> >In article <fqmn3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> As anyone who's viewed Z-369 knows, there's four people standing on the
> >> grass.
> >>
> >> Bob has admitted as much
> >
> >Ben, why do you use such horrible distortions?
> >
> >Why do you pretend that I made some kind of concession by "admitting"
> >that there were four people standing in the grass? Do you feel a
> >compulsion to pretend that I or anyone on the planet am unable to count
> >to four?
>
> It's simple, Bob. I *repeatedly* asked you - and you ducked each and every
> instance... you simply refused to answer.
And you are one fucking liar.
You constantly accused me of ducking questions that I answered
repeatedly. And you accused me of being a liar for not presenting some
list of witnesses that you demanded.
I'm sorry, Ben but this is a waste of my time. You may feel free to post
endless personal attacks and idiotic theories, to your hearts content.
But in my book, you are the mirror image of the trolls around here.
And so long as you are too lazy and/or too stupid to do any kind of
serious analysis, you will never have a clue about this case, Ben.
Robert Harris
YoHarvey
> In article <fqp1ml02...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <reharris1-F64538.08483006032...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
> > says...
>
> > >In article <fqmn3h0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's no doubt the Nix film was altered.
Wow, don't ya just love Chico Jesus/Robcap? He never has doubts.
NOW, he's insisting the Nix film was altered and there is NO doubt
about it. Of course, like his Connally shot JFK and his infamous JFK
is coughing up a bullet travelling at 1500-2000 fps, he provides NO
evidence. None. Ever. He does however provide the ammon for
laughing into his ugly face..................one more time!!! roflmao.
Ben Holmes
Robert Harris says...
>
>In article <fqp1m...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <reharris1-F6453...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
>> says...
>> >
>> >In article <fqmn3...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> As anyone who's viewed Z-369 knows, there's four people standing on the
>> >> grass.
>> >>
>> >> Bob has admitted as much
>> >
>> >Ben, why do you use such horrible distortions?
>> >
>> >Why do you pretend that I made some kind of concession by "admitting"
>> >that there were four people standing in the grass? Do you feel a
>> >compulsion to pretend that I or anyone on the planet am unable to count
>> >to four?
>>
>> It's simple, Bob. I *repeatedly* asked you - and you ducked each and every
>> instance... you simply refused to answer.
>
>
>And you are one fucking liar.
>
>You constantly accused me of ducking questions that I answered
>repeatedly.
Then all you have to do, Bob - is *cite* where you ever responded to my Z-369
question.
But you can't do it. You *never* answered it in any thread directed at me.
That's why I had to pull it from another thread.
Then you turn around and label *ME* a "liar" for simply pointing out the truth.
But this is a really simple issue to resolve, Bob. Every message is date and
timestamped... it would be a simple thing to just cite the message where you
answered my Z-369 question ... but you can't.
So you label me a "liar" to hide the fact that you never responded.
Nor, for example, have you *EVER* responded to the point I made about the lady
wearing yellow pants. Too cowardly and too dishonest... for as we have all been
told repeatedly, "There's no question an honest man will evade," but that's not
true, is it Bob?
Or is it true, and you're merely illustrating that *YOU'RE* dishonest?
>And you accused me of being a liar for not presenting some
>list of witnesses that you demanded.
Actually, Bob - that's a demonstration of cowardice. Nor, quite clearly, will
you *ever* provide a list of eyewitnesses who were "roughly adjacent" or "across
the road."
Since if you ever did, it would become even *MORE* clear to lurkers that you're
a liar, Bob. But, as we all know, there's no question an honest man will evade,
right?
So tell us, Bob - do you simply not understand the question? Or are you simply
providing evidence that you're not an honest man? Which is it?
>I'm sorry, Ben but this is a waste of my time.
Most people *do* duck out and run eventually. But don't worry, Bob - I'm going
to *continue* to post the questions that you refused to answer.
You've been refusing up till now to answer 'em... so I'll just post 'em
occasionally to remind people of evaded questions... just as I do with my "45
Questions" post.
>You may feel free to post
>endless personal attacks and idiotic theories, to your hearts content.
>But in my book, you are the mirror image of the trolls around here.
It's the evidence, Bob. You can give any excuse you want to - but it boils down
to just one - you can't deal with the evidence. I cite, you run...
>And so long as you are too lazy and/or too stupid to do any kind of
>serious analysis, you will never have a clue about this case, Ben.
When you need to evade questions, and lie about the evidence, Bob - you haven't
demonstrated any "serious analysis" - what you've demonstrated is that you're a
liar and a coward.
>Robert Harris
And, as we've come to expect from Bob (is he taking notes from Martin?) -
there's a great deal that he simply refused to respond to below:
YoHarvey
> In article <reharris1-B3DBFA.21025606032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <fqp1ml02...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> >> In article <reharris1-F64538.08483006032...@news.verizon.net>, Robert Harris
> >> says...
>
> >> >In article <fqmn3h0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Benny? Tell us about your fictious author who discredited Bugliosi's
book? You old timer are the QUEEN of Liars....only Chico Jesus tops
you dear friend!
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
You babbling moron! I just responded two posts ago:
"Fast reverse the zfilm back to where you see that "7 foot" lady in the
background, to the rear of Mary Moorman. Now, imagine what this scene
would look like if Zapruder tilted his camera downward, to the point
where the giant lady was out of the frame. If you did that, you would
see a frame similar to 369, with almost no background visible above the
heads of the four bystanders.
THAT is what you are seeing at 369, Ben. And that is why you do not see
the two people who had been moving toward Elm St and were well behind
the four along the road.
It doesn't matter that in the next frame we see part of Main St, mostly
to the southwest, because these two were to the south and slightly east."
What in holy hell is the matter with you??
>
> But you can't do it. You *never* answered it in any thread directed at me.
> That's why I had to pull it from another thread.
I just cited myself in THIS thread, in direct response to YOU!
I cannot remember a nutter who was quite this bad, or as much of a
moron.
Robert Harris
Ben Holmes
Nor, for example, have you *EVER* responded to the point I made about the
lady wearing yellow pants. Too cowardly and too dishonest... for as we
have all been told repeatedly, "There's no question an honest man will
evade," but that's not true, is it Bob?
You're a coward, Bob - you keep top-posting and avoiding questions you can't
answer... so I moved it to the top to watch you squirm. I predict that you'll
simply refuse to answer this entire post...
In article <reharris1-96752...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
No Bob... you didn't. How can you "respond" *AFTER* the question you raise
about your "admission?" Do you know what an anacronism is?
Once again, I *repeatedly* asked you HOW MANY PEOPLE DID YOU SEE IN Z-369, and
you ducked each and every instance of that question.
Now, when you can cite your answer to that question, then you'll have a valid
point to make (as you tried above)
>"Fast reverse the zfilm back to where you see that "7 foot" lady in the
>background, to the rear of Mary Moorman. Now, imagine what this scene
>would look like if Zapruder tilted his camera downward, to the point
>where the giant lady was out of the frame. If you did that, you would
>see a frame similar to 369, with almost no background visible above the
>heads of the four bystanders.
Of course, you've lied when you previously tried to imply that there's *ANY*
grass not visible in Z-369. Why is that, Bob?
Try to tell us that the edge of Main Street is *NOT* seen in Z-369...
>THAT is what you are seeing at 369, Ben. And that is why you do not see
>the two people who had been moving toward Elm St and were well behind
>the four along the road.
>
>It doesn't matter that in the next frame
Next frame, Bob? You *KNOW* quite well that you can see part of Main Street IN
Z-369!
Why do you have to lie, Bob?
>we see part of Main St, mostly
>to the southwest, because these two were to the south and slightly east."
>
>
>What in holy hell is the matter with you??
I'm literate, and I tell the truth. You apparently can't follow a simple theme.
You questioned why I asserted that you'd "admitted" to seeing four people, and
can't seem to understand my simple answer - you *NEVER* answered *my* question.
I had to take your answer from another thread.
You *STILL* can't find the courage to answer for the "lady in yellow pants".
>> But you can't do it. You *never* answered it in any thread directed at me.
>> That's why I had to pull it from another thread.
>
>I just cited myself in THIS thread, in direct response to YOU!
No Bob... This:
>>>> >> As anyone who's viewed Z-369 knows, there's four people standing on the
>> >> >> grass.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bob has admitted as much
Came BEFORE your statement. Anacronism.
Now, when you're ready to cite *YOUR ANSWER* to my question about how many
people you saw in Z-369, I'll still be waiting. I'll be happy to REPOST the
posts you've been ducking if you wish.
>I cannot remember a nutter who was quite this bad, or as much of a
>moron.
When you have to lie to make a point, all you've demonstrated is that you're a
liar, Bob. Sadly, you've just named yourself for a moron - since you're trying
to claim an answer made AFTER the point in time that you couldn't understand why
I was using the word "admitted" in relation to you seeing four people in Z-369.
You haven't discussed *ANY* evidence in this post. Simply tried to prove that
you'd answered my question about Z-369, when in fact you never did. I picked up
your "four" answer directed at someone else.
So when you try to quote your previous non-existent answer this time, Bob - just
include my question right above it.
But you can't.
>Robert Harris
As normal, Bob ran screaming from the rest of the points made below:
justm...@gmail.com
> Nor, for example, have you *EVER* responded to the point I made about the
> lady wearing yellow pants. Too cowardly and too dishonest... for as we
> have all been told repeatedly, "There's no question an honest man will
> evade," but that's not true, is it Bob?
>
> You're a coward, Bob - you keep top-posting and avoiding questions you can't
> answer... so I moved it to the top to watch you squirm. I predict that you'll
> simply refuse to answer this entire post...
>
> Robert Harris says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <fqqa7d02...@drn.newsguy.com>,> >> <reharris1-B3DBFA.21025606032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> >> Robert Harris says...
>
> >> >In article <fqp1ml02...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> >> > Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> In article <reharris1-F64538.08483006032...@news.verizon.net>, Robert
> >> >> Harris
> >> >> says...
>
> >> >> >In article <fqmn3h0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes? Show us a picture of a lady in yellow pants. There is no one
wearing yellow pants in any frames of the z film that we have checked.
Why do you continue to LIE about it? Instead of sounding like a broken
record that no one listens too....let's see your proof of some lady in
yellow pants. We all await your response, and we all know you won't
have one....you're a pathetic liar, just like your counter parts.
muc...@gmail.com
the Franzens are clearly visible in the Z-342 to Z-348 range, i.e.
behind Bothun, Altgens and Summers from Zapruder's point of view.
"Handbag Lady" in Nix would have entered the picture a few frames
later (in the Z-350's, well before Z-369), but ... not enough grass!
Nice try, but no cigar. Consider your bluff called.
-Mark
On 7 Mar., 15:45, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> Nor, for example, have you *EVER* responded to the point I made about the
> lady wearing yellow pants. Too cowardly and too dishonest... for as we
> have all been told repeatedly, "There's no question an honest man will
> evade," but that's not true, is it Bob?
>
> You're a coward, Bob - you keep top-posting and avoiding questions you can't
> answer... so I moved it to the top to watch you squirm. I predict that you'll
> simply refuse to answer this entire post...
>
> In article <reharris1-967523.01120207032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Robert Harris says...
>
> >In article <fqqa7d02...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> > Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> >> In article
> >> <reharris1-B3DBFA.21025606032...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> >> Robert Harris says...
>
> >> >In article <fqp1ml02...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> >> > Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> In article <reharris1-F64538.08483006032...@news.verizon.net>, Robert
> >> >> Harris
> >> >> says...
>
> >> >> >In article <fqmn3h0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com>
Burly...@gmail.com
> Quit being such a moron, Ben. The legs of the two men beteeen Nix and
> the Franzens are clearly visible in the Z-342 to Z-348 range, i.e.
> behind Bothun, Altgens and Summers from Zapruder's point of view.
> "Handbag Lady" in Nix would have entered the picture a few frames
> later (in the Z-350's, well before Z-369), but ... not enough grass!
> Nice try, but no cigar. Consider your bluff called.
>
> -Mark
Mark, is this the two people in the Nix film, which we see one of
dressed in a white or white jacket and white shoes? If you watch a
sharp copy of the Nix film, this is obviously not two men (unless they
are gay) It is a man and a woman. The woman, obviously in distress
over what she has witnessed, "marches" in place, jumping up and down
( how else can you describe it?) as the limo approaches the underpass,
in the background. They show up in the Bell and Hughes footage, among
the crowd of people, moments after the shooting. Obviously, their
legs appear at the top of the Z frames, (clearest in Zapruder frame
345) as you pointed out.
muc...@gmail.com
> On Mar 7, 11:30 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Quit being such a moron, Ben. The legs of the two men beteeen Nix and
> > the Franzens are clearly visible in the Z-342 to Z-348 range, i.e.
> > behind Bothun, Altgens and Summers from Zapruder's point of view.
> > "Handbag Lady" in Nix would have entered the picture a few frames
> > later (in the Z-350's, well before Z-369), but ... not enough grass!
> > Nice try, but no cigar. Consider your bluff called.
>
> > -Mark
>
> Mark, is this the two people in the Nix film, which we see one of
> dressed in a white or white jacket and white shoes? If you watch a
> sharp copy of the Nix film, this is obviously not two men (unless they
> are gay) It is a man and a woman. The woman, obviously in distress
> over what she has witnessed, "marches" in place, jumping up and down
> ( how else can you describe it?) as the limo approaches the underpass,
> in the background. They show up in the Bell and Hughes footage, among
> the crowd of people, moments after the shooting. Obviously, their
> legs appear at the top of the Z frames, (clearest in Zapruder frame
> 345) as you pointed out.
Those are the ones. Must admit that I didn't give much thought to
gender, and now I may have opened the door for Ben to accuse me of
lying!
Burly...@gmail.com
As if he can call someone a "liar", when he has been caught lying
himself, sir.
Do you know where the woman "in yellow pants" is supposed to be?
muc...@gmail.com
The last person that comes into view (and the one standing closest to
Main St.) in the assassination sequence in Nix. Ben seems unable (or
unwilling) to comprehend why she isn't seen (in Zapruder) behind the
couple that comes into view in the early Z-370's.
muc...@gmail.com
Here's an excerpt from Bob's "Comparing the Zfilm and Nix" post (and
Ben's pathetic response) a couple of days ago:
HARRIS. The two people behind that group (in Nix) are taller than the
four near the road, because they were well back from the road and out
of Zapruder's view.
HOLMES. ROTFLMAO!!! You're a bald-faced LIAR Bob... Do you want to
defend this lie, Bob? Tell us, Bob... what part of the grass was *NOT*
visible in Z-369 (moving straight *BACK* from the group of four?)
HARRIS. Take an accurate copy of the surveyor's diagram and draw cones
from Zapruder and Nix and you will see that those people were exactly
where they should have been at the times they appeared in the two
films. The lady in the dark dress btw, might have moved a tad to her
left before she appeared in the Nix film, which happened a second or
so after she appeared in Zapruder.
HOLMES. These are *videos* Bob... not photographs. Simply point to her
movement...
muc...@gmail.com
PS: In the post cited above, Bob was referring to the same lady, yet,
only some 8 hours ago, in this very thread, Ben had this to say:
"Nor, for example, have you *EVER* responded to the point I made about
the lady wearing yellow pants. Too cowardly and too dishonest... for
as we have all been told repeatedly, "There's no question an honest
man will evade," but that's not true, is it Bob? You're a coward, Bob
- you keep top-posting and avoiding questions you can't answer... so I
moved it to the top to watch you squirm. I predict that you'll simply
refuse to answer this entire post..."
Seems to me that Ben owes Bob an apology...
tims...@gmail.com
Hey Holmes,
Here's the thread where you *never* discussed Z film alteration or a
character that could be construed as *Yellow Legs*, according to you,
Holmes.
You're a liar and a coward, aren't you Holmes?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Mar 6, 4:00 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> As anyone who's viewed Z-369 knows, there's four people standing on the grass.
>
> Bob has admitted as much when he said: "You have to look at the positions of Nix
> and Zapruder. Nix shows the limo passing those same four people [seen in Z-369]
> a bit later than Zapruder does, but only because of the angle he was filming
> from."
>
> So Bob is well aware that there's *FOUR* people there.
>
> Bob also knows that the Nix film shows *MORE* than four people, since he's
> stated: "The two people behind that group (in Nix) are taller than the four near
> the road, because they were well back from the road and out of Zapruder's view."
>
> But Bob certainly knows THAT THERE IS NO PORTION OF THE GRASS THAT IS *NOT* IN
> VIEW OF ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA!
>
> We know this with great certainty - because at the top of Z-369, you can see
> Main street. There can't be any grass that is *NOT* visible to Zapruder. So
> Bob just lied. "The two people behind that group (in Nix)" can't possibly be on
> the grass - since Zapruder doesn't show them on the grass - AND *ALL* OF THE
> GRASS UP TO MAIN STREET IS IN VIEW - yet they are clearly on the grass in the
> Nix film.
>
> This is only half the problem, of course... because there are a further *two*
> people to the right of this 'group of four' seen standing in the grass in the
> extant Z-film... yet Nix shows *THREE* people. (Looks like a woman wearing
> yellow pants, dark coat, tan purse on left side... my opinion, of course)
>
> Bob can't explain these facts - indeed, he resorts to lies in order to make his
> case - he pretends that there's a part of the grass in back of the Franzen
> family that is not in view of the Zapruder camera - yet it's clear that Bob
> simply lied.
>
> He accepts that Mrs Franzen has "moved", yet can show this movement in the
> video...
>
> Why do you have to lie, Bob?
>
muc...@gmail.com
> TOP POST
>
> Hey Holmes,
>
> Here's the thread where you *never* discussed Z film alteration or a
> character that could be construed as *Yellow Legs*, according to you,
> Holmes.
>
> You're a liar and a coward, aren't you Holmes?
Hi Tim,
Great find. How embarrassing for Ben! I read somewhere that most
serial killers experience a great sense of relief when they are
apprehended. I wonder if this also applies to serial liars.
-Mark ;-)
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Mark,
Is this guy, Ben Holmes, a liar or what??
The little Benny coward fellow shows a distinct lack of interest in
debating Z film alteration and yellow whatever anymore since he
realised his error.
What a demonstration of Ben's *character* the whole episode has been,
LOL!
Looks like he has none...
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > > fraud in this case yet still maintains that the WCR was correct.- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
And to think that Holmes has the ever so intelligent, expert, Healy to
help argue his point of Z film alteration. You know the same Healy
that says Zapruder didn't make that film because he can't be
identified in any pictures or other films taken that day. LMAO It's
commical to watch Healys responses to LNs who have debated Holmes
questions. Take note that 99% of Healys comments do not include the
post by the LN for Holmes to see. That is because each question so far
has been answered by someone who made Holmes look like the idiot he
is.
Nice work Tim and Mark. Now the lurkers can see how Abbott and
Costello really work as a team LOL
Gil Jesus
wrote:
> Take note that 99% of Healys comments do not include the
> post by the LN for Holmes to see.
We also take note that 99.99 % of YOUR posts have nothing to do with
JFK.
So we ask:
And this has WHAT to do with the JFK assassination, again ?
justm...@gmail.com
That would be none of your business Gilda. The above postings have
everything to do with the JFK assassination, proving that Ben Holmes
is a lying scum just like you, and his lapdog makes him look like a
bigger jackass then he makes himself look.
I'll post whatever I feel like posting Gilda...now go put on that
pretty housecoat of your mothers and kneel infront of the
computer..it's almost time for the mass for the shut ins to begin.
Any more questions???
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Apr 27, 7:15=EF=BF=BDam, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
It wouldn't be possible for a troll to actually make an intelligent and coherent
argument against any of the pro-CT'er posts (including my '45 Questions') on
this forum without *any* response by CT'ers. Nor would Healy snip relevant
answers... there's no need to do that.
CT'ers operate on the basis of the evidence - so there's no need to lie about
it. Unless (as some people are wont to do) they have a pet theory that they're
trying to save... this accounts for a few presumed CT'ers who try to deny the
overwhelming evidence for photographic forgery in this case.
Anytime a troll wants to be taken off my killfile, and treated like a real human
being, tis simple to do - start with honesty and drop the garbage.
I have too many other things on my plate to have to spend any time with
nonsense.
Gil Jesus
wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:19 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 27, 7:15�am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Take note that 99% of Healys comments do not include the
> > > post by the LN for Holmes to see.
>
> > We also take note that 99.99 % of YOUR posts have nothing to do with
> > JFK.
>
> > So we ask:
>
> > And this has WHAT to do with the JFK assassination, again ?
>
> That would be none of your business Gilda. The above postings have
> everything to do with the JFK assassination, proving that Ben Holmes
> is a lying scum just like you, and his lapdog makes him look like a
> bigger jackass then he makes himself look.
> I'll post whatever I feel like posting Gilda...
No one is as much a lying scum as you and your brother YoLarvae are,
Joey.
Every time you post, you prove it.
You're your own worst enemies.
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <a22dd50e-cd91-4856-b7df-19a80228f...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Then you better check again because I've seen 3 posts made by Healy so
far telling a LN that they are to stick with the topic, when their
post was a direct response to one of your questions. Because their
post made sense and was an exact argument of your question Healy
neglected to make sure that persons post was included in his
incoherent crap that he always spews.
How can you sit here and say you will take someone off killfile when
they drop the garbage when you have your lapdog barking more garbage
then anyone on this newsgroup? It appears you also have double
standards right Holmes? What a joke. Start reading the responses to
your questions without the use of the lapdog who is picking and
chosing which ones he wants you to see. Stop being a coward!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gilda? Go play with yourself, it's all you have. You're a lying bigot,
coward, delusional, a homophobic racist and a hypocritical Christian.
All of the above have been proven, just by your posts. Add to that a
person who stole others identies and posted as an 11 yr old vulgar
child. I'd say your batting zero Gilda.
I'm still waiting for you to prove I'm a 20 yr old male....you
imbecile.
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>
> Gilda? Go play with yourself, it's all you have. You're a lying bigot,
> coward, delusional, a homophobic racist and a hypocritical Christian.
> All of the above have been proven, just by your posts. Add to that a
> person who stole others identies and posted as an 11 yr old vulgar
> child. I'd say your batting zero Gilda.
> I'm still waiting for you to prove I'm a 20 yr old male....you
tims...@gmail.com
On Apr 28, 1:00 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <a22dd50e-cd91-4856-b7df-19a80228f...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
> >On Apr 27, 7:15=EF=BF=BDam, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> Take note that 99% of Healys comments do not include the
> >> post by the LN for Holmes to see.
>
> >We also take note that 99.99 % of YOUR posts have nothing to do with
> >JFK.
>
> >So we ask:
>
> >And this has WHAT to do with the JFK assassination, again ?
>
> It wouldn't be possible for a troll to actually make an intelligent and coherent
> argument against any of the pro-CT'er posts (including my '45 Questions') on
> this forum without *any* response by CT'ers. Nor would Healy snip relevant
> answers... there's no need to do that.
>
A pathetic generalisation. Healy has been very hit and miss in what he
responds to, so that you see it. Still, that's YOUR fault, hiding
behind your killfilter though supposedly encouraging responses to your
convoluted nonsense, LOL!
> CT'ers operate on the basis of the evidence - so there's no need to lie about
> it. Unless (as some people are wont to do) they have a pet theory that they're
> trying to save... this accounts for a few presumed CT'ers who try to deny the
> overwhelming evidence for photographic forgery in this case.
>
Is Harris one of these *presumed CT'ers* (sic) with a *pet theory*?
Your evidence for photographic forgery using Z 369 and Nix doesn't
stack up. Harris proved you wrong, yet when conforonted with specifics
you ran away. You STILL won't debate the specifics. So much for always
admitting when you're wrong, LOL!
> Anytime a troll wants to be taken off my killfile, and treated like a real human
> being, tis simple to do - start with honesty and drop the garbage.
>
*Drop the garbage* coming from a guy who routinely disparges other
posters as trolls, liars and cowards?
*Drop the garbage* coming from a guy who routinely invites people who
disagree with him in the matter of the John F. Kennedy assassination
to his Judo club for a *painful* lesson? LOL! How strong is your grip
on reality, Ben?
> I have too many other things on my plate to have to spend any time with
> nonsense.
That's simply a cop out. You started the film alteration debate. Once
you realised you were wrong you used every tactic to avoid further
discussion of your theory. It really looks very poor, particularly
coming from someone who disparages other posters as cowards and
worse.
Very Concerned Regards,
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have never seen an LNTer wish to delve into all the anomalies of the
Zapruder film. Will you be the first?
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm
CJ
muc...@gmail.com
> Zapruder film. Will you be the first?
Please try to pay attention. Some of us have been attempting to engage
Ben in discussion of a very specific "anomaly" (his so-called *Yellow
Legs* theory) for quite some time. Will you be the first CT to admit
that Ben was wrong?
> http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm
>
> CJ
aeffects
english is a simple language for mosrt of us.... I suggest you pay
attention to the thread topics....if not, expect more of the same...
you're a coward, munchless. Simple as that......
> >http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm
>
> > CJ
aeffects
none of these Lone Nut fruitcakes has a clue concerning the Zapruder
film. ANY aspect of the film....
> CJ
aeffects
Film authenticity/alteration debate? If anything! What can you tell
us about the Zapruder film (other than the Lone Nut mantra; "it can't
be altered...").
You can display your concern concernong the matter by telling us when
you'll contact Dr. John Costella, down-undah. SCARED?
No one is interested in dealing with just ANOTHER Lone Nut no-
nothing.... bellowing 44 year old nonsense....
aeffects
> In article <a22dd50e-cd91-4856-b7df-19a80228f...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
frankly I don't see anything noteworthy responding to, certainly not
from LN trolls....
ALL they're doing is AVOIDING at all costs, the 45 questions, and
they'll be avoiding the 16 smoking guns when they show up too!
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's fine, and I don't pretend to know all of the finer points
people bring up. In fact I invited you in the Robert Harris thread
where the discussion was the same or similar to do the same just a few
days earlier. (below)
So I also in the one before invited to get other films so you or
anybody could prove their points, which I have just posted which has
some of the film or frames in question. So, what I am hearing from
you, is that you really don't care about the alteration or not of the
film but one particular point? I would even think that weak if it
were true! So, you have Ben Holmes bringing thousands of points here
that you duck and run from, or just look plain stupid, and now you are
going to claim 'victory'? How shallow and rich of you!
On Apr 28, 6:10 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Mar 3, 4:23 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > > On Mar 2, 2:27 pm, Bob Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > > > You stated in your article, that 10-40 contiguous frames
> > were
> > >> >> > > > removed,
> > >> >> > > > to hide the limo stopping.
> > >> >> > > between 212 and 360 (possibly more than 40 frames) -- Did I
> > say in the
> > >> >> > > article the "limo stopping", Bob?
> > >> >> > Yes, you said exactly that.
> > >> >> > "So what was removed from the film?
> > >> >> > A. The limo left turn problems: probably 100-140 frames.
> > >> >> > B. The limo stop (momentarily or extended): 10-40 frames."
> > >> >> Bob where did I state "contiguous frames"? For the record, example,
> > >> >> every other frame is NOT contiguous.
> > >> >Yep, you got me there. Maybe the limo stopped and started 10 times,
> > eh.
> > >> >How in holy hell, would they hide the limo stopping unless they cut
> > out
> > >> >all frames that showed it stopped?
> > >> By pulling the limo out of the picture, then reinserting it as a
> > moving
> > >> vehicle. Of course, I'll defer to David's expertise here.
> > >Well, that's not what he said in the article.
> > >And that just doesn't work.
> > How silly!! Hollywood's been doing such things for decades...
> > >The Moorman photo proves that.
> > No Bob, the Moorman film does no such thing.
> > >If just half
> > >a second of footage of the limo stopped had been replaced by footage of
> > >the limo moving, then the Zapruder film would show the limo, well past
> > >her position, when the head explosion took place.
> > You apparently believe that altering one film is impossible, because
> > another
> > film "matches" it and could not have been altered.
> > Rather silly...
> > >Instead, everything matches perfectly, with a point in time just after
> > >the explosion, and an eighteenth of a second before Kellerman began to
> > >duck.
> > Actually, your claim of the Moorman film matching the Z-film is disputed.
> > Despite your one hour of study...
> > >Now, if you posit the film being altered AFTER the first headshot, to
> > >hide stoppage then, then somebody needs to explain why they went to all
> > >that trouble.
> > It's so obvious that you *MUST* be trying to look the fool.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I just want to say, it would enhance the thread for lurkers if the
> frames of film or the films themselves could be posted for a quick
> back and forth to see the images and people under scutiny.
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Here's the Costella frames from a Zapruder Film
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
CJ
CJ
muc...@gmail.com
> people bring up. In fact I invited you in the Robert Harris thread
> where the discussion was the same or similar to do the same just a few
> days earlier. (below)
Try searching the archives for terms like yellow, 369, 377, and lamp/
light post(s), and it should become clear which threads are the most
pertinent ones. Pay attention to posts by Harris, Tim, and yours
truly. Tim has done an exceptional job of refining points made by
Harris and me, while adding some of his own.
> So I also in the one before invited to get other films so you or
> anybody could prove their points, which I have just posted which has
> some of the film or frames in question.
Links to Zapruder and Nix frames, as well as DP maps, were posted
weeks ago (see above).
> So, what I am hearing from
> you, is that you really don't care about the alteration or not of the
> film but one particular point?
You seem to forget that Ben, not I, brought up this particular
"point."
> I would even think that weak if it were true!
Not sure what you mean by that.
> So, you have Ben Holmes bringing thousands of points here
> that you duck and run from, or just look plain stupid, and now you are
> going to claim 'victory'? How shallow and rich of you!
Actually, I've responded to several of Ben's questions. How about you?
> > I just want to say, it would enhance the thread for lurkers if the
> > frames of film or the films themselves could be posted for a quick
> > back and forth to see the images and people under scutiny.
> > CJ
>
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Rather funny to have fans though...
>> >http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm
>>
>> > CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On 29 Apr, 08:48, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 29 Apr, 15:58, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 29 Apr, 04:47, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > MIDDLE POST
>>
>>
>> > > > In article <a22dd50e-cd91-4856-b7df-19a80228f...@l42g2000hsc.googleg=>> > > > >On Apr 27, 7:15=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDam, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1..=
>.@gmail.com>
>> > > > >wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> Take note that 99% of Healys comments do not include the
>> > > > >> post by the LN for Holmes to see.
>>
>h
>> > > > >JFK.
>>
>> > > > >So we ask:
>>
>> > > > >And this has WHAT to do with the JFK assassination, again ?
>>
>and coherent
>> > > > argument against any of the pro-CT'er posts (including my '45 Questi=
>ons') on
>> > > > this forum without *any* response by CT'ers. =A0Nor would Healy snip=
> relevant
>> > > > answers... there's no need to do that.
>>
>
>> > > responds to, so that you see it. Still, that's YOUR fault, hiding
>
>> > > convoluted nonsense, LOL!
>>
>> > > > CT'ers operate on the basis of the evidence - so there's no need to =
>lie about
>> > > > it. =A0Unless (as some people are wont to do) they have a pet theory=
> that they're
>> > > > trying to save... this accounts for a few presumed CT'ers who try to=
> deny the
>> > > > overwhelming evidence for photographic forgery in this case.
>>
>> > > Is Harris one of these *presumed CT'ers* (sic) with a *pet theory*?
>> > > Your evidence for photographic forgery using Z 369 and Nix doesn't
>
>> > > you ran away. You STILL won't debate the specifics. So much for always=
>
>> > > admitting when you're wrong, LOL!
>>
>a real human
>> > > > being, tis simple to do - start with honesty and drop the garbage.
>>
>> > > *Drop the garbage* coming from a guy who routinely disparges other
>> > > posters as trolls, liars and cowards?
>>
>> > > *Drop the garbage* coming from a guy who routinely invites people who
>> > > disagree with him in the matter of the John F. Kennedy assassination
>> > > to his Judo club for a *painful* lesson? LOL! How strong is your grip
>> > > on reality, Ben?
>>
>ith
>> > > > nonsense.
>>
>> > > That's simply a cop out. You started the film alteration debate. Once
>> > > you realised you were wrong you used every tactic to avoid further
>> > > discussion of your theory. It really looks very poor, particularly
>> > > coming from someone who disparages other posters as cowards and
>> > > worse.
>>
>> > > Very Concerned Regards,
>>
>> > > Tim Brennan
>> > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > I have never seen an LNTer wish to delve into all the anomalies of the
>>
>> Please try to pay attention. Some of us have been attempting to engage
>> Ben in discussion of a very specific "anomaly" (his so-called *Yellow
>> Legs* theory) for quite some time. Will you be the first CT to admit
>> that Ben was wrong?
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm
>>
>> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>That's fine, and I don't pretend to know all of the finer points
>people bring up. In fact I invited you in the Robert Harris thread
>where the discussion was the same or similar to do the same just a few
>days earlier. (below)
>
>So I also in the one before invited to get other films so you or
>anybody could prove their points, which I have just posted which has
>some of the film or frames in question. So, what I am hearing from
>you, is that you really don't care about the alteration or not of the
>film but one particular point? I would even think that weak if it
>were true! So, you have Ben Holmes bringing thousands of points here
>that you duck and run from, or just look plain stupid, and now you are
>going to claim 'victory'? How shallow and rich of you!
The trolls don't even have the honesty to *quote* me accurately.
I say... let 'em claim "victory"... more power to 'em...
They aren't fooling anyone... not even themselves.
>On Apr 28, 6:10 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>- Hide quoted text -
>- Show quoted text -
>
>> On Mar 3, 4:23 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > >> >> > aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> > > On Mar 2, 2:27 pm, Bob Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> > > > You stated in your article, that 10-40 contiguous frames
>> > were
>> > >> >> > > > removed,
>> > >> >> > > > to hide the limo stopping.
>
>
>> > >> >> > > between 212 and 360 (possibly more than 40 frames) -- Did I
>> > say in the
>> > >> >> > > article the "limo stopping", Bob?
>
>
>> > >> >> > Yes, you said exactly that.
>
>
>> > >> >> > "So what was removed from the film?
>> > >> >> > A. The limo left turn problems: probably 100-140 frames.
>> > >> >> > B. The limo stop (momentarily or extended): 10-40 frames."
>
>
>> > >> >> Bob where did I state "contiguous frames"? For the record, example=
>,
>> > >> >> every other frame is NOT contiguous.
>
>
>> > >> >Yep, you got me there. Maybe the limo stopped and started 10 times,
>> > eh.
>
>
>> > >> >How in holy hell, would they hide the limo stopping unless they cut
>> > out
>> > >> >all frames that showed it stopped?
>
>
>> > >> By pulling the limo out of the picture, then reinserting it as a
>> > moving
>> > >> vehicle. Of course, I'll defer to David's expertise here.
>
>
>> > >Well, that's not what he said in the article.
>
>
>> > >And that just doesn't work.
>
>
>> > How silly!! Hollywood's been doing such things for decades...
>
>
>> > >The Moorman photo proves that.
>
>
>> > No Bob, the Moorman film does no such thing.
>
>
>> > >If just half
>> > >a second of footage of the limo stopped had been replaced by footage of=
>
>> > >the limo moving, then the Zapruder film would show the limo, well past
>> > >her position, when the head explosion took place.
>
>
>> > You apparently believe that altering one film is impossible, because
>> > another
>> > film "matches" it and could not have been altered.
>
>
>> > Rather silly...
>
>
>> > >Instead, everything matches perfectly, with a point in time just after
>> > >the explosion, and an eighteenth of a second before Kellerman began to
>> > >duck.
>
>
>> > Actually, your claim of the Moorman film matching the Z-film is disputed=
>.
>
>
>> > Despite your one hour of study...
>
>
>> > >Now, if you posit the film being altered AFTER the first headshot, to
>> > >hide stoppage then, then somebody needs to explain why they went to all=
>
>> > >that trouble.
>
>
>> > It's so obvious that you *MUST* be trying to look the fool.- Hide quoted=
curtjester1
issue to bring all the films into one box for anyone to compare. I'm
just a casual observer up to this point, and don't care to make any
definitive statements concerning it. If it's that important of a
discussion and something you hold dear to, I would think you would be
collating this into one page just for your records. I really don't
have time to google and chase stuff down I am not quite certain is on
the table for even a topic.
> > So, what I am hearing from
> > you, is that you really don't care about the alteration or not of the
> > film but one particular point?
>
> You seem to forget that Ben, not I, brought up this particular
> "point."
>
> > I would even think that weak if it were true!
>
> Not sure what you mean by that.
>
I am saying that even if IF, he was proven wrong on a point, there are
thousands on other subjects that are avoided or y'all look silly on.
That includes other points about the Z-film as well. I posted a link
to that for all to consider just previously.
> > So, you have Ben Holmes bringing thousands of points here
> > that you duck and run from, or just look plain stupid, and now you are
> > going to claim 'victory'? How shallow and rich of you!
>
> Actually, I've responded to several of Ben's questions. How about you?
>
Ben's forte is the evidence of the assassination within the day of
11.22.63 within Dealey Plaza and related areas outside as they
pertain. I tend to agree with most that are of interest to me, even
though I like profiling of the people more on a criminal aspect from
top to bottom. I think Ben destroys most of you evidentiary and
logically to the point of showing how shallow you really are most all
of the time.
CJ
muc...@gmail.com
What makes the *Yellow Legs/Pants* example so instructive is that it
very clearly shows (a) the danger of basing an argument on something
you read in a conspiracy book, and (b) Ben's total lack of character.
> > > So, what I am hearing from
> > > you, is that you really don't care about the alteration or not of the
> > > film but one particular point?
>
> > You seem to forget that Ben, not I, brought up this particular
> > "point."
>
> > > I would even think that weak if it were true!
>
> > Not sure what you mean by that.
>
> I am saying that even if IF, he was proven wrong on a point, there are
> thousands on other subjects that are avoided or y'all look silly on.
> That includes other points about the Z-film as well. I posted a link
> to that for all to consider just previously.
I still don't understand you, and this time it's not just your syntax.
There are thousands of unanswered questions about the assassination?
Great. Why don't you write your friendly congressman and tell him all
about it? Don't forget to include Ben's 45 questions and the 16
smoking guns.
> > > So, you have Ben Holmes bringing thousands of points here
> > > that you duck and run from, or just look plain stupid, and now you are
> > > going to claim 'victory'? How shallow and rich of you!
>
> > Actually, I've responded to several of Ben's questions. How about you?
>
> Ben's forte is the evidence of the assassination within the day of
> 11.22.63 within Dealey Plaza and related areas outside as they
> pertain. I tend to agree with most that are of interest to me, even
> though I like profiling of the people more on a criminal aspect from
> top to bottom. I think Ben destroys most of you evidentiary and
> logically to the point of showing how shallow you really are most all
> of the time.
Yes, be a good little CT and let Ben do all your thinking for you.
curtjester1
>
> > > > > > I have never seen an LNTer wish to delve into all the anomalies of the
> > > > > > Zapruder film. Will you be the first?
>
> > > > > Please try to pay attention. Some of us have been attempting to engage
> > > > > Ben in discussion of a very specific "anomaly" (his so-called *Yellow
> > > > > Legs* theory) for quite some time. Will you be the first CT to admit
> > > > > that Ben was wrong?
>
> > > > > >http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm
>
you like ^
>
> > > Links to Zapruder and Nix frames, as well as DP maps, were posted
> > > weeks ago (see above).
>
> > As I said, it would be more concise for anyone discussing a particular
> > issue to bring all the films into one box for anyone to compare. I'm
> > just a casual observer up to this point, and don't care to make any
> > definitive statements concerning it. If it's that important of a
> > discussion and something you hold dear to, I would think you would be
> > collating this into one page just for your records. I really don't
> > have time to google and chase stuff down I am not quite certain is on
> > the table for even a topic.
>
> What makes the *Yellow Legs/Pants* example so instructive is that it
> very clearly shows (a) the danger of basing an argument on something
> you read in a conspiracy book, and (b) Ben's total lack of character.
>
Wow, like it's a household name or topic. Now we have someone with
'authority' pontificating, like he has some sort of Zen Path. You
assume if you were right that it must represent some sort of
'character flaw'. Affects please get out the Twenty-Five
Disinformation Tactics so we can have a remedial training class.
> > > > So, what I am hearing from
> > > > you, is that you really don't care about the alteration or not of the
> > > > film but one particular point?
>
> > > You seem to forget that Ben, not I, brought up this particular
> > > "point."
>
> > > > I would even think that weak if it were true!
>
> > > Not sure what you mean by that.
>
> > I am saying that even if IF, he was proven wrong on a point, there are
> > thousands on other subjects that are avoided or y'all look silly on.
> > That includes other points about the Z-film as well. I posted a link
> > to that for all to consider just previously.
>
> I still don't understand you, and this time it's not just your syntax.
> There are thousands of unanswered questions about the assassination?
> Great. Why don't you write your friendly congressman and tell him all
> about it? Don't forget to include Ben's 45 questions and the 16
> smoking guns.
>
Threre is nothing to misunderstand unless one is retarded. Now you
are avoiding the subject you are bring up the Z-film and potential
alteration. I posted a site with films and many topics of anomaly.
You refuse to acknowledge that and come up with childish congressman
orders. Unfortunately congressmen have been posed many things over
the years and have refused any in-depth inquiry to the assassination.
The motives could be many.
> > > > So, you have Ben Holmes bringing thousands of points here
> > > > that you duck and run from, or just look plain stupid, and now you are
> > > > going to claim 'victory'? How shallow and rich of you!
>
> > > Actually, I've responded to several of Ben's questions. How about you?
>
> > Ben's forte is the evidence of the assassination within the day of
> > 11.22.63 within Dealey Plaza and related areas outside as they
> > pertain. I tend to agree with most that are of interest to me, even
> > though I like profiling of the people more on a criminal aspect from
> > top to bottom. I think Ben destroys most of you evidentiary and
> > logically to the point of showing how shallow you really are most all
> > of the time.
>
> Yes, be a good little CT and let Ben do all your thinking for you.> CJ
>
Now your being a hypocrite, since you opine there are many areas of
investigation. I prefer to get mine through many, ones who have asked
intelligent questions where the DP, the FBI, the CIA and the WC did
not. Many have gone the extra mile devoting many hours of their time
to hunt down witnesses, and experts in different fields. The LNT
typically just sits and twiddles their thumbs and invents inane
generalizations. Of course I don't have to agree with all the
research, but at least it IS research.
muc...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > I have never seen an LNTer wish to delve into all the anomalies of the
> > > > > > > Zapruder film. Will you be the first?
>
> > > > > > Please try to pay attention. Some of us have been attempting to engage
> > > > > > Ben in discussion of a very specific "anomaly" (his so-called *Yellow
> > > > > > Legs* theory) for quite some time. Will you be the first CT to admit
> > > > > > that Ben was wrong?
>
> > > > > > >http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm
>
> Yes u can go to this site and make some intelligent conversation if
> you like ^
You seem more interested in alteration theory than I am. Why don't
*you* go to that other site and make some intelligent conversation?
> > > > Links to Zapruder and Nix frames, as well as DP maps, were posted
> > > > weeks ago (see above).
>
> > > As I said, it would be more concise for anyone discussing a particular
> > > issue to bring all the films into one box for anyone to compare. I'm
> > > just a casual observer up to this point, and don't care to make any
> > > definitive statements concerning it. If it's that important of a
> > > discussion and something you hold dear to, I would think you would be
> > > collating this into one page just for your records. I really don't
> > > have time to google and chase stuff down I am not quite certain is on
> > > the table for even a topic.
>
> > What makes the *Yellow Legs/Pants* example so instructive is that it
> > very clearly shows (a) the danger of basing an argument on something
> > you read in a conspiracy book, and (b) Ben's total lack of character.
>
> Wow, like it's a household name or topic. Now we have someone with
> 'authority' pontificating, like he has some sort of Zen Path. You
> assume if you were right that it must represent some sort of
> 'character flaw'. Affects please get out the Twenty-Five
> Disinformation Tactics so we can have a remedial training class.
Don't you understand anything? Ben was proven wrong. Why do you think
he has been avoiding any discussion of his *Yellow Legs/Pants* theory
since early March? What would an honest person have done? Admitted his
mistake? Apologized to Robert Harris for calling him a liar?
> > > > > So, what I am hearing from
> > > > > you, is that you really don't care about the alteration or not of the
> > > > > film but one particular point?
>
> > > > You seem to forget that Ben, not I, brought up this particular
> > > > "point."
>
> > > > > I would even think that weak if it were true!
>
> > > > Not sure what you mean by that.
>
> > > I am saying that even if IF, he was proven wrong on a point, there are
> > > thousands on other subjects that are avoided or y'all look silly on.
> > > That includes other points about the Z-film as well. I posted a link
> > > to that for all to consider just previously.
>
> > I still don't understand you, and this time it's not just your syntax.
> > There are thousands of unanswered questions about the assassination?
> > Great. Why don't you write your friendly congressman and tell him all
> > about it? Don't forget to include Ben's 45 questions and the 16
> > smoking guns.
>
> Threre is nothing to misunderstand unless one is retarded. Now you
> are avoiding the subject you are bring up the Z-film and potential
> alteration. I posted a site with films and many topics of anomaly.
> You refuse to acknowledge that and come up with childish congressman
> orders. Unfortunately congressmen have been posed many things over
> the years and have refused any in-depth inquiry to the assassination.
> The motives could be many.
Please try to focus. This thread is about a particular alteration
argument that Ben brought up.
> > > > > So, you have Ben Holmes bringing thousands of points here
> > > > > that you duck and run from, or just look plain stupid, and now you are
> > > > > going to claim 'victory'? How shallow and rich of you!
>
> > > > Actually, I've responded to several of Ben's questions. How about you?
>
> > > Ben's forte is the evidence of the assassination within the day of
> > > 11.22.63 within Dealey Plaza and related areas outside as they
> > > pertain. I tend to agree with most that are of interest to me, even
> > > though I like profiling of the people more on a criminal aspect from
> > > top to bottom. I think Ben destroys most of you evidentiary and
> > > logically to the point of showing how shallow you really are most all
> > > of the time.
>
> > Yes, be a good little CT and let Ben do all your thinking for you.
>
>> CJ
>
> Now your being a hypocrite, since you opine there are many areas of
> investigation.
Huh? What I said was that I (unlike you) had responded to several of
Ben's questions. Then you "opined" that Ben has been destroying me
evidentiary and logically, and demontrated how shallow I am. Saying
things like that makes you sound like an ass-licker, CJ.
> I prefer to get mine through many, ones who have asked
> intelligent questions where the DP, the FBI, the CIA and the WC did
> not. Many have gone the extra mile devoting many hours of their time
> to hunt down witnesses, and experts in different fields. The LNT
> typically just sits and twiddles their thumbs and invents inane
> generalizations. Of course I don't have to agree with all the
> research, but at least it IS research.
Do you agree with Ben's *Yellow Legs/Pants* theory.
curtjester1
wrong it wouldn't make a dent in your patterns of avoiding the general
topic of Zap film alteration. I see you have this *championing a
victory* syndrome, and well we cannot be concerned about a fragile ego
like that can we?
Yes, and as you know I have not. So you need to focus on what I
said. I asked you simply to make a case by consolidating some key
films or photos, and make a case for it. You haven't or refuse to, so
I can't keep repeating what you don't seem to comprehend.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > So, you have Ben Holmes bringing thousands of points here
> > > > > > that you duck and run from, or just look plain stupid, and now you are
> > > > > > going to claim 'victory'? How shallow and rich of you!
>
> > > > > Actually, I've responded to several of Ben's questions. How about you?
>
> > > > Ben's forte is the evidence of the assassination within the day of
> > > > 11.22.63 within Dealey Plaza and related areas outside as they
> > > > pertain. I tend to agree with most that are of interest to me, even
> > > > though I like profiling of the people more on a criminal aspect from
> > > > top to bottom. I think Ben destroys most of you evidentiary and
> > > > logically to the point of showing how shallow you really are most all
> > > > of the time.
>
> > > Yes, be a good little CT and let Ben do all your thinking for you.
>
> >> CJ
>
> > Now your being a hypocrite, since you opine there are many areas of
> > investigation.
>
> Huh? What I said was that I (unlike you) had responded to several of
> Ben's questions. Then you "opined" that Ben has been destroying me
> evidentiary and logically, and demontrated how shallow I am. Saying
> things like that makes you sound like an ass-licker, CJ.
>
Why would I care about what Ben thinks? That is my personal opinion.
He has been here for years forcing people to make a reference
explanation and making them make a decision. Unfortunaley for many
(besides you) they just can't stand losing and come up with ridiculous
acts of squirmng their ways out of it.
> > I prefer to get mine through many, ones who have asked
> > intelligent questions where the DP, the FBI, the CIA and the WC did
> > not. Many have gone the extra mile devoting many hours of their time
> > to hunt down witnesses, and experts in different fields. The LNT
> > typically just sits and twiddles their thumbs and invents inane
> > generalizations. Of course I don't have to agree with all the
> > research, but at least it IS research.
>
> Do you agree with Ben's *Yellow Legs/Pants* theory.
>
You are really thick. I am going to post what I posted and should have
read when I entered the thread.
Quote on:
As I said, it would be more concise for anyone discussing a
particular
issue to bring all the films into one box for anyone to compare. I'm
just a casual observer up to this point, and don't care to make any
definitive statements concerning it. If it's that important of a
discussion and something you hold dear to, I would think you would be
collating this into one page just for your records. I really don't
have time to google and chase stuff down I am not quite certain is on
the table for even a topic.
Quote off:
Now do you get it?! If not, get it or stop acting the fool.
CJ
>
>
> > > > > > Here's the Costella frames from a Zapruder Film
>
> > > > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
the fool needs attention, the only way to get is by acting out.....
throw him a bone, maybe he'll head for the corner and lick his balls
or something.... LMAO
> > > > > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/-Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On 30 Apr, 12:20, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 30 Apr, 19:32, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>ies of the
>> > > > > > > > Zapruder film. =A0Will you be the first?
>>
>> > > > > > > Please try to pay attention. Some of us have been attempting t=
>o engage
>> > > > > > > Ben in discussion of a very specific "anomaly" (his so-called =
>*Yellow
>> > > > > > > Legs* theory) for quite some time. Will you be the first CT to=
> admit
>> > > > > > > that Ben was wrong?
>>
>erfilm.htm
>>
>> > Yes u can go to this site and make some intelligent conversation if
>> > you like ^
>>
>> You seem more interested in alteration theory than I am. Why don't
>> *you* go to that other site and make some intelligent conversation?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > > > Links to Zapruder and Nix frames, as well as DP maps, were posted
>> > > > > weeks ago (see above).
>>
>ar
>> > > > issue to bring all the films into one box for anyone to compare. =A0=
>I'm
>> > > > just a casual observer up to this point, and don't care to make any
>> > > > discussion and something you hold dear to, I would think you would b=
>e
>> > > > collating this into one page just for your records. =A0I really don'=
>t
>> > > > have time to google and chase stuff down I am not quite certain is o=
>n
>> > > > the table for even a topic.
>>
>> > > What makes the *Yellow Legs/Pants* example so instructive is that it
>> > > very clearly shows (a) the danger of basing an argument on something
>> > > you read in a conspiracy book, and (b) Ben's total lack of character.
>>
>> > 'authority' pontificating, like he has some sort of Zen Path. =A0You
>> > assume if you were right that it must represent some sort of
>> > Disinformation Tactics so we can have a remedial training class.
>>
>> Don't you understand anything? Ben was proven wrong. Why do you think
>> he has been avoiding any discussion of his *Yellow Legs/Pants* theory
>> since early March? What would an honest person have done? Admitted his
>> mistake? Apologized to Robert Harris for calling him a liar?
>>
>>
>I already made my point and you say this? I said IF he was proven
>wrong it wouldn't make a dent in your patterns of avoiding the general
>topic of Zap film alteration. I see you have this *championing a
>victory* syndrome, and well we cannot be concerned about a fragile ego
>like that can we?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > > > > So, what I am hearing from
>f the
>> > > > > > film but one particular point?
>>
>> > > > > You seem to forget that Ben, not I, brought up this particular
>> > > > > "point."
>>
>> > > > > > I would even think that weak if it were true!
>>
>> > > > > Not sure what you mean by that.
>>
>re
>> > > > thousands on other subjects that are avoided or y'all look silly on.=
>
>> > > > That includes other points about the Z-film as well. =A0I posted a l=
>ink
>> > > > to that for all to consider just previously.
>>
>
>> > > There are thousands of unanswered questions about the assassination?
>> > > Great. Why don't you write your friendly congressman and tell him all
>> > > about it? Don't forget to include Ben's 45 questions and the 16
>> > > smoking guns.
>>
>> > are avoiding the subject you are bring up the Z-film and potential
>> > You refuse to acknowledge that and come up with childish congressman
>> > the years and have refused any in-depth inquiry to the assassination.
>> > The motives could be many.
>>
>> Please try to focus. This thread is about a particular alteration
>> argument that Ben brought up.
>>
>Yes, and as you know I have not. So you need to focus on what I
>said. I asked you simply to make a case by consolidating some key
>films or photos, and make a case for it. You haven't or refuse to, so
>I can't keep repeating what you don't seem to comprehend.
Asking trolls to put evidence together will almost always be a fruitless
undertaking.
>> > > > > > So, you have Ben Holmes bringing thousands of points here
>> > > > > > that you duck and run from, or just look plain stupid, and now y=
>ou are
>> > > > > > going to claim 'victory'? =A0How shallow and rich of you!
>>
>> > > > > Actually, I've responded to several of Ben's questions. How about =
>you?
>>
>> > > > Ben's forte is the evidence of the assassination within the day of
>> > > > 11.22.63 within Dealey Plaza and related areas outside as they
>> > > > pertain. =A0I tend to agree with most that are of interest to me, ev=
>en
>> > > > though I like profiling of the people more on a criminal aspect from=
>
>> > > > top to bottom. =A0I think Ben destroys most of you evidentiary and
>> > > > logically to the point of showing how shallow you really are most al=
>l
>> > > > of the time.
>>
>> > > Yes, be a good little CT and let Ben do all your thinking for you.
>>
>> >> CJ
>>
>> > Now your being a hypocrite, since you opine there are many areas of
>> > investigation.
>>
>> Huh? What I said was that I (unlike you) had responded to several of
>> Ben's questions. Then you "opined" that Ben has been destroying me
>> evidentiary and logically, and demontrated how shallow I am. Saying
>> things like that makes you sound like an ass-licker, CJ.
>>
>Why would I care about what Ben thinks? That is my personal opinion.
>He has been here for years forcing people to make a reference
>explanation and making them make a decision. Unfortunaley for many
>(besides you) they just can't stand losing and come up with ridiculous
>acts of squirmng their ways out of it.
Sadly, you become the 'collateral damage' of my refusal to pay any attention to
the trolls. Since their nonsense is for the most part ignored by me, they try
attacking anyone else who will answer them for what, in their minds, are my
'sins'. It's the price you pay for not putting them on your killfile.
I almost feel compelled to offer you, Curt; an apology for the attempt (on the
part of the trolls) to force you to act on my behalf in answering them, since I
refuse to do so.
But just as with Walt - with whom I occasionally disagree, yet feel no
compunction to label him as other than what he is, an honest researcher, you
certainly have the right to agree or disagree with what I've asserted with no
disparagement from me. Honest people need not fear my labeling them cowards or
liars... (Only cowards and liars need fear that...) :)
>> > I prefer to get mine through many, ones who have asked
>> > intelligent questions where the DP, the FBI, the CIA and the WC did
>> > not. =A0Many have gone the extra mile devoting many hours of their time
>> > to hunt down witnesses, and experts in different fields. =A0The LNT
>> > typically just sits and twiddles their thumbs and invents inane
>> > generalizations. =A0Of course I don't have to agree with all the
curtjester1
> In article <62728a28-057b-4e3e-adfc-1f1d60434...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Sometimes like this, I will try to see where it might go as it would
be virgin territory for me. I did google the z369 to no avail, so I
just take it that it's something you picked up, and is your opinion,
not shared by the general conspiracy or alteration field. I think
what gets me the most is that they think by delusion, that since they
think they have triumphed that now by this anomaly, it proves all
other aspects of Zfilm alteration wrong. Do you get that sense,
Ben?
> I almost feel compelled to offer you, Curt; an apology for the attempt (on the
> part of the trolls) to force you to act on my behalf in answering them, since I
> refuse to do so.
>
Well if anybody does, please get the film and photo in order. I can't
see much so far.
> But just as with Walt - with whom I occasionally disagree, yet feel no
> compunction to label him as other than what he is, an honest researcher, you
> certainly have the right to agree or disagree with what I've asserted with no
> disparagement from me. Honest people need not fear my labeling them cowards or
> liars... (Only cowards and liars need fear that...) :)
>
I don't think any CT agrees exactly with any other CT to the nth
degree. I just haven't seen that. LNT'ers cannot even agree what a
piece of evidence even is. Now Walt he really goes off the deep end
once in awhile...:-)
CJ
>
>
> >> > I prefer to get mine through many, ones who have asked
> >> > intelligent questions where the DP, the FBI, the CIA and the WC did
> >> > not. =A0Many have gone the extra mile devoting many hours of their time
> >> > to hunt down witnesses, and experts in different fields. =A0The LNT
> >> > typically just sits and twiddles their thumbs and invents inane
> >> > generalizations. =A0Of course I don't have to agree with all the
> >> > research, but at least it IS research.
>
> >> Do you agree with Ben's *Yellow Legs/Pants* theory.
>
> >You are really thick. I am going to post what I posted and should have
> >read when I entered the thread.
>
> >Quote on:
>
> >As I said, it would be more concise for anyone discussing a
> >particular
> >issue to bring all the films into one box for anyone to compare. I'm
> >just a casual observer up to this point, and don't care to make any
> >definitive statements concerning it. If it's that important of a
> >discussion and something you hold dear to, I would think you would be
> >collating this into one page just for your records. I really don't
> >have time to google and chase stuff down I am not quite certain is on
> >the table for even a topic.
>
> >Quote off:
>
> >Now do you get it?! If not, get it or stop acting the fool.
>
> >CJ
>
> >> > > > > > Here's the Costella frames from a Zapruder Film
>
Ben Holmes
>om>,
>> curtjester1 says...
>>
>>
>> >On 30 Apr, 12:20, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On 30 Apr, 19:32, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>mal=3D
>> >ies of the
>> >> > > > > > > > Zapruder film. =3DA0Will you be the first?
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Please try to pay attention. Some of us have been attemptin=
>g t=3D
>> >o engage
>> >> > > > > > > Ben in discussion of a very specific "anomaly" (his so-call=
>ed =3D
>> >*Yellow
>> >> > > > > > > Legs* theory) for quite some time. Will you be the first CT=
> to=3D
>> > admit
>> >> > > > > > > that Ben was wrong?
>>
>rud=3D
>> >erfilm.htm
>>
>> >> > Yes u can go to this site and make some intelligent conversation if
>> >> > you like ^
>>
>> >> You seem more interested in alteration theory than I am. Why don't
>> >> *you* go to that other site and make some intelligent conversation?
>>
>ed
>> >> > > > > weeks ago (see above).
>>
>cul=3D
>> >ar
>> >> > > > issue to bring all the films into one box for anyone to compare. =
>> >I'm
>> >> > > > just a casual observer up to this point, and don't care to make a=
>ny
>> >> > > > definitive statements concerning it. =3DA0If it's that important =
>of a
>> >> > > > discussion and something you hold dear to, I would think you woul=
>d b=3D
>> >e
>> >> > > > collating this into one page just for your records. =3DA0I really=
> don'=3D
>> >t
>> >> > > > have time to google and chase stuff down I am not quite certain i=
>s o=3D
>> >n
>> >> > > > the table for even a topic.
>>
>t
>> >> > > very clearly shows (a) the danger of basing an argument on somethin=
>g
>> >> > > you read in a conspiracy book, and (b) Ben's total lack of characte=
>r.
>>
>> >> > Wow, like it's a household name or topic. =3DA0Now we have someone wi=
>th
>> >> > 'authority' pontificating, like he has some sort of Zen Path. =3DA0Yo=
>u
>> >> > assume if you were right that it must represent some sort of
>> >> > Disinformation Tactics so we can have a remedial training class.
>>
>> >> Don't you understand anything? Ben was proven wrong. Why do you think
>> >> he has been avoiding any discussion of his *Yellow Legs/Pants* theory
>> >> since early March? What would an honest person have done? Admitted his
>> >> mistake? Apologized to Robert Harris for calling him a liar?
>>
>> >wrong it wouldn't make a dent in your patterns of avoiding the general
>> >victory* syndrome, and well we cannot be concerned about a fragile ego
>> >like that can we?
>>
>> >> > > > > > So, what I am hearing from
>t o=3D
>> >f the
>> >> > > > > > film but one particular point?
>>
>> >> > > > > You seem to forget that Ben, not I, brought up this particular
>> >> > > > > "point."
>>
>> >> > > > > > I would even think that weak if it were true!
>>
>> >> > > > > Not sure what you mean by that.
>>
>e a=3D
>> >re
>> >> > > > thousands on other subjects that are avoided or y'all look silly =
>on.=3D
>>
>> >> > > > That includes other points about the Z-film as well. =3DA0I poste=
>d a l=3D
>> >ink
>> >> > > > to that for all to consider just previously.
>>
>ax.=3D
>>
>> >> > > There are thousands of unanswered questions about the assassination=
>?
>> >> > > Great. Why don't you write your friendly congressman and tell him a=
>ll
>> >> > > about it? Don't forget to include Ben's 45 questions and the 16
>> >> > > smoking guns.
>>
>ou
>> >> > are avoiding the subject you are bring up the Z-film and potential
>y.
>> >> > You refuse to acknowledge that and come up with childish congressman
>er
>> >> > the years and have refused any in-depth inquiry to the assassination.=
>
>> >> > The motives could be many.
>>
>> >> Please try to focus. This thread is about a particular alteration
>> >> argument that Ben brought up.
>>
>> >said. =A0I asked you simply to make a case by consolidating some key
>> >films or photos, and make a case for it. You haven't or refuse to, so
>> >I can't keep repeating what you don't seem to comprehend.
>>
>> Asking trolls to put evidence together will almost always be a fruitless
>> undertaking.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > > > > > So, you have Ben Holmes bringing thousands of points here
>w y=3D
>> >ou are
>> >> > > > > > going to claim 'victory'? =3DA0How shallow and rich of you!
>>
>> >> > > > > Actually, I've responded to several of Ben's questions. How abo=
>ut =3D
>> >you?
>>
>> >> > > > Ben's forte is the evidence of the assassination within the day o=
>f
>> >> > > > 11.22.63 within Dealey Plaza and related areas outside as they
>e, ev=3D
>> >en
>> >> > > > though I like profiling of the people more on a criminal aspect f=
>rom=3D
>>
>> >> > > > top to bottom. =3DA0I think Ben destroys most of you evidentiary =
>and
>> >> > > > logically to the point of showing how shallow you really are most=
> al=3D
It's an inconsistency between the Nix film and the Z-film. There are a number
of them, but this is one of the more dramatic ones. See the discussion starting
on page 74 of "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" edited by Fetzer.
The trolls thought they could "win" by denying the obvious...
>I think
>what gets me the most is that they think by delusion, that since they
>think they have triumphed that now by this anomaly, it proves all
>other aspects of Zfilm alteration wrong. Do you get that sense,
>Ben?
They run and hide when in direct debate - and when I get tired of their
cowardice, and killfile them, they continue to lie...
It matters not at all - for they apparently think that lurkers are too stupid to
catch on.
>> I almost feel compelled to offer you, Curt; an apology for the attempt
>> (on the part of the trolls) to force you to act on my behalf in answering
>> them, since I refuse to do so.
>>
>Well if anybody does, please get the film and photo in order. I can't
>see much so far.
>
>> But just as with Walt - with whom I occasionally disagree, yet feel no
>> compunction to label him as other than what he is, an honest researcher,
>> you certainly have the right to agree or disagree with what I've asserted
>> with no disparagement from me. Honest people need not fear my labeling
>> them cowards or liars... (Only cowards and liars need fear that...) :)
>>
>I don't think any CT agrees exactly with any other CT to the nth
>degree. I just haven't seen that. LNT'ers cannot even agree what a
>piece of evidence even is. Now Walt he really goes off the deep end
>once in awhile...:-)
>
>CJ
Welllll.... yeah, Walt can sometimes go off the deep end... but that's because
he seems to have forgotten more of the evidence than most people ever learn -
and rather than recheck some bit of evidence, he ends up retracting something...
yet his thesis usually remains unharmed. He places more emphasis on some bits
of evidence that I don't think is particularly strong... but I do believe that
we all do that to one extent or another.
For example, his argument about a "military" rifle vs a "hunting" rifle strikes
me not at all... but on the other hand, his constant pointing out of the
COMPLETE contradiction in clothing descriptions is quite overpowering. And his
proof that the wallet was *NOT* found at the Tippit murder scene is totally
convincing.
Walt, in common with all honest CT'ers, will quickly retract something if it's
pointed out that he's wrong. This isn't a characteristic of most LNT'ers and
trolls.
The trolls are simply too dishonest to do that.
>> >> > I prefer to get mine through many, ones who have asked
>> >> > intelligent questions where the DP, the FBI, the CIA and the WC did
>> >> > not. =3DA0Many have gone the extra mile devoting many hours of their =
>time
>> >> > to hunt down witnesses, and experts in different fields. =3DA0The LNT=
>
>> >> > typically just sits and twiddles their thumbs and invents inane
>> >> > generalizations. =3DA0Of course I don't have to agree with all the
>> >> > research, but at least it IS research.
>>
>> >> Do you agree with Ben's *Yellow Legs/Pants* theory.
>>
>> >You are really thick. I am going to post what I posted and should have
>> >read when I entered the thread.
>>
>> >Quote on:
>>
>> >As I said, it would be more concise for anyone discussing a
>> >particular
>> >issue to bring all the films into one box for anyone to compare. =A0I'm
>> >just a casual observer up to this point, and don't care to make any
>> >definitive statements concerning it. =A0If it's that important of a
>> >discussion and something you hold dear to, I would think you would be
>> >collating this into one page just for your records. =A0I really don't
>> >have time to google and chase stuff down I am not quite certain is on
>> >the table for even a topic.
>>
>> >Quote off:
>>
>> >Now do you get it?! =A0If not, get it or stop acting the fool.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Ben,
On May 1, 10:57 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <2dc42324-0524-4d1e-9dab-f4318d920...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
It's an inconsistency that you claim between the Nix film and Z-film
and you use the *lady in yellow pants* AKA *Yellow Legs* to support
your claim, don't you Ben?
Only your theory is wrong, isn't it Ben? An inconvenient fact you've
been avoiding since the middle of March, Ben.
> The trolls thought they could "win" by denying the obvious...
>
The *trolls* thought they could *win* by denying the obvious?? LOL!
YOU thought that if you changed the subject often enough, it would all
go away, didn't you Ben?
But you never conceded you were wrong, did you Ben?
Maybe it's time you did, Ben. Then it might go away.
> >I think
> >what gets me the most is that they think by delusion, that since they
> >think they have triumphed that now by this anomaly, it proves all
> >other aspects of Zfilm alteration wrong. Do you get that sense,
> >Ben?
>
> They run and hide when in direct debate - and when I get tired of their
> cowardice, and killfile them, they continue to lie...
>
They run and they hide when in direct debate? And when you get tired
of their cowardice and killfile them they continue to lie? Nonsense,
Ben! YOU were the one that ran when you realised your theory was in
deep trouble. You've killfiled people like Mark and me who were
proving you wrong, Ben. You've avoided any direct debate of your
theory since mid March.
> It matters not at all - for they apparently think that lurkers are too stupid to
> catch on.
>
Lurkers are too stupid to catch on? Oh, I don't know, Ben. I think
people around here have pretty well caught on to the fact that you
won't defend your theory anymore, but you won't concede it's wrong
either, will you?
And all your insults like liar, coward, lacking character etc now look
really stupid and hollow, don't they Ben?
That's because, given the performance you've put on over this issue,
they're all quite applicable to you, aren't the Ben?
That is, unless you want to finish the debate you started, Ben.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
>
>
>
> >> I almost feel compelled to offer you, Curt; an apology for the attempt
> >> (on the part of the trolls) to force you to act on my behalf in answering
> >> them, since I refuse to do so.
>
> >Well if anybody does, please get the film and photo in order. I can't
> >see much so far.
>
> >> But just as with Walt - with whom I occasionally disagree, yet feel no
> >> compunction to label him as other than what he is, an honest researcher,
> >> you certainly have the right to agree or disagree with what I've asserted
> >> with no disparagement from me. Honest people need not fear my labeling
> >> them cowards or liars... (Only cowards and liars need fear that...) :)
>
> >I don't think any CT agrees exactly with any other CT to the nth
> >degree. I just haven't seen that. LNT'ers cannot even agree what a
> >piece of evidence even is. Now Walt he really goes off the deep end
> >once in awhile...:-)
>
> >CJ
>
> Welllll.... yeah, Walt can sometimes go off the deep end... but that's because
> he seems to have forgotten more of the evidence than most people ever learn -
> and rather than recheck some bit of evidence, he ends up retracting something...
> yet his thesis usually remains unharmed. He places more emphasis on some bits
> of evidence that I don't think is particularly strong... but I do believe that
> we all do that to one extent or another.
>
> For example, his argument about a "military" rifle vs a "hunting" rifle strikes
> me not at all... but on the other hand, his constant ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Curt,
I think, if you wish to discuss this topic, you might find the
following link to Nix film frames useful. It was provided by Mark
during the course of the debate in question and is useful to compare
with the Z frames link you posted earlier, particularly around Z369,
for this topic:
http://jfk.fotopic.net/c1178748_97.html
What it shows is that, beginning at around Nix 104, a figure comes
into view on the extreme left of the screen and moves progressively
more into view as the camera continues to pan left, following the
limo.
This figure is the one Ben claims proves that the Nix and Z films are
incompatible, a lady apparently wearing yellow slacks under a long
black coat, AKA *Yellow Legs*.
If you click on Z369 you can see why Ben is making this claim. Behind
the Franzen group in Z369 Main Street is clearly visible and the foot
of a street light, the shadow of which points approximately at Mrs
Franzen's head, is also visible. There is, however, no *Yellow Slacks/
Legs* lady visible in Z369.
This, in Ben's estimation, is proof of incompatibility between the
Zapruder and Nix films, thus equalling forgery. If we can see as far
as Main Street in Zapruder, why don't we see this *Yellow Slacks*
lady? Her absence from one film and presence in another proves
forgery, right? That's his view and that of David *aeffects* Healy,
published Z film alterationist author, from what I understand.
The problem with their logic is that there are four street lights that
run down Main at Dealey, and the one in the background of Z369 is the
third one. You can check this easily by continuing to click through
from Z369 as the limo heads towards the underpass and the fourth and
final street light will come into view, at the edge of the concrete
apron.
If you click back to the Nix frames you will notice that there is a
street light in the foreground, as the camera pans right to left,
following the limo. This street light disappears as the camera pans
left and *Yellow Slacks/Legs* appears. However, this is NOT the same
street light as seen in Z369. This is street light number two. Nix's
film never pans left enough to pick up street light number three, the
one shown in Z369.
You can tell this by checking any map of Dealey Plaza that shows where
Nix was standing when he made his film. His field of vision is always
going to include street light number two, not street light number
three. The lady Ben thinks should be seen in Zapruder is standing way
too far back to ever appear in Zapruder.
This is confirmed by the presence of a couple who appear behind the
Franzen group in Nix, but whose feet only are visible in Zapruder.
*Yellow Legs* is standing much farther back than this couple, so is
completely unseen in Zapruder. Even Ben now acknowledges that this
couple ARE visible in Zapruder, despite his initial claims to Robert
Harris that they were not.
The next time, Curt, that you see Ben refer to other posters as
*cowards* or *trolls* or *liars* or questions their character in this
particular debate you might remember that it was Mark who originally
posted links to the Nix and Zapruder frames and the relevant WC pages,
not Ben or David, the supposed experts interested in open discussion.
When they were asked, the best Healy could do was come up with some
lame claim that his copy of the UPI book *Four Days* was a black and
white galley proof copy and thus useless for identifying *Yellow
Slacks/Legs*. Ben backed him up in this claim by stating that he
believed him, despite the improbability of David *aeffects* Healy's
copy, out of millions sold around the world, being fully in black and
white. For the rest of us, *Yellow Legs* is in full colour on page 21
of *Four Days*, bottom photo.
I hope this information will be of use to you, Curt, as you weigh the
pros and cons of Z film alteration as it relates to *Yellow Legs* and
Z369, Ben's theory. It should hardly be up to me to spell out his
theory for you, but I think you'll find he's not very interested in
discussing it anymore, apart from a bit of bluster when he thinks
nobody is looking.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > > > > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/-Hide quoted text -
aeffects
How nice of you to stop by.... the Zapruder film has interest for you,
son? Have you contacted John Costella Ph.D (Physics) yet? We need you
to get up to speed concerning the films of Dealey Plaza before we take
you apart frame-by-frame. It isn't going to be pretty son....
No one will play your dumb, feeble minded games till you prove your
worthy of Zapruder-film debate. Proof you've discussed the merits of
Dealey Plaza films with John Costella will prove that worth....
Now run along and get busy, troll!
aeffects
can slip in under the rug, ya dolt.......
Get busy son..... you're headed for the (re)TARD pit (quite frankly,
right where you belong--right along with the other Lone Nut
derelicts.... chop-chop timmy from down-undah
tims...@gmail.com
Hi David,
Say, I find it interesting that you, David *aeffects* Healy, a
published author on Z film alteration, no less, can only offer such
shabby nonsense in response to what I posted to Curt.
I am also amused to see that you snipped every word of my response so
that Ben won't see it either, on account of his killfilter.
I think you're showing a lot of Ben's claims to be total nonsense by
employing such tactics, Mr Healy.
Ben Holmes claimed that Z369 provided proof that Zapruder and Nix had
been altered, didn't he?
Two months later we're still waiting for that proof, aren't we? We're
never likely to hear such proof from Holmes, are we? Nor you, for that
matter.
It's time Holmes 'fessed up. He got it wrong. Or prove his theory. One
of the two.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
muc...@gmail.com
Explains why Ben's focus shifted from Z369 and the couple behind the
Franzen group to Z377 and *Yellow Legs*.
> The next time, Curt, that you see Ben refer to other posters as
> *cowards* or *trolls* or *liars* or questions their character in this
> particular debate you might remember that it was Mark who originally
> posted links to the Nix and Zapruder frames and the relevant WC pages,
> not Ben or David, the supposed experts interested in open discussion.
>
> When they were asked, the best Healy could do was come up with some
> lame claim that his copy of the UPI book *Four Days* was a black and
> white galley proof copy and thus useless for identifying *Yellow
> Slacks/Legs*. Ben backed him up in this claim by stating that he
> believed him, despite the improbability of David *aeffects* Healy's
> copy, out of millions sold around the world, being fully in black and
> white. For the rest of us, *Yellow Legs* is in full colour on page 21
> of *Four Days*, bottom photo.
>
> I hope this information will be of use to you, Curt, as you weigh the
> pros and cons of Z film alteration as it relates to *Yellow Legs* and
> Z369, Ben's theory. It should hardly be up to me to spell out his
> theory for you, but I think you'll find he's not very interested in
> discussing it anymore, apart from a bit of bluster when he thinks
> nobody is looking.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Outstanding summary, Tim, and you also saved Curt a bit of googling.
He has, however, already made his position quite clear. The topic
doesn't really interest him; he just thinks that, since we're running
from thousands of points Ben has made over the years, it's only fair
that Ben should be allowed to run from this one.
-Mark
curtjester1
I think by this, you think you are really on to something. Well, I
will C,C & P this, and look at it. Of course it bemuses me that you
do think this would be important to alteration when you don't even
attempt what was brought before you in the form of other issues. Do
you really feel if you prove this yellow pants theory it wil negate
the whole Alteration Theory? I will leave the site and the frames for
you to do likewise as you are trying to give me the impetus to do.
CJ
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
An amazing collection of half-truths and lies!
Unfortunately for this troll - the original thread is still available for anyone
to read.
aeffects
> TOP POST
>
> Hi David,
>
> Say, I find it interesting that you, David *aeffects* Healy, a
> published author on Z film alteration, no less, can only offer such
> shabby nonsense in response to what I posted to Curt.
now Timmy, we understand you're very jealoous what with not being
published and all. Zapruder film alteration isn't that difficult to
understand..... Frankly I could give a shit less what you post to whom
and what contents.... The plain and simple fact is: you haven't a clue
about film compositing -- now trot off and try to sell your Z-film
bullshit to John Costella. If you can't get past Dr. John Costella,
your wasting my time.....
> I am also amused to see that you snipped every word of my response so
> that Ben won't see it either, on account of his killfilter.
amazing thing this USENET board stuff, isn't it?
> I think you're showing a lot of Ben's claims to be total nonsense by
> employing such tactics, Mr Healy.
what you think is of no concern of mine.... till you get educated re
case facts, testimony, evidence and exhibits..... then answer the 45
questions and the 16 smoking guns, you're simply a no-nothing, taking
up bandwidth.... not worthy of lurkers time
> Ben Holmes claimed that Z369 provided proof that Zapruder and Nix had
> been altered, didn't he?
do your own research, troll.....
> Two months later we're still waiting for that proof, aren't we? We're
> never likely to hear such proof from Holmes, are we? Nor you, for that
> matter.
well, I suggest you buy a pack of CAMELS, get a latte and enjoy the
scenery.... time fixes everything, son
> It's time Holmes 'fessed up. He got it wrong. Or prove his theory. One
> of the two.
Timmy, you're in the shitter, wipe before you leave!
muc...@gmail.com
Huh? No one but Ben (and possibly Healy) has implied such a thing.
This thread isn't about alteration theory in general, btw, it's about
Ben arguing that the appearance of certain figures (most notably
*Yellow Legs*) in Nix and not in Zapruder proves that these films have
been altered. Ben's argument, not Tim's, not mine. Do you understand
that, Curt? According to Ben, it actually *proves* alteration. What
could be more "important to alteration" than that, Curt?
> when you don't even
> attempt what was brought before you in the form of other issues.
So far, Ben has refused to discuss this particular issue. If he
changes his mind about that, then perhaps we can move on to other
issues. It's difficult to debate someone who hides behind a
killfilter, though.
> Do you really feel if you prove this yellow pants theory it will
> negate the whole Alteration Theory?
Ben's argument was silly, but, from where I'm sitting, the
alterationist crowd never really seemed to have a leg to stand on.
> I will leave the site and the frames for
> you to do likewise as you are trying to give me the impetus to do.
Clear as mud. Perhaps it would be an idea to refrain from posting to
this thread, until you have given the issue more thought. Just a
friendly suggestion.
-Mark
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy trying to sound intelligent and still fails....this is even
funnier then his incoherent man of the hood talk ROFLMAO.
Think about this for a minute....someone who knows about film
alteration (supposidly Healy LOL) would jump at the chance to prove
another person wrong. Instead, Healy tries to use Holmes tatics and
sounds like a bigger idiot then he already is LOL. I'd say that's
proof enough Tim and Mark that you are both correct and those other
two morons are trying everything they can think of to get you off
their backs.
Keep at it, each and everytime Healy and Holmes comes back with more
bs, they let others see their true colors. Liars...cowards and as the
lapdog put it Know-nothings!
aeffects
wrote:
Joey.... damn you look good in that dress son..... do try to get on
topic though. What is it, nearly 4000 posts to this board? Do you know
who JFK was? Get those knee-pads back on, kid. Your country needs you.
You're the latter-day Lone Neuterism poster child, son...
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jealous, junkie???
aeffects
after all these years, son -- the only ONLY folks I've heard calling
anyone "junkie" is, simply a JUNKIE (drugs of FOOD), or one who has
family members (multiple) afflicted with drug addiction... You use
this term as if your quite familiar with it.
Perhaps glue sniffing or stealing your mom's pills, yeah, is your
bag..... Fill us in, son.....
Perhaps your relative who works at a VA hospital can give you a
referral.... you ever get in-touch with that relative, btw! You're all
over the place, Joey.... starved for attention. IT manager
ROTFLMFAO.... oh shit I could go on..... wanna dance?
Maestro, the music.... up 10db
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy? Your post above answers all questions about who the junkie is
around here...YOU. Back off that crackpipe for a week and come back
when you can type something coherent.
aeffects
only question that matter's Joey is: what's that swastika tattooed on
your back for, prison or your brother?
gird those loins, son..... the spotlight is on YOU! Dance floor is all
yours.....
curtjester1
> In article <698f2dc9-8067-43bd-939c-8a4953016...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
go through the finer possible technical points.
There trying to hijack this a little even to McAdamiaNut's group.
http://groups.google.com.gi/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/aaf25e8924dd062a#
CJ
>
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Tim Brennan
> >> Sydney, Australia
> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> >I think by this, you think you are really on to something. Well, I
> >will C,C & P this, and look at it. Of course it bemuses me that you
> >do think this would be important to alteration when you don't even
> >attempt what was brought before you in the form of other issues. Do
> >you really feel if you prove this yellow pants theory it wil negate
> >the whole Alteration Theory? I will leave the site and the frames for
> >you to do likewise as you are trying to give me the impetus to do.
>
> >CJ
>
> >>>http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm
>
> >> > > > > > > > Here's the Costella frames from a Zapruder Film
>
> >> > > > > > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/-Hidequotedtext -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Curt,
What I am attempting to show you is that Z film alteration, per se, is
so unlikely that it is quite easy to knock holes in theories like
Ben's Z-369 with a bit of simple research and logic.
It's not very difficult to count how many lightposts there are on Main
St at Dealey and it's not very difficult to work out where Nix was
standing when he shot his film.
Ben didn't bother with simple logic because he is always after the
conspiratorial angle. However, had he applied the above simple tests
before he shot his mouth off to Robert Harris he wouldn't be looking
so stupid now.
BTW, Z-369 alteration theories have been around for years. Jack White
proposed one in 2000 in the book Murder In Dealey Plaza. If you have
the book, it is facing page 325. Very similar to the link you posted
to what is on the moderated group. Ben's theory appears to be a spin
off of White's flawed conclusions, from what I can see.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > > > > > > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/-Hidequotedtext -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> so unlikely that it is quite easy to knock holes in theories like
> Ben's Z-369 with a bit of simple research and logic.
another dumb fuck spreading the Lone Nut gospel, lmao.... poking holes
in what, son? You want to show some intelligence and research
capability? Tell us what generation Z-film [prior to its bump to
videotape] was used for the Dale Myers cartoon? Then provide
documentation for same... Till you do something constructive son,
you're simply full of shit son.
Now gird those down-undah loins and do something constructive, no one
gives a shit as to what YOU can see.... it's what can you prove little
guy!
> > > > > > > > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/-Hidequotedtext-- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Ben,
Say, an amazing collection of half-truths and lies, eh?
Unfortunately for this troll the original thread is still available
for anyone to read, eh?
Well in that case you won't have any difficulty pointing out the lies
you see, will you Mr Holmes?
And I believe the matter was discussed over a number of threads, Ben,
so you're off to a very bad start, aren't you?
BTW, Ben, I notice not ONE word from you refuting the points I make
concerning your Z 369 AND PROOF THAT ZAPRUDER AND NIX HAVE BEEN
ALTERED claim, the title of this very thread.
They pretty much blow your stupid claim to smithereens, don't they
Ben?
What's the matter, Ben? Surely you're not going to stand by and let
some *troll* debunk your theory, Ben! Get back in there and debate a
few specifics, buddy boy!
Otherwise lurkers might conclude that you're cowardly and a liar about
this matter, Ben.
Or that your theory was rubbish in the first place.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On May 2, 11:37 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <698f2dc9-8067-43bd-939c-8a4953016...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > > > > > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/-Hidequotedtext -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
>
> Say, an amazing collection of half-truths and lies, eh?
>
> Unfortunately for this troll the original thread is still available
> for anyone to read, eh?
>
> Well in that case you won't have any difficulty pointing out the lies
> you see, will you Mr Holmes?
>
> And I believe the matter was discussed over a number of threads, Ben,
> so you're off to a very bad start, aren't you?
>
> BTW, Ben, I notice not ONE word from you refuting the points I make
> concerning your Z 369 AND PROOF THAT ZAPRUDER AND NIX HAVE BEEN
> ALTERED claim, the title of this very thread.
>
> They pretty much blow your stupid claim to smithereens, don't they
> Ben?
>
> What's the matter, Ben? Surely you're not going to stand by and let
> some *troll* debunk your theory, Ben! Get back in there and debate a
> few specifics, buddy boy!
>
> Otherwise lurkers might conclude that you're cowardly and a liar about
> this matter, Ben.
>
> Or that your theory was rubbish in the first place.
Son, you simply don't rate..... how would you know alteration from a
non-altered film?
Do you have access to the in-camera Zapruder-NIX film original? NO of
course you don't -- till you do, its your opinion son, not PROOF!
Its incumbent on you or any Lone Nutter to provide validate the
authenticity of the Zapruder film. After all, you claim the Zapruder
film displays LHO's handywork.... with out the Z-film the entire SBT-
non-conspiracy case falls apart... so get crack'in Timmy.....
Better yet why not go back to boche-ball, live a little.....
> > >> > > > > > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/-Hidequotedtext-- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your kind words.
I must say, I find it quite instructional that neither Holmes nor
Healy wish to debate any specifics of what I posted to Curt, debunking
the Holmes's Z-369/*Yellow/Legs* thing.
These two characters, Holmes and Healy, are simply hypocritical
blowhards and cowards, in my view.
But then I guess we both already knew that, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see Healy is dressed in his "I love Bennie" cheerleading outfit
again today LOL. This is the only enjoyment Healy gets, I actually
think he sits behind his computer with a hard on each time Bennie
posts one of his 45 questions....The visual:
Healy hunched over with one hand on the mouse, one hand in his soiled
diaper. Beady eyes glaring at the screen...drool falling from his
mouth...his techno music blaring in the background...incense burning a
hole in his desk...the crackpipe filled and ready.....Healy mumbling
to himself, "I'm the expert around here, I'll show these trolls that
the love of my life Bennie never lies or makes mistakes".
Heavy breathing, a wicked sneer showing the 2 teeth he has left in his
mouth (both rotted), more drool as he keeps refreshing the screen
waiting for a troll to post.
"Aha" he screams as he sees a new post appear. Reaching for the
keyboard, fingers filthy from the diaper soil, he tries to clear his
head and type. His head is pounding, searching for words to type that
someone will understand. He fails. He smiles...and thinks to
himself..."I know what I'm talking about, who cares if the trolls
understand me, my lover Bennie will give me 5 stars for this post."
Grabbing his lighter, he fires up the crackpipe...returns his hand
inside his soiled diaper and closes his eyes. Off he goes to the land
of imbeciles, where he feels completely at home and safe...waiting for
Bennie to appear before him and scratch him behind the ears like a
good lapdog.
curtjester1
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah! Quit this back-slappin' and answer a meaty question!!
CJ
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On May 3, 1:19=A0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 3, 12:57 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > TOP POST
>>
>> > Hi Ben,
Why do trolls who refuse to support their words, and duck & run from the
evidence *BEFORE* I killfile them, suddenly get such an impetus of interest in
discussing the evidence AFTER I begin ignoring them?
Timmy had his chance when I first brought this up - and his response has been to
lie about what I stated, and run from the facts I raised.
>> > Say, an amazing collection of half-truths and lies, eh?
>>
>> > Unfortunately for this troll the original thread is still available
>> > for anyone to read, eh?
>>
>> > Well in that case you won't have any difficulty pointing out the lies
>> > you see, will you Mr Holmes?
Not at all... you can begin with "Yellow Legs".
You've never retracted that lie, although you surely know it to be one.
>> > And I believe the matter was discussed over a number of threads, Ben,
>> > so you're off to a very bad start, aren't you?
>>
>> > BTW, Ben, I notice not ONE word from you refuting the points I make
>> > concerning your Z 369 AND PROOF THAT ZAPRUDER AND NIX HAVE BEEN
>> > ALTERED claim, the title of this very thread.
>>
>> > They pretty much blow your stupid claim to smithereens, don't they
>> > Ben?
>>
>> > What's the matter, Ben? Surely you're not going to stand by and let
>> > some *troll* debunk your theory, Ben!
Hasn't happened. The facts are *STILL* as I pointed them out. I invite all
lurkers to view the Nix & extant Z-Film for themselves.
Rather exciting, isn't it? The 45 Questions! You have the opportunity to
debunk me left and right! A new "debunking" every day!
Yet for some reason you appear to be MIA.
>> > Get back in there and debate a
>> > few specifics, buddy boy!
>>
>> > Otherwise lurkers might conclude that you're cowardly and a liar about
>> > this matter, Ben.
>>
>> > Or that your theory was rubbish in the first place.
>>
>> Son, you simply don't rate..... how would you know alteration from a
>> non-altered film?
>>
>> Do you have access to the in-camera Zapruder-NIX film original? NO of
>> course you don't -- till you do, its your opinion son, not PROOF!
Of course, even the film *AS WE HAVE IT* has undeniable proof of alteration.
Indeed, the very same proof that brought down the alleged "Alien Autopsy Film"
has also reared it's ugly head in the extant Z-film.
>> Its incumbent on you or any Lone Nutter to provide validate the
>> authenticity of the Zapruder film. After all, you claim the Zapruder
>> film displays LHO's handywork.... with out the Z-film the entire SBT-
>> non-conspiracy case falls apart... so get crack'in Timmy.....
>>
>> Better yet why not go back to boche-ball, live a little.....
>>
>>
>>
>> > Regards,
>>
>> > Tim Brennan
>> > Sydney, Australia
>> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > On May 2, 11:37 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <698f2dc9-8067-43bd-939c-8a4953016...@2g2000hsn.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > > curtjester1 says...
>>
>> > > >On 1 May, 00:37, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >> TOP POST
>>
>> > > >> Hi Curt,
>>
>> > > >> I think, if you wish to discuss this topic, you might find the
>> > > >> following link to Nix film frames useful. It was provided by Mark
>> > > >> during the course of the debate in question and is useful to compar=
>e
>> > > >> with the Z frames link you posted earlier, particularly around Z369=
>,
>> > > >> for this topic:
>>
>> > > >>http://jfk.fotopic.net/c1178748_97.html
>>
>> > > >> What it shows is that, beginning at around Nix 104, a figure comes
>> > > >> into view on the extreme left of the screen and moves progressively=
>
>> > > >> more into view as the camera continues to pan left, following the
>> > > >> limo.
>>
>> > > >> This figure is the one Ben claims proves that the Nix and Z films a=
>re
>> > > >> incompatible, a lady apparently wearing yellow slacks under a long
>> > > >> black coat, AKA *Yellow Legs*.
>>
>> > > >> If you click on Z369 you can see why Ben is making this claim. Behi=
>nd
>> > > >> the Franzen group in Z369 Main Street is clearly visible and the fo=
>ot
>> > > >> of a street light, the shadow of which points approximately at Mrs
>> > > >> Franzen's head, is also visible. There is, however, no *Yellow Slac=
>ks/
>> > > >> Legs* lady visible in Z369.
>>
>> > > >> This, in Ben's estimation, is proof of incompatibility between the
>> > > >> Zapruder and Nix films, thus equalling forgery. If we can see as fa=
>r
>> > > >> as Main Street in Zapruder, why don't we see this *Yellow Slacks*
>> > > >> lady? Her absence from one film and presence in another proves
>> > > >> forgery, right? That's his view and that of David *aeffects* Healy,=
>
>> > > >> published Z film alterationist author, from what I understand.
>>
>> > > >> The problem with their logic is that there are four street lights t=
>hat
>> > > >> run down Main at Dealey, and the one in the background of Z369 is t=
>he
>> > > >> third one. You can check this easily by continuing to click through=
>
>> > > >> from Z369 as the limo heads towards the underpass and the fourth an=
>d
>> > > >> final street light will come into view, at the edge of the concrete=
>
>> > > >> apron.
>>
>> > > >> If you click back to the Nix frames you will notice that there is a=
>
>> > > >> street light in the foreground, as the camera pans right to left,
>> > > >> following the limo. This street light disappears as the camera pans=
>
>> > > >> left and *Yellow Slacks/Legs* appears. However, this is NOT the sam=
>e
>> > > >> street light as seen in Z369. This is street light number two. Nix'=
>s
>> > > >> film never pans left enough to pick up street light number three, t=
>he
>> > > >> one shown in Z369.
>>
>> > > >> You can tell this by checking any map of Dealey Plaza that shows wh=
>ere
>> > > >> Nix was standing when he made his film. His field of vision is alwa=
>ys
>> > > >> going to include street light number two, not street light number
>> > > >> three. The lady Ben thinks should be seen in Zapruder is standing w=
>ay
>> > > >> too far back to ever appear in Zapruder.
>>
>> > > >> This is confirmed by the presence of a couple who appear behind the=
>
>> > > >> Franzen group in Nix, but whose feet only are visible in Zapruder.
>> > > >> *Yellow Legs* is standing much farther back than this couple, so is=
>
>> > > >> completely unseen in Zapruder. Even Ben now acknowledges that this
>> > > >> couple ARE visible in Zapruder, despite his initial claims to Rober=
>t
>> > > >> Harris that they were not.
>>
>> > > >> The next time, Curt, that you see Ben refer to other posters as
>> > > >> *cowards* or *trolls* or *liars* or questions their character in th=
>is
>> > > >> particular debate you might remember that it was Mark who originall=
>y
>> > > >> posted links to the Nix and Zapruder frames and the relevant WC pag=
>es,
>> > > >> not Ben or David, the supposed experts interested in open discussio=
>n.
>>
>> > > >> When they were asked, the best Healy could do was come up with some=
>
>> > > >> lame claim that his copy of the UPI book *Four Days* was a black an=
>d
>> > > >> white galley proof copy and thus useless for identifying *Yellow
>> > > >> Slacks/Legs*. Ben backed him up in this claim by stating that he
>> > > >> believed him, despite the improbability of David *aeffects* Healy's=
>
>> > > >> copy, out of millions sold around the world, being fully in black a=
>nd
>> > > >> white. For the rest of us, *Yellow Legs* is in full colour on page =
>21
>> > > >> of *Four Days*, bottom photo.
>>
>> > > >> I hope this information will be of use to you, Curt, as you weigh t=
>he
>> > > >> pros and cons of Z film alteration as it relates to *Yellow Legs* a=
>nd
>> > > >> Z369, Ben's theory. It should hardly be up to me to spell out his
>> > > >> theory for you, but I think you'll find he's not very interested in=
>
>> > > >> discussing it anymore, apart from a bit of bluster when he thinks
>> > > >> nobody is looking.
>>
>> > > An amazing collection of half-truths and lies!
>>
>> > > Unfortunately for this troll - the original thread is still available =
>for anyone
>> > > to read.
>>
>> > > >> Regards,
>>
>> > > >> Tim Brennan
>> > > >> Sydney, Australia
>> > > >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > > >I think by this, you think you are really on to something. =A0Well, I=
>
>> > > >will C,C & P this, and look at it. =A0Of course it bemuses me that yo=
>u
>> > > >do think this would be important to alteration when you don't even
>> > > >attempt what was brought before you in the form of other issues. =A0D=
>o
>> > > >you really feel if you prove this yellow pants theory it wil negate
>> > > >the whole Alteration Theory? =A0I will leave the site and the frames =
>for
>> > > >you to do likewise as you are trying to give me the impetus to do.
>>
>> > > >CJ
>>
>> > > >>>http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm=
>.htm
>>
>> > > >> > > > > > > > Here's the Costella frames from a Zapruder Film
>>
>> > > >> > > > > > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/-Hidequoted=
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <89322c0f-12b4-49eb-a896-64deb0cef...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes, you're a liar. Tim and Mark have been trying to get you to
discuss your lie for over a week. Just because they changed the term
you used "Yellow Pants" to "Yellow Legs" you are trying to use that to
say that they lied and you never made the comments you did. Nice try
coward...now go ahead and send in your pet lapdog to growl more
incoherent bullshit. You do realize that every comment Healy makes,
makes you look like more of a jackass then you already are, don't
you?
I've never seen a person who continually thinks he's right and avoids
every post proving him wrong or plays the little bait and switch game
with words to try and squirm out of answering. Holmes? Killfile
everyone on here and have a nice conversation with the junkie who you
depend on to see the answers. He's not showing you half of
them...because he knows they prove you wrong. You're just another
loser in the crowd of many Holmes.
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d07c3f5e-f81d-4c27...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
WHICH REMINDS ME OF A VISION;
Two guys pulling on justme's ankles.
Once her legs reach the 180 degree angle,
Her Whole body falls into her CUNT, where she discovers the "Lost City of
Atlantis".
With justme's Penchant for insults, she's gotta Love this one.
Evidence/Testimony however is like "Kryptonite" to justme.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5954f0a-efa9-4703...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
GUESS WHO WROTE?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
NOTICE, Not ONE word of evidence/testimony.
aeffects
wrote:
>
> read more »
sitdown Joey, you're way out of your league.... just watch neo-nazi,
thanks for understanding your limitations!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy? Time for another hit off the crackpipe....I suggest you sit
back and STFU...you're making your master look like a jackass. You
however have looked like a jackass from day 1.
Questions toots???
tomnln
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80d47f93-5932-4174...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
EXPOSE'
http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On May 3, 8:56 am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On May 3, 11:45 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>.com>,
>> > curtjester1 says...
>>
>> > >On May 3, 1:19=3DA0am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On May 3, 12:57 am, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > >> > TOP POST
>>
>> > >> > Hi Ben,
>>
>
>> > evidence *BEFORE* I killfile them, suddenly get such an impetus of inter=
>est in
>> > discussing the evidence AFTER I begin ignoring them?
>>
> been to
>> > lie about what I stated, and run from the facts I raised.
>>
>> > >> > Say, an amazing collection of half-truths and lies, eh?
>>
>
>> > >> > for anyone to read, eh?
>>
>es
>> > >> > you see, will you Mr Holmes?
>>
>> > Not at all... you can begin with "Yellow Legs".
>>
>> > You've never retracted that lie, although you surely know it to be one.
>>
>n,
>> > >> > so you're off to a very bad start, aren't you?
>>
>
>> > >> > concerning your Z 369 AND PROOF THAT ZAPRUDER AND NIX HAVE BEEN
>> > >> > ALTERED claim, the title of this very thread.
>>
>> > >> > They pretty much blow your stupid claim to smithereens, don't they
>> > >> > Ben?
>>
>
>> > >> > some *troll* debunk your theory, Ben!
>>
> all
>> > lurkers to view the Nix & extant Z-Film for themselves.
>>
>to
>> > debunk me left and right! A new "debunking" every day!
>>
>> > Yet for some reason you appear to be MIA.
>>
>> > >> > Get back in there and debate a
>> > >> > few specifics, buddy boy!
>>
>out
>> > >> > this matter, Ben.
>>
>> > >> > Or that your theory was rubbish in the first place.
>>
>> > >> Son, you simply don't rate..... how would you know alteration from a
>> > >> non-altered film?
>>
>
>> > >> course you don't -- till you do, its your opinion son, not PROOF!
>>
>ion.
>> > Indeed, the very same proof that brought down the alleged "Alien Autopsy=
> Film"
>> > has also reared it's ugly head in the extant Z-film.
>>
>> > >> Its incumbent on you or any Lone Nutter to provide validate the
>> > >> authenticity of the Zapruder film. After all, you claim the Zapruder
>
>> > >> non-conspiracy case falls apart... so get crack'in Timmy.....
>>
>> > >> Better yet why not go back to boche-ball, live a little.....
>>
>> > >> > Regards,
>>
>> > >> > Tim Brennan
>> > >> > Sydney, Australia
>> > >> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > >> > On May 2, 11:37 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>group=3D
>> > >s.com>,
>> > >> > > curtjester1 says...
>>
>> > >> > > >On 1 May, 00:37, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >> > > >> TOP POST
>>
>> > >> > > >> Hi Curt,
>>
>
>> > >> > > >> following link to Nix film frames useful. It was provided by M=
>ark
>> > >> > > >> during the course of the debate in question and is useful to c=
>ompar=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > > >> with the Z frames link you posted earlier, particularly around=
> Z369=3D>> > >> > > >> What it shows is that, beginning at around Nix 104, a figure c=
>omes
>> > >> > > >> into view on the extreme left of the screen and moves progress=
>ively=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> more into view as the camera continues to pan left, following =
>the
>> > >> > > >> limo.
>>
>> > >> > > >> This figure is the one Ben claims proves that the Nix and Z fi=
>lms a=3D
>> > >re
>> > >> > > >> incompatible, a lady apparently wearing yellow slacks under a =
>long
>> > >> > > >> black coat, AKA *Yellow Legs*.
>>
> Behi=3D
>> > >nd
>> > >> > > >> the Franzen group in Z369 Main Street is clearly visible and t=
>he fo=3D
>> > >ot
>> > >> > > >> of a street light, the shadow of which points approximately at=
> Mrs
>> > >> > > >> Franzen's head, is also visible. There is, however, no *Yellow=
> Slac=3D
>> > >ks/
>> > >> > > >> Legs* lady visible in Z369.
>>
> the
>> > >> > > >> Zapruder and Nix films, thus equalling forgery. If we can see =
>as fa=3D
>> > >r
>> > >> > > >> as Main Street in Zapruder, why don't we see this *Yellow Slac=
>ks*
>> > >> > > >> lady? Her absence from one film and presence in another proves=
>
>> > >> > > >> forgery, right? That's his view and that of David *aeffects* H=
>ealy,=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> published Z film alterationist author, from what I understand.=
>
>>
>> > >> > > >> The problem with their logic is that there are four street lig=
>hts t=3D
>> > >hat
>> > >> > > >> run down Main at Dealey, and the one in the background of Z369=
> is t=3D
>> > >he
>> > >> > > >> third one. You can check this easily by continuing to click th=
>rough=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> from Z369 as the limo heads towards the underpass and the four=
>th an=3D
>> > >d
>> > >> > > >> final street light will come into view, at the edge of the con=
>crete=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> apron.
>>
>> > >> > > >> If you click back to the Nix frames you will notice that there=
> is a=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> street light in the foreground, as the camera pans right to le=
>ft,
>> > >> > > >> following the limo. This street light disappears as the camera=
> pans=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> left and *Yellow Slacks/Legs* appears. However, this is NOT th=
>e sam=3D
>> > >e
>> > >> > > >> street light as seen in Z369. This is street light number two.=
> Nix'=3D
>> > >s
>> > >> > > >> film never pans left enough to pick up street light number thr=
>ee, t=3D
>> > >he
>> > >> > > >> one shown in Z369.
>>
>ws wh=3D
>> > >ere
>> > >> > > >> Nix was standing when he made his film. His field of vision is=
> alwa=3D
>> > >ys
>> > >> > > >> going to include street light number two, not street light num=
>ber
>> > >> > > >> three. The lady Ben thinks should be seen in Zapruder is stand=
>ing w=3D
>> > >ay
>> > >> > > >> too far back to ever appear in Zapruder.
>>
>d the=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> Franzen group in Nix, but whose feet only are visible in Zapru=
>der.
>> > >> > > >> *Yellow Legs* is standing much farther back than this couple, =
>so is=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> completely unseen in Zapruder. Even Ben now acknowledges that =
>this
>> > >> > > >> couple ARE visible in Zapruder, despite his initial claims to =
>Rober=3D
>> > >t
>> > >> > > >> Harris that they were not.
>>
>s
>> > >> > > >> *cowards* or *trolls* or *liars* or questions their character =
>in th=3D
>> > >is
>> > >> > > >> particular debate you might remember that it was Mark who orig=
>inall=3D
>> > >y
>> > >> > > >> posted links to the Nix and Zapruder frames and the relevant W=
>C pag=3D
>> > >es,
>> > >> > > >> not Ben or David, the supposed experts interested in open disc=
>ussio=3D
>> > >n.
>>
>> > >> > > >> When they were asked, the best Healy could do was come up with=
> some=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> lame claim that his copy of the UPI book *Four Days* was a bla=
>ck an=3D
>> > >d
>> > >> > > >> white galley proof copy and thus useless for identifying *Yell=
>ow
>> > >> > > >> Slacks/Legs*. Ben backed him up in this claim by stating that =
>he
>> > >> > > >> believed him, despite the improbability of David *aeffects* He=
>aly's=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> copy, out of millions sold around the world, being fully in bl=
>ack a=3D
>> > >nd
>> > >> > > >> white. For the rest of us, *Yellow Legs* is in full colour on =
>page =3D
>> > >21
>> > >> > > >> of *Four Days*, bottom photo.
>>
>igh t=3D
>> > >he
>> > >> > > >> pros and cons of Z film alteration as it relates to *Yellow Le=
>gs* a=3D
>> > >nd
>> > >> > > >> Z369, Ben's theory. It should hardly be up to me to spell out =
>his
>> > >> > > >> theory for you, but I think you'll find he's not very interest=
>ed in=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >> discussing it anymore, apart from a bit of bluster when he thi=
>nks
>> > >> > > >> nobody is looking.
>>
>> > >> > > An amazing collection of half-truths and lies!
>>
>able =3D
>> > >for anyone
>> > >> > > to read.
>>
>> > >> > > >> Regards,
>>
>> > >> > > >> Tim Brennan
>> > >> > > >> Sydney, Australia
>> > >> > > >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>Well, I=3D
>>
>> > >> > > >will C,C & P this, and look at it. =3DA0Of course it bemuses me =
>that yo=3D
>> > >u
>> > >> > > >do think this would be important to alteration when you don't ev=
>en
>> > >> > > >attempt what was brought before you in the form of other issues.=
>> > >o
>> > >> > > >you really feel if you prove this yellow pants theory it wil neg=
>ate
>> > >> > > >the whole Alteration Theory? =3DA0I will leave the site and the =
>frames =3D
>> > >for
>> > >> > > >you to do likewise as you are trying to give me the impetus to d=
>o.
>>
>> > >> > > >CJ
>>
>> > >> > > >>>http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezaprude=
>rfilm=3D
>> > >.htm
>>
>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Here's the Costella frames from a Zapruder Film
>>
>> > >> > > >> > > > > > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
>>
>>
>> > >CJ
>>
And yet, *anyone* can go back to the original thread and read the facts...
Timmy can't delete 'em.
Just as *you* could try to quote any such use of "Yellow Legs" in any of my
original postings... but you can't.
But trolls lie, that's what trolls do...
>sitdown Joey, you're way out of your league.... just watch neo-nazi,
>thanks for understanding your limitations!
Why do I get the impression that this troll is a 15 year old kid?
Gil Jesus
>
>Why do I get the impression that this troll is a 15 year old kid?
Joey Justme ?
Because like I've telling people, he's a 20 year old atheist named
Joey.
Pretty obvious, huh ?
He's definitely not a 55 year old widow.
Gil Jesus
al·ter (ōltr)
v. al·tered, al·ter·ing, al·ters
v.tr.
1. To change or make different; modify: altered my will.
2. To adjust (a garment) for a better fit.
3. To castrate or spay (an animal, such as a cat or a dog).
v.intr.
To change or become different.
Was Nix's film changed ?
Orville Nix tells Mark Lane that his film was "lost at the processing
plant" and when he got it back, that "some frames were ruined".
aeffects
> In article <1b1674a4-c888-4b27-8035-57cd7a723...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
you're a little off Ben, he's a 20 wannabe neo-nazi....
Ben Holmes
Oh, I don't know... physical age isn't necessarily correlated with mental age.
Were he (or she) dare to step on the mat at the Judo club, I could probably make
a fairly accurate assessment of their physical age... but using only their
posting style, I can only judge the mental age.
So I might not be "a little off" at all. Or I could be vastly *over*
estimating... who knows?
justm...@gmail.com
ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO.....keep up the good work jackass LOLOLOL
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <c9ed5128-96d0-437e-8adb-c45a2b0ba...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
This is just too amusing....Little Bennie Sadam wants me to step on
his mat, it would be a pleasure to bitch slap you Holmes.
As for you Healy....you poor misguided Bennie slut, you're as dumb as
your sidekick Chico.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Benny,
Say, am I to take it, from the self serving nonsense you have posted
in reply, that you STILL stand by Z 369 providing proof that Zapruder
and Nix have been altered?
LOL! That is REALLY a dumb idea, Benny fella. This garbage you have
posted is a model of self delusion, Holmes, and you know it.
The person who ran was YOU, Holmes. Now hiding behind some useless
little out like Yellow Legs versus Yellow Pants is a total, cowardly
cop out, Holmes.
You don't want to address what is wrong with your theory, do you Ben?
Got any comments on the number of lightposts and where Nix stood,
Holmes? I didn't think so.
You're a gutless coward, Holmes, the very thing you accuse others of
being.
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On May 4, 1:45 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <89322c0f-12b4-49eb-a896-64deb0cef...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> >CJ- Hide quoted text -