Dodge Ball Queen Of Conspiracy Porn 'Rossley' --- Your Up At Bat Tricky Dicky .....!
cdddraftsman
A Communist Police and Presidential Murderer . Or Is This Another
Topic For Playing Dodge Ball Queen With , By Not Bothering To
Explain It Either ?
Let Go Of Earl's CaBalls And Try Answering Some Of These ;
The Real Evidence and Testimony Here :
Thinking About Conspiracy !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildly Improbable Coincidences ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic1.htm
Too Many Mistaken Witnesses ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic2.htm
All Those Sinister Connections ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic3.htm
How Big a Conspiracy ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic4.htm
Opinions Are Not Evidence :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm
What Scenario Does the Evidence Imply ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scenario.htm
Double Trouble :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/double.htm
The Truth is in the Documents ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoch.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Assassination Context
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
JFK And The Cold War :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk5.htm
Kennedy and Foreign Policy :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context1.htm
The Warren Commission :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context2.htm
How Government Works :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context3.htm
Thinking About Conspiracy :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context4.htm
The Suspects :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/context5.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Harvey Oswald
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Lee Oswald : Troubled Youth "
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/troubled.htm
The Oswald Timeline - I :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald1.htm
The Oswald Timeline - II (Detailed) :
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Oswald's Defection to the USSR :
http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald-in-russia.htm
Oswald in Holland :
http://oswaldinholland.web-log.nl/
William Stuckey / LHO Debate :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/audio/oswald1.rm
Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuuier / LHO Debate :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/audio/oswald2_1.rm
Lee Oswald : In His Own Words :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ownwords.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bishop.txt
Ruth Paine's Kindness : No Good Deed Goes Unpunished :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garage.htm
Are the Backyard Photos Genuine ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oswald " Sightings "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sightings.txt
Silvia Odio :
http://www.jfk-online.com/odiohsca.html
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/einsdep.txt
Alice Texas :
http://www.jfk-online.com/alicelho.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-Man Assigned to the Case :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hosty.txt
Lee's Lies :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leeslies.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Suspicious " Happenings in Oswald's Life :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Facility :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cadet.htm
Lost Luggage :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/luggage.htm
LHO Sleeping Around :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vd.htm
Top Secret Clearance :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald5.txt
Streets of N.O. :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/martello.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WCR : The Walker Incident
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Propensity for Violence ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt
FBI Report : Walter Coleman's Testimony :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/coleman.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
" More Than One "Oswald ? " :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm
Sinister Meeting with " Maurice Bishop ? " :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/phillips.jpg
Joel Grant : " Guiding Hands "
Leading Lee to the Depository ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dallas.txt
Gets job at TSBD :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt
Playing the Victim Game " I'm just a patsy " :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/patsy.htm
Was Oswald " Denied Counsel ? " :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/defense.txt
Was it Really Curtain Rods ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
Oswald a Homosexual :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leegay.htm
KGB On LHO :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why'd He Do It ? ( Motive )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Organ " The Oswald Agenda " :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ1.htm
Mel Ayton " LHO's Motives " :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/motives.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Ruby
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobster , Intelligence Agent , or Small-time Hustler ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby.htm
Ruby's Childhood :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby1.htm
Ruby as a young man :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby2.htm
Ruby moves to Dallas :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby3.htm
Ruby the Nightclub Owner :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby4.htm
Ruby as a person :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby5.htm
Ruby's problems with authorities :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby6.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Reitzes Article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
" In Defense of Jack Ruby " :
http://www.jfk-online.com//rubydef.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby's testimony
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ruby Polygraph
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results :
http://www.jfk-online.com//rubyhscapoly.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Cartwright Article From
The ' Texas Monthly '
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Who was Jack Ruby ? " :
http://web.archive.org/web/20030414012256/http://www.texasmonthly.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby's Motive for Killing LHO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Ruby Lie About His Motive ? :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sorrow.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Medical Evidence
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm
Includes the Following Topics :
Shooting Yourself in the Foot
The Dallas Doctors
The Head Wound
Does the Harper Fragment Prove a Shot from the Grassy Knoll ?
Was the Back of Kennedy's head Really Blown Out ?
Interpreting the Head X-rays
Medical Evidence on the Single Bullet Theory
Is Kennedy " Clutching At His Throat " in the Zapruder Film ?
Telling the Truth at Long Last ?
Are the Autopsy Photos Faked ?
What Do the Experts Say About the Evidence?
What Happened to Kennedy's Brain ?
Why Was Kennedy's Coffin Disposed Of ?
" Military Control " of the Autopsy ?
Were the Body Snatchers at Work ?
Really Pristine ?
A Genuine Conspiracy " Expert ? "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Single Bullet Theory
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
Includes the Following Topics :
The Back and Throat Wounds
Are Autopsy Face Sheets Supposed to be Drawn to Scale ?
A Little Logic , Please !
Connally Holding His Hat
When Did the Single Bullet Hit Happen ?
A ...
tomnln
Dodges>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52b67c78-799c-4e82...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
muc...@gmail.com
You're not supposed to quote the CT manual. Ben won't be happy...
> "cdddraftsman" <cdddrafts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
tomnln
<muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:436eabbf-6537-4f9a...@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
That's a description of you/yours.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
That's what you Dodge.
(from your own Report)
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Lurkers aren't stupid... playing around with ad hominem all the time, rather
than dealing with the actual eyewitness testimony and evidence - won't go
unnoticed.
YoHarvey
wrote:
> In article <436eabbf-6537-4f9a-b7c5-12cc84666...@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes FAVORITE word. Ad hominem. Unfortunately the ever present
hyprocritical Holmes runs from evidence...UNLESSS IT''S HIS EVIDENCE
which, in reality is NOT EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Keep those ad homs
coming!
aeffects
get use to it, son...... "Yo*AdHom*Havey... got a good ring to it,
don't ya think? You've been defeated kiddo over and over and OVER
again..... Redemption comes through the 45 questions.... gird-dem-
loins (pardon the pun)
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <436eabbf-6537-4f9a-b7c5-12cc84666...@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Does this mean that an apology for the child molestation joke you
played on me is forthcoming?
Or for spuriously calling me and other posters dishonest, liars,
cowards, etc.?
Or for making claims of the "LN'ers routinely lie about the evidence"
type?
Or that you'll stop running from my reply (to your #1 question) in the
"Final Proof" thread?
-Mark
cdddraftsman
>
>
> Or that you'll stop running from my reply (to your #1 question) in the
> "Final Proof" thread?
>
> -Mark
>
Rossley's 26 volumes are kept in the trunk of his car just in case and
and he sleeps with roller skates on in order to make a quick get away
from answering his own conundrums he dreams up at night . The
worse excuse for a half arsed researcher the dwitical tinkering
community has produced since Robert Groden .
tl
cdddraftsman
>
>
> >You're not supposed to quote the CT manual. Ben won't be happy...
>
> Lurkers aren't stupid... playing around with ad hominem all the time, rather
> than dealing with the actual eyewitness testimony and evidence - won't go
> unnoticed.
>
>
We've dealt with your eye-witness testimony and deemed it garbage ,
just
like all the other worthless evidence CTer's have brought forth in the
last
44 years of wasted effort .
tl
cdddraftsman
>
>
> You're not supposed to quote the CT manual. Ben won't be happy...
>
>
Hahahahahaha ! Burn job on Rossley !
tl
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Of course not. I made my point... if you insist on asserting that I said
something I did not, then I'll put words in *YOUR* mouth.
You've refrained from that activity since then, so you've obviously learned
something.
That makes it worthwhile.
>Or for spuriously calling me and other posters dishonest, liars,
>cowards, etc.?
It's clearly not "spurious", since most times you refuse to even defend yourself
against my assertion that you're lying.
In the most recent example, Frazier CLEARLY specified a fragment, didn't he?
He clearly was referring to a fragment speed that was *LOWER* than a normal
whole bullet that hadn't hit anything yet, right?
And when Rob runs - rather than immediately retracts and corrects, then yes
indeed, he lied.
Care to try to defend this most recent example as the truth, rather than the lie
that it was?
>Or for making claims of the "LN'ers routinely lie about the evidence"
>type?
They do. It's necessary, since the evidence doesn't support the WCR. So
LNT'ers *MUST* disregard virtually all of the eyewitness testimony, and the
inconsistencies in the medical evidence in order to make their point.
So why fight it? If you don't like your actions being *correctly* labeled, by
all means, go to the censored group.
>Or that you'll stop running from my reply (to your #1 question) in the
>"Final Proof" thread?
You didn't reply... Bud did. There's a reason that he's killfiled - he refuses
to respond to my points. You can correctly point out that whatever he just said
is an absolute lie, and he'll just move on to the next one.
Life is too short to deal with dishonest people...
But tell us Mark - why do we always see you in these ad hominem type posts, and
never in the posts dealing with the evidence?
tomnln
ALL in his own words.
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c34c291d-b428-4655...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
lowery don't know what the 26 volumes are.
lowery RUNS from the 26 volumes>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <b74a180b-4cf7-4fbe-8015-dc99f5aee...@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
What have I "asserted" that you said? Are you talking about my mocking
your evasiveness back then, or pointing out your hypocrisy above?
> You've refrained from that activity since then, so you've obviously learned
> something.
I haven't seen any child molestation jokes from you lately, but
perhaps that's just a coincidence.
> That makes it worthwhile.
To joke about child molestation?
> >Or for spuriously calling me and other posters dishonest, liars,
> >cowards, etc.?
>
> It's clearly not "spurious", since most times you refuse to even defend yourself
> against my assertion that you're lying.
Those "assertions" are false and intended to mislead, but most people
here are sophisticated enough to realize that you're a game player.
> In the most recent example, Frazier CLEARLY specified a fragment, didn't he?
>
> He clearly was referring to a fragment speed that was *LOWER* than a normal
> whole bullet that hadn't hit anything yet, right?
>
> And when Rob runs - rather than immediately retracts and corrects, then yes
> indeed, he lied.
>
> Care to try to defend this most recent example as the truth, rather than the lie
> that it was?
Forget Robcap. I wasn't talking about him.
> >Or for making claims of the "LN'ers routinely lie about the evidence"
> >type?
>
> They do. It's necessary, since the evidence doesn't support the WCR. So
> LNT'ers *MUST* disregard virtually all of the eyewitness testimony, and the
> inconsistencies in the medical evidence in order to make their point.
Exactly how do these inconsistencies (and I mean the real ones, not
those that are only perceived by you) prove that Oswald wasn't alone?
> So why fight it? If you don't like your actions being *correctly* labeled, by
> all means, go to the censored group.
You were the one complaining about ad hominems, hypocrite.
> >Or that you'll stop running from my reply (to your #1 question) in the
> >"Final Proof" thread?
>
> You didn't reply... Bud did. There's a reason that he's killfiled - he refuses
> to respond to my points. You can correctly point out that whatever he just said
> is an absolute lie, and he'll just move on to the next one.
Although my last post in that thread was technically a reply to Bud, I
addressed you and your Question #1 quite a few times.
Btw, I think we all know the real reason you killfiled Bud.
> Life is too short to deal with dishonest people...
>
> But tell us Mark - why do we always see you in these ad hominem type posts, and
> never in the posts dealing with the evidence?
What happened the last time I debated evidentiary matters with you?
aeffects
yeah, right..... is that the reason why you foam at the mouth when Ben
Holmes posts? Your a fraud son....LMFAO
> tl
aeffects
we damn sure do.... he's a fraud just like your sorry ass.... Hope you
had a nice Turkey Day, you ole T-U-R-K-E-Y you....
> ...
>
> read more >>
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
By all means, go back to the original post, and look immediately above my
comment... you'll see what *you* said.
>> You've refrained from that activity since then, so you've obviously learned
>> something.
>
>I haven't seen any child molestation jokes from you lately, but
>perhaps that's just a coincidence.
Assert that I've said something I didn't say, and you'll see it again. This is
how you teach children & dogs. When they do something you dislike, simply do
something *they* dislike.
>> That makes it worthwhile.
>
>To joke about child molestation?
Who was joking?
Did you assert something I'd never said?
Did I return the favor and assert something you'd never said?
Let's see how honest you can be...
>> >Or for spuriously calling me and other posters dishonest, liars,
>> >cowards, etc.?
>>
>> It's clearly not "spurious", since most times you refuse to even defend
>> yourself against my assertion that you're lying.
>
>Those "assertions" are false and intended to mislead, but most people
>here are sophisticated enough to realize that you're a game player.
Anytime you care to try defending an assertion that I've labeled a lie, you can
by all means do so.
>> In the most recent example, Frazier CLEARLY specified a fragment, didn't he?
>>
>> He clearly was referring to a fragment speed that was *LOWER* than a normal
>> whole bullet that hadn't hit anything yet, right?
>>
>> And when Rob runs - rather than immediately retracts and corrects, then yes
>> indeed, he lied.
>>
>> Care to try to defend this most recent example as the truth, rather than
>> the lie that it was?
>
>Forget Robcap. I wasn't talking about him.
That was certainly the most recent example where I labeled someone a liar for a
lie told on the forum.
Sounds like you don't want to defend that particular lie. That's okay, if you
ever get around to debating the evidence, you'll sooner or later end up in a
position where you'll have the opportunity to defend yourself again.
>> >Or for making claims of the "LN'ers routinely lie about the evidence"
>> >type?
>>
>> They do. It's necessary, since the evidence doesn't support the WCR. So
>> LNT'ers *MUST* disregard virtually all of the eyewitness testimony, and the
>> inconsistencies in the medical evidence in order to make their point.
>
>Exactly how do these inconsistencies (and I mean the real ones, not
>those that are only perceived by you) prove that Oswald wasn't alone?
Tell you what... why not go answer the 45 questions... if you can do so with
reasonable answers that are *NON* conspiratorial, you will have made your case.
>> So why fight it? If you don't like your actions being *correctly* labeled,
>> by all means, go to the censored group.
>
>You were the one complaining about ad hominems, hypocrite.
I only correctly label it. Bugs you, doesn't it?
>> >Or that you'll stop running from my reply (to your #1 question) in the
>> >"Final Proof" thread?
>>
>> You didn't reply... Bud did. There's a reason that he's killfiled - he
>> refuses to respond to my points. You can correctly point out that
>> whatever he just said is an absolute lie, and he'll just move on to
>> the next one.
>
>Although my last post in that thread was technically a reply to Bud, I
>addressed you and your Question #1 quite a few times.
I've already pointed out to you that while answering a point of Bud's
occasionally is not a complete waste, I have no intention of allowing the
killfilter to be eliminated by having you relay everything.
Feel free to take anything Bud says, and post it to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS... and
be prepared to support it.
>Btw, I think we all know the real reason you killfiled Bud.
By all means, prove it. Debate the evidence, instead of engaging in this
meaningless chitter chatter.
>> Life is too short to deal with dishonest people...
>>
>> But tell us Mark - why do we always see you in these ad hominem type
>> posts, and never in the posts dealing with the evidence?
>
>What happened the last time I debated evidentiary matters with you?
You lost. You ran away... Self righteousness is easy when the topic of child
molestation comes up, isn't it?
Bud
This, of course, is a lie, the eyewitnesses do not support
conspiracy. Overwhemingly, they indicated single locations for the
source of the shots. That the shots came from a single location is the
LN position.
> and the
> inconsistencies in the medical evidence in order to make their point.
How are the inconsistances resolved by the CT position?
> So why fight it? If you don't like your actions being *correctly* labeled, by
> all means, go to the censored group.
Or do what pussies like Ben do, and hide behind a killfiler.
> >Or that you'll stop running from my reply (to your #1 question) in the
> >"Final Proof" thread?
>
> You didn't reply... Bud did. There's a reason that he's killfiled - he refuses
> to respond to my points.
<snicker> Still trying to spin cowardice into virtue.
> You can correctly point out that whatever he just said
> is an absolute lie, and he'll just move on to the next one.
You`ve never shown anything I`ve said to be a lie.
> Life is too short to deal with dishonest people...
I manage to squeeze in time for it.
> But tell us Mark - why do we always see you in these ad hominem type posts, and
> never in the posts dealing with the evidence?
Who does Ben nominate to hold an honest discussion about the case
from the CT side? Healy? Tomnln? Gil? Himself?
aeffects
Dudster, you've been hogtied in so many lies, the rope burns are down
to your bones.....you might want to visit YouTube, I hear Gil Jesus
has a few videos from those *very* eyewitness and their testimony you
profess to know so much about .... Time to gird those loins, toots!
> ...
>
> read more >>
Bud
Glad to see Ben admit this. This is the method I used to against
him, and he reacted much like a dog at first, by cowering, then like a
child, by crying and running away.
> >> That makes it worthwhile.
> >
> >To joke about child molestation?
>
>
> Who was joking?
>
> Did you assert something I'd never said?
>
> Did I return the favor and assert something you'd never said?
>
> Let's see how honest you can be...
>
>
> >> >Or for spuriously calling me and other posters dishonest, liars,
> >> >cowards, etc.?
> >>
> >> It's clearly not "spurious", since most times you refuse to even defend
> >> yourself against my assertion that you're lying.
> >
> >Those "assertions" are false and intended to mislead, but most people
> >here are sophisticated enough to realize that you're a game player.
>
>
> Anytime you care to try defending an assertion that I've labeled a lie, you can
> by all means do so.
If you are interested in seeing Ben lie.
> >> In the most recent example, Frazier CLEARLY specified a fragment, didn't he?
> >>
> >> He clearly was referring to a fragment speed that was *LOWER* than a normal
> >> whole bullet that hadn't hit anything yet, right?
> >>
> >> And when Rob runs - rather than immediately retracts and corrects, then yes
> >> indeed, he lied.
> >>
> >> Care to try to defend this most recent example as the truth, rather than
> >> the lie that it was?
> >
> >Forget Robcap. I wasn't talking about him.
>
>
> That was certainly the most recent example where I labeled someone a liar for a
> lie told on the forum.
>
> Sounds like you don't want to defend that particular lie. That's okay, if you
> ever get around to debating the evidence, you'll sooner or later end up in a
> position where you'll have the opportunity to defend yourself again.
>
>
> >> >Or for making claims of the "LN'ers routinely lie about the evidence"
> >> >type?
> >>
> >> They do. It's necessary, since the evidence doesn't support the WCR. So
> >> LNT'ers *MUST* disregard virtually all of the eyewitness testimony, and the
> >> inconsistencies in the medical evidence in order to make their point.
> >
> >Exactly how do these inconsistencies (and I mean the real ones, not
> >those that are only perceived by you) prove that Oswald wasn't alone?
>
>
> Tell you what... why not go answer the 45 questions... if you can do so with
> reasonable answers that are *NON* conspiratorial, you will have made your case.
Why can`t Ben just present a case? He has none to present.
> >> So why fight it? If you don't like your actions being *correctly* labeled,
> >> by all means, go to the censored group.
> >
> >You were the one complaining about ad hominems, hypocrite.
>
>
> I only correctly label it. Bugs you, doesn't it?
>
>
> >> >Or that you'll stop running from my reply (to your #1 question) in the
> >> >"Final Proof" thread?
> >>
> >> You didn't reply... Bud did. There's a reason that he's killfiled - he
> >> refuses to respond to my points. You can correctly point out that
> >> whatever he just said is an absolute lie, and he'll just move on to
> >> the next one.
> >
> >Although my last post in that thread was technically a reply to Bud, I
> >addressed you and your Question #1 quite a few times.
>
>
> I've already pointed out to you that while answering a point of Bud's
> occasionally is not a complete waste,
I tend to disagree.
> I have no intention of allowing the
>killfilter to be eliminated by having you relay everything.
He is going to pick shots and snipe at things I write, knowing
he`ll be shielded from any rebuttal I might make by his killfilter.
It`s like a force field for pussies.
> Feel free to take anything Bud says, and post it to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS... and
> be prepared to support it.
<snicker> The word "owned" comes to mind. Ben quakes at the sight of
my words verbatum..
> >Btw, I think we all know the real reason you killfiled Bud.
>
>
> By all means, prove it. Debate the evidence, instead of engaging in this
> meaningless chitter chatter.
Perhaps Mark is training you, like one would a dog or small child,
by engaging in chit-chat.
> >> Life is too short to deal with dishonest people...
> >>
> >> But tell us Mark - why do we always see you in these ad hominem type
> >> posts, and never in the posts dealing with the evidence?
> >
> >What happened the last time I debated evidentiary matters with you?
>
>
> You lost.
Try to hide that you`ve made a man`s murder into a game better.
> You ran away... Self righteousness is easy when the topic of child
> molestation comes up, isn't it?
Why did it come up? Thats right, you`re an asshole.
Bud
Did the bulb burn out on your lava lamp, stoner? Roll yourself a
blunt, or fatty, or whateverthefuck it is you drug culture losers do,
get yourself some Fig Newtons, and put on SpongeBob, adults are
talking to Ben here.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <3533b9e9-6aa7-4033-9c7b-44c8de5d2...@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
That you played a child molestation joke on me? Are you trying to say
that it wasn't a joke?
> >> You've refrained from that activity since then, so you've obviously learned
> >> something.
>
> >I haven't seen any child molestation jokes from you lately, but
> >perhaps that's just a coincidence.
>
> Assert that I've said something I didn't say, and you'll see it again. This is
> how you teach children & dogs. When they do something you dislike, simply do
> something *they* dislike.
Such as playing child molestation jokes on them?
> >> That makes it worthwhile.
>
> >To joke about child molestation?
>
> Who was joking?
>
> Did you assert something I'd never said?
>
> Did I return the favor and assert something you'd never said?
>
> Let's see how honest you can be...
Your hypocrisy never fails to amaze. You can call my harmless satire a
lie, but I'm not allowed call your reponse a joke?
> >> >Or for spuriously calling me and other posters dishonest, liars,
> >> >cowards, etc.?
>
> >> It's clearly not "spurious", since most times you refuse to even defend
> >> yourself against my assertion that you're lying.
>
> >Those "assertions" are false and intended to mislead, but most people
> >here are sophisticated enough to realize that you're a game player.
>
> Anytime you care to try defending an assertion that I've labeled a lie, you can
> by all means do so.
I refuse to waste huge amounts of time "defending" myself against your
repeated misrepresentations and falsehoods, especially when they are
as obvious as they usually are.
> >> In the most recent example, Frazier CLEARLY specified a fragment, didn't he?
>
> >> He clearly was referring to a fragment speed that was *LOWER* than a normal
> >> whole bullet that hadn't hit anything yet, right?
>
> >> And when Rob runs - rather than immediately retracts and corrects, then yes
> >> indeed, he lied.
>
> >> Care to try to defend this most recent example as the truth, rather than
> >> the lie that it was?
>
> >Forget Robcap. I wasn't talking about him.
>
> That was certainly the most recent example where I labeled someone a liar for a
> lie told on the forum.
So what? I was talking about your spurious/false claims.
> Sounds like you don't want to defend that particular lie. That's okay, if you
> ever get around to debating the evidence, you'll sooner or later end up in a
> position where you'll have the opportunity to defend yourself again.
I could say the same thing to you.
> >> >Or for making claims of the "LN'ers routinely lie about the evidence"
> >> >type?
>
> >> They do. It's necessary, since the evidence doesn't support the WCR. So
> >> LNT'ers *MUST* disregard virtually all of the eyewitness testimony, and the
> >> inconsistencies in the medical evidence in order to make their point.
>
> >Exactly how do these inconsistencies (and I mean the real ones, not
> >those that are only perceived by you) prove that Oswald wasn't alone?
>
> Tell you what... why not go answer the 45 questions... if you can do so with
> reasonable answers that are *NON* conspiratorial, you will have made your case.
Why not just give us your best shot?
> >> So why fight it? If you don't like your actions being *correctly* labeled,
> >> by all means, go to the censored group.
>
> >You were the one complaining about ad hominems, hypocrite.
>
> I only correctly label it. Bugs you, doesn't it?
More ad hominems. Thank you for making my point for me.
> >> >Or that you'll stop running from my reply (to your #1 question) in the
> >> >"Final Proof" thread?
>
> >> You didn't reply... Bud did. There's a reason that he's killfiled - he
> >> refuses to respond to my points. You can correctly point out that
> >> whatever he just said is an absolute lie, and he'll just move on to
> >> the next one.
>
> >Although my last post in that thread was technically a reply to Bud, I
> >addressed you and your Question #1 quite a few times.
>
> I've already pointed out to you that while answering a point of Bud's
> occasionally is not a complete waste, I have no intention of allowing the
> killfilter to be eliminated by having you relay everything.
>
> Feel free to take anything Bud says, and post it to me IN YOUR OWN WORDS... and
> be prepared to support it.
I'm not going to repeat myself. Here's a link to the post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f398bd0677ff6a84
> >Btw, I think we all know the real reason you killfiled Bud.
>
> By all means, prove it. Debate the evidence, instead of engaging in this
> meaningless chitter chatter.
See below.
> >> Life is too short to deal with dishonest people...
>
> >> But tell us Mark - why do we always see you in these ad hominem type
> >> posts, and never in the posts dealing with the evidence?
>
> >What happened the last time I debated evidentiary matters with you?
>
> You lost. You ran away... Self righteousness is easy when the topic of child
> molestation comes up, isn't it?
The last few times we discussed anything of an evidentiary nature, you
defaulted by:
a) talking about shooting me,
b) joking about child molestation, or
c) running away.
You can't even admit why you had to killfile Bud. Tell me why it isn't
a complete waste of time to play your games.
aeffects
you get slapped around and you whine.... c'mon, be the dimwit we've
all known to come and love, gott'a be easy by now, what's it been 5
years and some you MIT twits still can't get it right..... you're a
disgrace, Dud.....
> ...
>
> read more >>
Bud
Yah, but I`m a straight and sober disgrace. But you cam help cure
my ignorance, and give me the name of one person in Dealey Plaza who
said they heard shots come from two different directions (you know,
the kook position). No cheating off Ben`s paper now...
aeffects
how 'bout the 2 NPICguys who reviewed the Zapruder film that
assassination weekend? They estimate at LEAST 6 Elm Street shots,
means more than one shooter, Dud. And you know very well, the standard
Lone Nut position concerning eyewitnesses, "they don't know shit..."
Now these two NPIC guys are a whole different matter.... (You know the
folks the FBI/SS ran to immediately to get their interpretation of the
alleged Z-film)
would you like that drink freshened up, 'nother line or roll a dobbie
the size of your thumb...? we aim (pardon the pun) to please
> ...
>
> read more >>
Bud
Any idea what they based their conclusions on, slavish toady?
> means more than one shooter, Dud. And you know very well, the standard
> Lone Nut position concerning eyewitnesses, "they don't know shit..."
You seem to be saying those eyewitnesses can`t even count six
shots.
> Now these two NPIC guys are a whole different matter.... (You know the
> folks the FBI/SS ran to immediately to get their interpretation of the
> alleged Z-film)
What is this, jiggle analysis? Is it your contention that Zapruter
was flinching from shots he didn`t hear?
> would you like that drink freshened up, 'nother line or roll a dobbie
> the size of your thumb...? we aim (pardon the pun) to please
Why did you run from the question I asked you? You know, name a
Dealey witness who says they heard shots from multiple directions.
aeffects
sheeeeet Dud, you ever hear a 6.5mm round go off in Dealey Plaza? Hell
of a bang, I got to go with the slight majority of DP witnesses, the
knoll, Dud -- the KNOLL. Even give a a little on this one, how about
ther knoll and the TSBD, we'll make it a simple conspiracy, eh?
> > Now these two NPIC guys are a whole different matter.... (You know the
> > folks the FBI/SS ran to immediately to get their interpretation of the
> > alleged Z-film)
>
> What is this, jiggle analysis? Is it your contention that Zapruter
> was flinching from shots he didn`t hear?
oh Dud, c'mon -- these guys are the go-to folks when it comes to photo
interp... no sense you soundoing lie a rank amateur (unless of course
if you are :))
> > would you like that drink freshened up, 'nother line or roll a dobbie
> > the size of your thumb...? we aim (pardon the pun) to please
>
> Why did you run from the question I asked you? You know, name a
> Dealey witness who says they heard shots from multiple directions.
shit Dud, if 4-6+ shots were fired in DP (according to Horne's
interview with NPIC folks), I guess the simple starting point for your
answer is: 'from all directions....'. How does that *NOT* spell
conspiracy, Dud? We know you Nutter's think LHO is the second coming
of Sgt. York, hell, even Sgt York can't be 3 or 4 places at onetime,
can he? Perhaps in the Lone Nut fantasy world those kinds of things
are possible.... Just not reality Dud. You know, now that I think
about it, I do believe SSA Greer said something exactly like that to a
Washington D.C. cop upon his arrival at the WH night of the 22nd.....
know where'd I read that....? Greer close enough eye/ear/witness?
You ever figure out when FBI/SA Shaneyfelt numbered those Z-film
frames?
> ...
>
> read more >>
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Using McAdam's site, and only *HIS* opinion: Holland, Landis, Millican, and
Slack. I know this is more than just one person... take your pick.
>No cheating off Ben`s paper now...
Actually, I've never bothered to tabulate them. But I *do* enjoy pointing out
that the trolls simply don't know the evidence, and for the most part, can't be
bothered to look it up. You can check my reference at McAdams' site. I'm sure
everyone can find it.
aeffects
> In article <7d3ea9b3-e248-451d-8285-b2a26e71c...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
now there you go Dud, I speculate some.... another researcher pops in
with a few more ear WCR witnesses -- as old Harold Weisberg use to
say: "just pound'em over the head with the recorded WCR testimony..."
Oh, sorry for my typing errors, I gotta get another keyboard, this one
doesn't know spelling or syntax......
> ...
>
> read more >>
Ben Holmes
I wonder... will Buddy the troll dare to call McAdams a liar?
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Of *COURSE* it wasn't a joke.
I was quite serious. You put words in my mouth that I never said or even
implied, I was quite happy to do the same to you.
What part of that spells "joke" to you?
>>>> You've refrained from that activity since then, so you've obviously learned
>> >> something.
>>
>> >I haven't seen any child molestation jokes from you lately, but
>> >perhaps that's just a coincidence.
>>
>> Assert that I've said something I didn't say, and you'll see it again.
>> This is how you teach children & dogs. When they do something you dislike,
>> simply do something *they* dislike.
>
>Such as playing child molestation jokes on them?
No joke involved...
>> >> That makes it worthwhile.
>>
>> >To joke about child molestation?
>>
>> Who was joking?
>>
>> Did you assert something I'd never said?
>>
>> Did I return the favor and assert something you'd never said?
>>
>> Let's see how honest you can be...
>
>Your hypocrisy never fails to amaze. You can call my harmless satire a
>lie, but I'm not allowed call your reponse a joke?
I see you couldn't answer the simple questions... rather suspected as much.
As previously pointed out, you took a number of posts before you realized that
you could claim that it was "harmless satire." Real convincing, that.
But, to get back to the issue at hand.
Did you assert something I'd never said. The answer, despite your refusal to
give it, is "yes".
Did I return the favor and assert soemthing you'd never said? Again, despite
your refusal to address this, the answer is "yes".
>> >> >Or for spuriously calling me and other posters dishonest, liars,
>> >> >cowards, etc.?
>>
>> >> It's clearly not "spurious", since most times you refuse to even defend
>> >> yourself against my assertion that you're lying.
>>
>> >Those "assertions" are false and intended to mislead, but most people
>> >here are sophisticated enough to realize that you're a game player.
>>
>> Anytime you care to try defending an assertion that I've labeled a lie,
>> you can by all means do so.
>
>I refuse to waste huge amounts of time "defending" myself against your
>repeated misrepresentations and falsehoods, especially when they are
>as obvious as they usually are.
Sadly, that belief that they are "as obvious as they usually are" is quite
probably limited to yourself and LNT'er trolls who would swallow *anything* said
against me.
>>>> In the most recent example, Frazier CLEARLY specified a fragment, didn't he?
>>
>> >> He clearly was referring to a fragment speed that was *LOWER*
>> >> than a normal whole bullet that hadn't hit anything yet, right?
>>
>> >> And when Rob runs - rather than immediately retracts and corrects,
>> >> then yes indeed, he lied.
>>
>> >> Care to try to defend this most recent example as the truth, rather than
>> >> the lie that it was?
>>
>> >Forget Robcap. I wasn't talking about him.
>>
>>That was certainly the most recent example where I labeled someone a liar for a
>> lie told on the forum.
>
>So what? I was talking about your spurious/false claims.
Oh? I was under the impression that you were upset at my labeling people
"liars", and pointing out specific lies.
You refuse to address personal examples, and you refuse to address examples of
other posts... even as recent as the example I gave.
Why do LNT'ers run from specifics???
>> Sounds like you don't want to defend that particular lie. That's okay,
>> if you ever get around to debating the evidence, you'll sooner or later
>> end up in a position where you'll have the opportunity to defend yourself
>> again.
>
>I could say the same thing to you.
Then by all means, you have 45 questions to go... I see you've started on the
first one.
Tell me, have you tried asking *anyone* where they think such a trajectory would
exit the human head, given the type of ammo, the velocity of the ammo, the
firing point, and the entry on the head?
>> >> >Or for making claims of the "LN'ers routinely lie about the evidence"
>> >> >type?
>>
>> >> They do. It's necessary, since the evidence doesn't support the WCR. So
>>>> LNT'ers *MUST* disregard virtually all of the eyewitness testimony, and the
>> >> inconsistencies in the medical evidence in order to make their point.
>>
>> >Exactly how do these inconsistencies (and I mean the real ones, not
>> >those that are only perceived by you) prove that Oswald wasn't alone?
>>
>> Tell you what... why not go answer the 45 questions... if you can do so with
>>reasonable answers that are *NON* conspiratorial, you will have made your case.
>
>Why not just give us your best shot?
What, you want me to pick a single question from the 45? I'll await your
answer, and if you actually believe that you can answer a specified one, I'll be
happy to choose.
>>>> So why fight it? If you don't like your actions being *correctly* labeled,
>> >> by all means, go to the censored group.
>>
>> >You were the one complaining about ad hominems, hypocrite.
>>
>> I only correctly label it. Bugs you, doesn't it?
>
>More ad hominems. Thank you for making my point for me.
I can't help it if it bugs you that I correctly label lies and liars. Feel free
to post in the censored group instead.
>> >> >Or that you'll stop running from my reply (to your #1 question) in the
>> >> >"Final Proof" thread?
>>
>> >> You didn't reply... Bud did. There's a reason that he's killfiled - he
>> >> refuses to respond to my points. You can correctly point out that
>> >> whatever he just said is an absolute lie, and he'll just move on to
>> >> the next one.
>>
>> >Although my last post in that thread was technically a reply to Bud, I
>> >addressed you and your Question #1 quite a few times.
>>
>> I've already pointed out to you that while answering a point of Bud's
>> occasionally is not a complete waste, I have no intention of allowing the
>> killfilter to be eliminated by having you relay everything.
>>
>> Feel free to take anything Bud says, and post it to me IN YOUR OWN
>> WORDS... and be prepared to support it.
>
>I'm not going to repeat myself. Here's a link to the post:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f398bd0677ff6a84
Didn't pay attention to what I said, did you?
>> >Btw, I think we all know the real reason you killfiled Bud.
>>
>> By all means, prove it. Debate the evidence, instead of engaging in this
>> meaningless chitter chatter.
>
>See below.
>
>> >> Life is too short to deal with dishonest people...
>>
>> >> But tell us Mark - why do we always see you in these ad hominem type
>> >> posts, and never in the posts dealing with the evidence?
>>
>> >What happened the last time I debated evidentiary matters with you?
>>
>>You lost. You ran away... Self righteousness is easy when the topic of child
>> molestation comes up, isn't it?
>
>The last few times we discussed anything of an evidentiary nature, you
>defaulted by:
>
>a) talking about shooting me,
>b) joking about child molestation, or
>c) running away.
Feel free to post a cite to any of these threads... let lurkers judge for
themselves.
>You can't even admit why you had to killfile Bud.
Actually, I've repeated my reasoning a number of times...
>Tell me why it isn't
>a complete waste of time to play your games.
Because you don't have a choice. In order to persuade anyone to your point of
view, you *MUST* deal with the evidence. I present the evidence on this
forum... until you can explain the evidence in a non-conspiratorial way - you
can't evade real CT'ers.
Of course, if you have no intention of persuading anyone to your way of
thinking, then you really have no reason to "play my games", and you can feel
free to avoid responding to any of my posts.
Bud
> >> Yah, but I`m a straight and sober disgrace. But you can help cure
> >> my ignorance, and give me the name of one person in Dealey Plaza who
> >> said they heard shots come from two different directions (you know,
> >> the kook position).
>
> Using McAdam's site, and only *HIS* opinion: Holland, Landis, Millican, and
> Slack. I know this is more than just one person... take your pick.
So, you can count the witnesses who support the CT version of
multiple shooting locations on one hand, with a finger to spare.
Shockingly meager support.
> >No cheating off Ben`s paper now...
>
>
> Actually, I've never bothered to tabulate them. But I *do* enjoy pointing out
> that the trolls simply don't know the evidence, and for the most part, can't be
> bothered to look it up.
I knew there were witnesses who indicated shots from multiple
directions, and I knew i could find the information if I had a mind
to. I also knew your pet could not, which is why I put the challenge
to him.
cdddraftsman
> (Snipped his demunitive balls off)
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=6ia6f9&s=2
$64,000 question ? Who Didn't Kill JFK
The ' Loose Marbles' Website
********************************************
How Was He Able To Figure It Out ?
It's a much bigger mystery than the JFK Assassination itself !
If we were to adopt Tom Rossleys conclusions derived
from his Web Site , we would have to
conclude the following happened :
a) The assassination happened in more then one different
way . AAMOF It happened in many different ways
according to Rossley , depending on how
loose your head is screwed onto your
wobbly frame .
b) The shooter in the Walker incident got away .
c) The Killers of JD Tippit got away . All three of them
disappeared leaving no visible trace
d) The Killer of JFK got away .All of them disappeared
leaving no visible trace
e) The Killers of JD Tippit used 3 different guns
f) JBC shot JFK from the floor boards of the limo while
JFK was
' Trying To Cough Up A Bullet '
Rossley
" I'm Honored To Post His Video's "
g) Shots came from the overpass went through the windshield
and struck both JFK and JBC .
Or
Nellie Connally Shot JFK :
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/?action=view&cu...
Shall we " Think About It " ?
Or
h) Both JFK and JBC were shot from the front . from the grassy
knoll and don't worry about JFK's back wound , that bullet fell out
after penetrating only a shallow distance , which was then found on a
different stretcher , planted by Jack Ruby before anyone could of
known this bullet would be the ' one too many ' that would expose the
conspiracy .
i ) Although there is only evidence of one rifle being used , LHO
didn't buy that rifle , that didn't fire those thar shots , that
didn't
kill that thar Mr. Kennedy .
j ) All wounds on both JBC and JFK indicate that the shots came
from the front . Using the time tested method that says bullets
enter causing large gaping wounds and exit leaving small round
holes .
k ) Shots were fired in front of JFK to frame a patsy who was
shooting from behind JFK , in front of 500 witnesses , most who had
camera's that were whirling away with frightful rapidity . Although
the egress for the grassy knoll shooter was a sea of cars and Lee
Bowers never said directly he saw fleeing assassins , Rossley has
rousted several from the boxcars for us and paraded the mystery
tramps before our eye's Ala Bob Dylan superstar . .
l ) We can all rest assured , able to sleep peacefully at night ,
confident in our armed forces , wake refreshed and without a worry in
the world if we assume the Z-film , like most film that day , has
been altered and is fake .
m ) To top it all off and give all of this much more cosmic
relevance , this scenario was given to us by a commission , in which
some members hated each other but decided to bury the hatchet ' in
the nick of a tie ' , who were felons who obstructed justice ,
suborned
witnesses and altered , mangled , spindled and mutilated evidence and
testimony to come to the conclusion that no conspiracy happened at
all , elephants and jackasses alike all of them , who wanted to prove
no conspiracy yet left tons of evidence that pointed to conspiracy if
you use flawed reasoning and only the weak evidence in this case .
n ) If your feeling a little lost at this point , not to worry ,
Tom Rossley has assured us that he is correct in his assumptions ,
although he can't tell us how he knows when felons are telling him
the truth and when there lying to him , he again has a tried and true
method ( I assume ) of figuring out this titanical mess that he wants
to keep a secret . This also is a assumption , for as the bell
strikes noon today , Rossley will of been on a dead run from
answering any of these questions for two years now . This post
being written as sort of a anniversary message to the elect one who
has out thunk all the rest of us :-(
Well there you have it to the nth degree . If we can get that secret
pried out of him before he passes on to that great grassy knoll in
the sky , we will be able to set aside the scientific method ,
abandon classical thinking skills , shelve skeptical and critical
thinking skills , all being un-necessary as they are un-wanted and
un- needed , to answer the question ' Who Killed JFK ' and I quote
Rossley :
" In case McAdam's DON'T post this one . "
Care to post a comment Rossley ?
PS : Rossley is allowed to use the folllowing in rebuttal :
1) His 50 year old butt hair collection .
2) Sphinter s t r e t c h i n g devices from the Rosslium .
3) Napoleons Lost Penis ( If he can pry it out from between
those *Rubbery* lips of Gil .
4) His 55 gallon drum of sperm he secreted away in his
basement for emergency drinking water in
case he starts to sweat profusely .
5) Pictures of the zipper burns on his chin or any other
scranky , used like a dildo comments that a old
coot farting senile trucker sucker on the I-80
would care to use in answering
the question :
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=8vuav4&s=2
You may fire when ready home spun ' Buffdudster ' !
__________________________________________________
VIDEO'S ! : Mag30th : " The Pristine bullet " This Video is for "
GJJdude "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J45xnVcgTMY
Video's On The Assassination : With No Bogus Hot Air
Testiliars ......! :
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 1 6.5 Carcano, Oswald rifle :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACT0aKWEAow&mode=related&search=
Oswald assassinated JFK Part 2 Carcano 6 shots, 11 seconds :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPrI7JnsKeo&mode=related&search=
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 3 , Carcano 7 shots in 6.8 seconds :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-qQBl5ZuPc&mode=related&search=
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 4 Gov Connelly's position :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lCNLa8a4sk&mode=related&search=
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 5 "The Magic Bullet" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om05TQYyuUI&mode=related&search=
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 7, "The Badge Man" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adfkLKXmL6A
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 6 "The Magic Bullet" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOU3pvKkBU8
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 8 "Gordon Arnold" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NprUqYrLWVE&mode=user&search=
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 9 "Case against LHO" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c8DDEhg6WQ&mode=user&search=
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 10, The Tippit murder. :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpLkUp2j_mw&mode=user&search=
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 11, Brenanns testimony :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTW72kYE6Zc&mode=user&search=
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 12, Mac Wallace's fingerprint :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khA2XdGPQqk&mode=user&search=
Oswald assassinated JFK, Part 13, Head movement :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnYd2qgQnJk&mode=user&search=
Oswald shoot :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBeMaEwwvwU
The Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikIRB3lvFvw&mode=related&search=
Lining up the "magic" bullet :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kEh3Kgwhk0&mode=related&search=
Vincent Bugliosi - No Evidence for JFK / Oswald Conspiracies :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JktLkQbtVbE&mode=related&search=
__________________________________________________
( Picture a pair of balls being lifted off his chin with a crowbar
by his SheMale Aunt ' Tricky Trixey ' )
__________________________________________________
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=muxz4j&s=2
Justme : " Looking at you is enough to make anyone hurl "
TL : Hehehhehehhehe ! Aint that the truth ! :
_________________________________________
Just for a laugher ! :
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=4yfgwv7
_________________________________________
Six More Years Baby , Six More Years !
_________________________________________
Rossley breaks down and admits LHO killed
JFK all by his lonesome and many more startling
admissions by the worlds foremost authority on
' Who Didn't Kill JFK ' ! :
_________________________________________
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=4mrh5dd
Nikita Rossley " I'll Bury You With Insults "
_________________________________________
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?pic=63t0os5&s=1
In case McAdam's don't this one :
_________________________________________
This is for Rossley tendency to be collecting butt hair samples
for his huge collection at the butt end of every post !
Apparentlly He sells em in nickel bags along the I-80 !
_________________________________________
Rossley wanted for me to pass this along , just
" In Case McAdam's Don't Post This One "
http://tinypic.com/fullsize.php?
Bud
No answer? You aren`t referring to information you haven`t a
clue about, are you?
> > > means more than one shooter, Dud. And you know very well, the standard
> > > Lone Nut position concerning eyewitnesses, "they don't know shit..."
> >
> > You seem to be saying those eyewitnesses can`t even count six
> > shots.
>
> sheeeeet Dud, you ever hear a 6.5mm round go off in Dealey Plaza? Hell
> of a bang, I got to go with the slight majority of DP witnesses, the
> knoll, Dud -- the KNOLL. Even give a a little on this one, how about
> ther knoll and the TSBD, we'll make it a simple conspiracy, eh?
Marshal up those few remaining brain cells and focus. The witnesses
overwhelmingly indicate a single direction/location for the shots. The
LN position is that the shots came from a singular location. The kook
position is that the shots came from multiple locations. What the
witnesses indicate supports the LN position, as far as singular versus
multiple locations/directions for the shots.
> > > Now these two NPIC guys are a whole different matter.... (You know the
> > > folks the FBI/SS ran to immediately to get their interpretation of the
> > > alleged Z-film)
> >
> > What is this, jiggle analysis? Is it your contention that Zapruter
> > was flinching from shots he didn`t hear?
>
>
> oh Dud, c'mon -- these guys are the go-to folks when it comes to photo
> interp... no sense you soundoing lie a rank amateur (unless of course
> if you are :))
What did they see in the z-film that they interpreted as shots?
> > > would you like that drink freshened up, 'nother line or roll a dobbie
> > > the size of your thumb...? we aim (pardon the pun) to please
> >
> > Why did you run from the question I asked you? You know, name a
> > Dealey witness who says they heard shots from multiple directions.
>
>
> shit Dud, if 4-6+ shots were fired in DP (according to Horne's
> interview with NPIC folks), I guess the simple starting point for your
> answer is: 'from all directions....'. How does that *NOT* spell
> conspiracy, Dud?
C`mon, get that drug saturated sponge you call a brain working,
the witnesses in Dealey are largely reporting 3 shots from a singular
location/direction. I think they were right, but you kooks have to
call the witnesses mistaken, or liars.
> We know you Nutter's think LHO is the second coming
> of Sgt. York, hell, even Sgt York can't be 3 or 4 places at onetime,
> can he? Perhaps in the Lone Nut fantasy world those kinds of things
> are possible.... Just not reality Dud. You know, now that I think
> about it, I do believe SSA Greer said something exactly like that to a
> Washington D.C. cop upon his arrival at the WH night of the 22nd.....
> know where'd I read that....? Greer close enough eye/ear/witness?
This isn`t "Jeopardy" stoner, you don`t have to phrase your answer
in the form of a question. Ben answered for you, as I thought he
might. You can go back to your drug induced stupor...
> You ever figure out when FBI/SA Shaneyfelt numbered those Z-film
> frames?
Hell, you can throw the z-film out if you like, it`s only been a
source of misrepresentation and misinterpretation on the part of the
kooks anyway. I don`t need the z-film to figure out who killed JFK.
David Von Pein
Actually, .John has one more than that somewhere in there (for a total
of 5 "two direction" witnesses out of 104 total witnesses in the
"Definitive Tabulation" at McAdams site)...that equates to a whopping
4.8% of all witnesses who had an opinion as to the directionality of
the gunshots).
Which means that 95.2% of the remaining witnesses (99 of the 104 in
that tabulation) heard shots from just a SINGLE general location in
Dealey Plaza. .....
David Von Pein
that were coming by my right ear, I would hear a different sound. I
heard shots coming from--I wouldn't know which direction to say--but
it was proven from the Texas Book Depository. And they all sounded
alike; there was no different sound at all." -- Abraham Zapruder; 1967
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
> >Or for spuriously calling me and other posters dishonest, liars,
> >cowards, etc.?
>
> It's clearly not "spurious", since most times you refuse to even defend yourself
> against my assertion that you're lying.
>
> In the most recent example, Frazier CLEARLY specified a fragment, didn't he?
>
> He clearly was referring to a fragment speed that was *LOWER* than a normal
> whole bullet that hadn't hit anything yet, right?
What the hell does this mean? You are crazy. He said a fragment that
was at a "fairly high velocity", how is this *LOWER* than a bullet
from a medium-to-low velocity rifle? Fairly high beats medium to low
in my book, you obviously have a different book.
>
> And when Rob runs - rather than immediately retracts and corrects, then yes
> indeed, he lied.
I like how you bury this in here. I don't remember running from you
and if you mean retracts as I making a mistake going back and forth
from Word to to History Matters and admitting it, then you are futher
out of the neighborhood than I already thought you were.
>
> Care to try to defend this most recent example as the truth, rather than the lie
> that it was?
It wasn't a lie, you are to slow to know what I was saying.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 28, 10:04 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com>
>wrote:
>
>> >Or for spuriously calling me and other posters dishonest, liars,
>> >cowards, etc.?
>>
>> It's clearly not "spurious", since most times you refuse to even defend
>> yourself against my assertion that you're lying.
>>
>> In the most recent example, Frazier CLEARLY specified a fragment, didn't he?
>>
>> He clearly was referring to a fragment speed that was *LOWER* than a normal
>> whole bullet that hadn't hit anything yet, right?
>
>What the hell does this mean?
It means exactly what Frazier was testifying to, of course. See below for the
relevant testimony.
>You are crazy.
Yep... most LNT'ers and all trolls would agree with that assessment. Seems
rather funny to be labeled "crazy" for merely stating (and stating *correctly*)
what a witness said in testimony.
If I'm "crazy" for merely being accurate about Frazier's testimony - what would
you call someone who lies about it?
(Obviously rhetorical, I plan on witnessing the next ice age before you answer
that one...)
>He said a fragment that was at a "fairly high velocity", how is this
>*LOWER* than a bullet from a medium-to-low velocity rifle?
How is it lower than the rate of heroin addiction among DEA agents?
Oops... Frazier never said anything about DEA agents, did he?
Nor did he say anything about "medium-to-low velocity rifle[s]", did he?
Let's see what he *ACTUALLY* said:
Mr. DULLES - I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the indentation in the
chrome around the windshield at the top of the windshield, but on the inside,
could that have been caused by a fragment of a bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it very easily could have. IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CAUSED, FOR
INSTANCE, BY A BULLET WHICH WAS TRAVELING AT ITS FULL VELOCITY FROM A RIFLE, BUT
MERELY FROM A FRAGMENT TRAVELING AT FAIRLY HIGH VELOCITY which struck the inside
surface of the chrome.
Mr. DULLES - Could that have been caused by any of the fragments that you have
identified as having been found on the front seat or near the front seat of the
car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I believe it could have by either, in fact, of the two
fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat.
Frazier clearly is discussing "fairly high velocity" IN RELATION TO a bullet
traveling "at its full velocity".
Rob - you're going to keep looking more and more stupid and dishonest until you
take the time to read the underlying testimony that you won't find in the WCR.
If you don't know where to go, try this:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm
>Fairly high beats medium to low
>in my book, you obviously have a different book.
"fairly hight velocity" also beats a tortoise. But unfortunately, a tortoise,
just like your "medium to low" velocity bullet, doesn't exist in Frazier's
testimony.
>> And when Rob runs - rather than immediately retracts and corrects, then yes
>> indeed, he lied.
>
>I like how you bury this in here.
Buried??? It was stated in the very first repost I made... see below for exact
quotes...
>I don't remember running from you
Indeed you did. I had to repost the original before you'd respond to it.
Here's the is the first few paragraphs of the ORIGINAL actual post from Nov
26th:
***********************************************************************
Rob is evidently running from this one... so I'm reposting it in it's entirety
to see if Rob has the honesty to respond - WITHOUT ANY SNIPPING WHATSOEVER - and
correct the false statements he made about what the WCR said.
The WCR is a prosecution brief, and it has provable lies about it's own
testimony in it - but Rob doesn't indict the WCR for this - he misrepresents
what the WCR said in order to try to indict it.
Why would you do this Rob? There's plenty of *LEGITIMATE* criticism possible
with the WCR. Why do you need to lie about what they said? *ANYONE* can turn
to page 77 of the WCR and see for themselves.
***********************************************************************
And although Rob tries to claim I "buried" this comment - implying that I've
never said it before - the original wasn't the only place I put this. Here, for
example, is another place I've previously mentioned this:
***********************************************************************
>I typed one wrong thing while going back and forth and he calls me a
>liar.
No Rob, I called you a liar because you misquoted the WCR, and tried to base an
argument on your misrepresentation of the WCR's characterization of Frazier's
testimony.
You simply lied. You lied about it being a full bullet rather than a fragment,
and you lied about the "high velocity" by not providing the *real* quote which
made it clear that "high velocity" was in relation to the original FULL VELOCITY
of a bullet...
Then it took a repost of the post before you would answer it, and you STILL
didn't simply admit that you misquoted the WCR.
When you have to lie about the evidence in order to make an argument, the only
argument you've just won is whether or not you can be trusted to accurately
depict the evidence.
***********************************************************************
So yes, Rob, you *were* running away. I just had no intention of allowing you
to do so. Thus my repost. And I would have *continued* reposting it. Toddy,
Tony, and Martin can attest to that.
>and if you mean retracts as I making a mistake going back and forth
>from Word to to History Matters and admitting it, then you are futher
>out of the neighborhood than I already thought you were.
Why bother to respond here, Rob? You *know* from past experience that I'm only
going to cite, and quote, and demonstrate your dishonesty.
>> Care to try to defend this most recent example as the truth, rather than
>> the lie that it was?
>
>It wasn't a lie, you are to slow to know what I was saying.
It clearly *was* a lie, since Frazier never said what you asserted he had. You
even based your argument about multiple bullets around his supposed statements.
When this became obvious to you, you took a different tack and started labeling
Frazier a liar. (I could be mistaken, of course... can you cite *any* reference
by you of Frazier being a liar prior to Nov 26?)
aeffects
dudster, listen up chump, you're wasting my time, this boards time and
most importantly your time -- Lone Nutters do NOT believe in
eyewitness testimony... get with the program....
> ...
>
> read more >>
David Von Pein
>>> "Dudster, listen up chump, you're [Not a 'sic'! Take a picture of this, kids!] wasting my time..." <<<
Yeah, how silly of Bud. Healy's got no time for CS&L. His next near-
overdose awaits him.
Stop cutting into Healy's crack time, Bud, will ya?
>>> "Lone Nutters do NOT believe in eyewitness testimony." <<<
Lookie, Healy gets another one wrong.
To put things straight.....
A reasonable person (e.g., an "LNer", usually) will evaluate and weigh
the eyewitness/earwitness testimony to see if it's worthy of belief or
disbelief.
If the witness saw or heard things that are corroborated by OTHER
(harder, physical) evidence, then it's much more likely that that
witness is correct. (I think we're all in agreement there, right?
Maybe even the kooks.)
Example:
All of the Tippit witnesses who fingered Oswald (approx. 13 of them in
total). They saw something (Oswald at the murder scene) that is backed
up by other evidence (i.e., Oz's bullet shells strewn on the Davis
lawn). It's therefore very unlikely that those witnesses are wrong
about what they saw.
Example:
Howard Brennan. He saw something (Oswald shooting a rifle at JFK's
car) that is backed up by TONS of other, harder evidence....gun,
shells, bullets, prints, fibers, and flight from the murder scene.
Given this non-Brennan evidence, the odds that Howard saw anyone up in
that window with a gun OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald are almost non-
existent.
An example in the other direction (i.e., toward NOT believing certain
witnesses):
The Parkland "BOH" witnesses. These witnesses have ZERO pieces of
solid, hard evidence to back them up (regardless of how many such
"BOH" witnesses there are).
The autopsy X-rays, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, the
autopsists themselves, the Zapruder Film, and the ballistics evidence
(which all leads to one gun--Oswald's--which was to the REAR of
President Kennedy when the head shot occurred) tell a reasonable
person that, amazing as it might seem, ALL of the Parkland "BOH"
witnesses (and, incredibly, the few Bethesda "BOH" witnesses too),
were 100% wrong about there being a big, gaping hole in the back of
JFK's cranium on November 22, 1963.
~Dons flameproof gear~
~Awaits Rob-Kook (et al) and the non-stop barrage of CT Kookshit that
always follows a logical LN post~
~Won't have to worry about a retort from Healy-Kook, however, since
the best that that crackhead is capable of is: "Sitdown [sic; as if
"sit down" is a single word], hon! VB's RC [sic] is toast".~
aeffects
> >>> "Dudster, listen up chump, you're [Not a 'sic'! Take a picture of this, kids!] wasting my time..." <<<
>
> Yeah, how silly of Bud. Healy's got no time for CS&L. His next near-
> overdose awaits him.
>
> Stop cutting into Healy's crack time, Bud, will ya?
>
> >>> "Lone Nutters do NOT believe in eyewitness testimony." <<<
>
> Lookie, Healy gets another one wrong.
Dave you gott'a get off them knees... this is looking worse and worse,
you've had enough bad PR lately..... now you're wasting MY time.....
On top of that, I'm the only one that talks to you freaks of
nature..... what a sad state of Lone Nut affairs.... the Nutter's are
wasting away to nothing.... even dusting of ole Jaynes.... sheeeesh
this board is left with the bottom of the Lone Nut barrel... Lesbians
doing the heavy lifting for Von peaBrain and his Lone Nut peanut
gallery.... LMFAO!
Hope upon hope is the 700 page rewrite of RH......what you fools
needed was a competent editor.....
Bud
Yah?
> listen up chump,
Listening.
> you're wasting my time,
You seem to have plenty of time to make inane comments, but none to
discuss the case. Isn`t it you who berates Sam for not discussing the
case?
> this boards time and
> most importantly your time -- Lone Nutters do NOT believe in
> eyewitness testimony...
I pointed out that the witnesses overwhelming support the LN
position that the shots came from a single source, a point you`ve yet
to touch. Remember, the kook position needs witnesses reporting shots
from multiple directions.
> get with the program....
Get into a rehab program.
David Von Pein
It's only going to include Chapter One of RH, kook. Nothing else.
So, you got another one wrong. What a surprise.
>>> "What you fools needed was a competent editor." <<<
What you need is an embalmer. (Or at least a non-C2766 bullet
someplace. Don't you think that might aid your pathetic and withering
CT cause a little?)