Facts LNT"ers Simply *Hate*
Ben Holmes
in this series. (I don't count the trolls, of course)
I'll repost this series again in the future - since it's funny to see dead
silence from the LNT'er crowd.
Embarrassing, too...
David Von Pein
woodwork to attempt to "debunk" each and every one of his "Ben-Kook
35"....that means a conspiracy is still alive and well.
The plain truth of the matter is that ANY kook can easily pick apart
the Warren Report (they've had ample time, and desire, to do this of
course) and then isolate some things that (on the surface) appear to
lead down Conspiracy Avenue. But what these CTers fail to EVER do is
place those isolated items back into a COHESIVE WHOLE that adds up to
a logical and reasonable and workable and DOABLE "Assassination
Conspiracy Plot To Kill JFK".
Have we EVER seen such a COHESIVE WHOLE from the CTers? Ever? I sure
haven't. Their theories are scattershot and piecemeal (at best); and
utterly laughable (at worst).
A good case in point is Ben's constant harping on Officer James Chaney
of the DPD. Ben's exact question for LNers (via his "21 Questions"
series a while back) was this:
"Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just
coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was
never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?" --
B. Holmes
Per Ben, Chaney ALONE could easily have debunked the SBT with his
testimony...testimony that was never elicited by the WC, of
course....so how Ben KNOWS what Chaney would have said to the WC is
anyone's guess.
But Ben, in all his kooky grandeur, announces to the world that the
"SBT is dead via Chaney alone!" (paraphrasing the kook there).
Of course, only a true kook of the First Order would make such a
stupid and incorrect declaration to the masses; because Chaney's (non)-
testimony does not debunk the SBT in any way, shape, or form. (That is
to say that what Chaney told non-WC people in interviews after the
assassination does not indicate in any way that the SBT has had its
legs knocked out from under it. To think that Chaney HAS, by himself,
accomplished that task re. the SBT is just silly to begin with.)
But that's a perfect example of how these CT-Kooks will "handle" the
evidence (or even the NON-evidence in Chaney's instance, since he
never was called to testify). The CTers will manipulate things to the
maximum degree of distortion, in order to promote their non-existent
conspiracy.
We've learned to expect this type of CT deception and the oddball CTer
skewing of CS&L by now, of course....because we're dealing with people
(like Ben Holmes) who probably could not continue to exist without a
conspiracy of some kind to latch onto daily.
And, of course, I myself have already dealt with a lengthy series of
CT questions from "Ben The List Maker". And so has Bud (several times
in fact). And Bud has approached the questions with his usual blend of
perfectly-reasonable CS&L and kook-bashing humor; which I've tried to
do as well in the following Q&A session that perhaps Ben has forgotten
about completely. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6db9ac1c27e26e32
aeffects
> Ben seems to actually think that if LNers don't crawl out of the
> woodwork to attempt to "debunk" each and every one of his "Ben-Kook
> 35"....that means a conspiracy is still alive and well.
>
> The plain truth of the matter is that ANY kook can easily pick apart
> the Warren Report (they've had ample time, and desire, to do this of
> course) and then isolate some things that (on the surface) appear to
> lead down Conspiracy Avenue. But what these CTers fail to EVER do is
> place those isolated items back into a COHESIVE WHOLE that adds up to
> a logical and reasonable and workable and DOABLE "Assassination
> Conspiracy Plot To Kill JFK".
>
> Have we EVER seen such a COHESIVE WHOLE from the CTers? Ever? I sure
> haven't. Their theories are scattershot and piecemeal (at best); and
> utterly laughable (at worst).
>
> A good case in point is Ben's constant harping on Officer James Chaney
> of the DPD. Ben's exact question for LNers (via his "21 Questions"
> series a while back) was this:
>
> "Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just
> coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was
> never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?" --
> B. Holmes
>
You better get Bugliosi on that little gem... we wouldn't want him
embarassed on his initial book tour.
David Von Pein
just as well gone around with a large sign on his back declaring in
bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!!" --
Vincent Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~
"Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was
innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow
speaking the Spanish language!" -- VB
~~~~~~~~
"You could throw 80% of the evidence against him {Oswald} out the
window and there would still be more than enough left to convince any
reasonable person of his sole role in the crime. .... The Warren
Commission looked at a tremendous amount of evidence and concluded
that Oswald acted alone. I've studied the evidence, and I agree." --
VB
~~~~~~~~
"I think it's very, very noteworthy that before this five-hour {TV}
trial, 85% of the American people believed in a conspiracy. And being
exposed to only five hours, it dropped dramatically to 71. If they had
seen the eighteen hours of testimony and evidence, it would drop even
further. And if they knew all the truth about the case, very few
people would conclude that there was a conspiracy." -- VB
~~~~~~~~
"For the most part the persistent rantings of the Warren Commission
critics remind me of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights."
-- VB
~~~~~~~~
"Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more
romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise.
Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- VB
~~~~~~~~
"I've read every book that's been published since 1964, and 85% of
them feel that there's been a conspiracy of some kind. My book will
tell the other side, and I feel I'm equipped to do it." -- VB
~~~~~~~~
"With respect to whether or not any shots were fired from the Grassy
Knoll, I want to make the following observations -- firstly, it is
perfectly understandable that the witnesses were confused as to the
origin of fire. Not only does Dealey Plaza resound with echoes, but
here you have a situation of completely-unexpected shots over just a
matter of a few moments.
"When you compound all of that with the fact that the witnesses were
focusing their attention on the President of the United States driving
by, a mesmerizing event for many of them....and the chaos, the
hysteria, the bedlam that engulfed the assassination scene....it's
remarkable that there was any coherence at all to what they thought
they saw and heard.
"Human observation, notoriously unreliable under even the most optimum
situation, HAS to give way to hard, scientific evidence. And we do
have indisputable, scientific evidence in this case that the bullets
which struck President Kennedy came from his rear, not his front." --
VB
~~~~~~~~
"We know that the two large bullet fragments found inside the
Presidential limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's
rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
"We also know that the three expended cartridge casings found on the
floor, right beneath that sixth-floor window -- undoubtedly the same
casings that Mr. Norman heard fall from above -- were fired in, and
ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon....that caused that
terrible, terrible spray of brain matter to the front!!" -- VB
~~~~~~~~
"The shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs finally penetrated the
consciousness of the American people and convinced the majority of
Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even though the reality is that
no one has come up with one scrap of credible, substantive evidence
pointing in the direction of a conspiracy." -- VB
~~~~~~~~
"IF THERE'S ONE THING I TAKE PRIDE IN, IT'S THAT I NEVER, EVER MAKE A
CHARGE WITHOUT SUPPORTING IT. YOU MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH ME, BUT I
INVARIABLY OFFER AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SUPPORT FOR MY POSITION." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> It was interesting to note that no LNT'er was willing to answer any of the posts
> in this series. (I don't count the trolls, of course)
Thats ok, we didn`t think much of your questions anyway.
> I'll repost this series again in the future - since it's funny to see dead
> silence from the LNT'er crowd.
They were answered last time you posted them, knucklehead. And just
who is this LN "crowd" you don`t consider trolls?
> Embarrassing, too...
For you, certainly.