info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #18
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Apr 12, 2018, 9:52:06 AM4/12/18
to
Once again, David offers "evidence" that doesn't show the guilt of
ANYONE AT ALL, let alone the "sole guilt" of someone.
David simply can't even *support*, let alone prove, what he claims.
> 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
> has still not been proven to be an impossibility. The Zapruder film
> shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the correct scenario of events
> that day.
>
> Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
> an identical time, just after Zapruder frame 224. Unfortunately, that
> damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during what might be a
> critical point on the film. It can therefore never be determined by
> anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
> earlier than Z224. But, based on the available evidence, the SBT
> (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
> certainly cannot be said to be false.
Even *IF* the SBT were an historical event, the only thing it
accomplishes is to allow someone behind JFK to fire *only* three
shots. That still fails to account for Connally being hit on the wrist
side of his hand.
But the EVIDENCE is against the SBT. As even the Warren Commission
acknowledged, the extant Zapruder film shows Connally being hit later
than JFK, but too soon to be a followup shot from the Mannlicher
Carcano.
Now let's look at David's claim in more detail:
> 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
> has still not been proven to be an impossibility.
Of course it has.
The very *FIRST* thing you need to accomplish is to demonstrate that a
bullet *transited* JFK. This has never been done. Indeed, it was
merely a *speculation* that came about ***AFTER*** the autopsy was
over.
Next, you'd have to convert an entry wound in JFK's throat into an
exit wound. This can be done with the "shored" argument - except that
the bullet wound is *ABOVE* the collar & tie.
Then you'd have to have a ballistics test that showed that a bullet
could travel fast enough to break the bones that were broken, yet slow
enough not to be disfigured.
THIS WAS **NEVER** ACCOMPLISHED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION.
Indeed, the tests performed by the Warren Commission showed SEVERE
deformation in a bullet that only broke a wrist bone...
> The Zapruder film shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the
> correct scenario of events that day.
This is a BLATANT lie on David's part. The Warren Commission was
forced to speculate about "delayed reactions" on Connally's part in
order to make the SBT "work."
Connally himself never bought it - he viewed the film many times, and
pinpointed where he believed that he'd been shot.
And indeed, if you REMOVE COMPLETELY the requirement of having the SBT
in order to avoid the necessity of a second gunman, no-one would be
arguing the SBT today.
It fails every possible test.
James Chaney, the closest eyewitness to the shooting, clearly asserted
that a SEPARATE shot had hit Connally. The Warren Commission was
TERRIFIED of having this testimony on the record, so they simply never
asked him a *SINGLE QUESTION*.
And try as they might, no believer has EVER offered a credible reason
for not calling James Chaney.
So the *FILM* shows a delay... the closest WITNESS asserts a multiple
shot scenario, and Connally himself, a shooting victim himself,
pointed to another point on the film. **HE** didn't believe in the
SBT, he didn't believe the film supported the SBT.
Who is David to contradict Connally and the Warren Commission?
> Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
> an identical time,
That's a lie, and David knows it. He's DESPERATE to imply that they
were reacting AT THE SAME TIME, but David knows that to say this would
be **TOO MUCH** of an obvious lie. So he merely implies it with the
weasel word "virtually".
He knows FOR A FACT that it would be COMPLETELY consistent with the
evidence to state that "Kennnedy and Connally reacted to their
respective first bullet strike not the same time."
But the truth doesn't serve his purpose... so David simply turns to a
lie.
But unlike his website, and Johnny's censored forum, there's nothing
here to protect him from people able to point out when he's lying.
>just after Zapruder frame 224.
This is actually a relatively new claim, going back a decade or so.
Before that, no-one ever made the claim that Connally was showing
signs of being hit at Z-224. (What they all said was "delayed
reaction.")
Nor is 224 even *possible*. JFK is already in the process of reacting
to a shot, and given reaction times, meant that he'd been shot a
number of frames *BEFORE* 224.
And by pegging Connally's shooting to Z-224 - David has ABSOLUTELY NO
EXPLANATION AT ALL for the later violent exhaling he did as a bullet
compressed his chest.
Indeed, I've *NEVER* seen a believer address this fact.
> Unfortunately, that damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during
> what might be a critical point on the film.
We know enough to put the shot *earlier* than Z-224.
> It can therefore never be determined by
> anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
> earlier than Z224.
But we know that **BY** Z-224 he was ALREADY REACTING. Which is a
physical impossibility had he been shot at that frame.
> But, based on the available evidence,
You've cited *none.* And lied about others...
> the SBT (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
> certainly cannot be said to be false.
Sure it can.
*I* say it.
You can't give a credible explanation for all the problems of the SBT.
Starting from the very beginning, YOU HAVE NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR A
TRANSIT OF A BULLET THROUGH JFK.
Period.
End of story.
ANYONE AT ALL, let alone the "sole guilt" of someone.
David simply can't even *support*, let alone prove, what he claims.
> 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
> has still not been proven to be an impossibility. The Zapruder film
> shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the correct scenario of events
> that day.
>
> Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
> an identical time, just after Zapruder frame 224. Unfortunately, that
> damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during what might be a
> critical point on the film. It can therefore never be determined by
> anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
> earlier than Z224. But, based on the available evidence, the SBT
> (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
> certainly cannot be said to be false.
Even *IF* the SBT were an historical event, the only thing it
accomplishes is to allow someone behind JFK to fire *only* three
shots. That still fails to account for Connally being hit on the wrist
side of his hand.
But the EVIDENCE is against the SBT. As even the Warren Commission
acknowledged, the extant Zapruder film shows Connally being hit later
than JFK, but too soon to be a followup shot from the Mannlicher
Carcano.
Now let's look at David's claim in more detail:
> 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
> has still not been proven to be an impossibility.
Of course it has.
The very *FIRST* thing you need to accomplish is to demonstrate that a
bullet *transited* JFK. This has never been done. Indeed, it was
merely a *speculation* that came about ***AFTER*** the autopsy was
over.
Next, you'd have to convert an entry wound in JFK's throat into an
exit wound. This can be done with the "shored" argument - except that
the bullet wound is *ABOVE* the collar & tie.
Then you'd have to have a ballistics test that showed that a bullet
could travel fast enough to break the bones that were broken, yet slow
enough not to be disfigured.
THIS WAS **NEVER** ACCOMPLISHED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION.
Indeed, the tests performed by the Warren Commission showed SEVERE
deformation in a bullet that only broke a wrist bone...
> The Zapruder film shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the
> correct scenario of events that day.
This is a BLATANT lie on David's part. The Warren Commission was
forced to speculate about "delayed reactions" on Connally's part in
order to make the SBT "work."
Connally himself never bought it - he viewed the film many times, and
pinpointed where he believed that he'd been shot.
And indeed, if you REMOVE COMPLETELY the requirement of having the SBT
in order to avoid the necessity of a second gunman, no-one would be
arguing the SBT today.
It fails every possible test.
James Chaney, the closest eyewitness to the shooting, clearly asserted
that a SEPARATE shot had hit Connally. The Warren Commission was
TERRIFIED of having this testimony on the record, so they simply never
asked him a *SINGLE QUESTION*.
And try as they might, no believer has EVER offered a credible reason
for not calling James Chaney.
So the *FILM* shows a delay... the closest WITNESS asserts a multiple
shot scenario, and Connally himself, a shooting victim himself,
pointed to another point on the film. **HE** didn't believe in the
SBT, he didn't believe the film supported the SBT.
Who is David to contradict Connally and the Warren Commission?
> Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
> an identical time,
That's a lie, and David knows it. He's DESPERATE to imply that they
were reacting AT THE SAME TIME, but David knows that to say this would
be **TOO MUCH** of an obvious lie. So he merely implies it with the
weasel word "virtually".
He knows FOR A FACT that it would be COMPLETELY consistent with the
evidence to state that "Kennnedy and Connally reacted to their
respective first bullet strike not the same time."
But the truth doesn't serve his purpose... so David simply turns to a
lie.
But unlike his website, and Johnny's censored forum, there's nothing
here to protect him from people able to point out when he's lying.
>just after Zapruder frame 224.
This is actually a relatively new claim, going back a decade or so.
Before that, no-one ever made the claim that Connally was showing
signs of being hit at Z-224. (What they all said was "delayed
reaction.")
Nor is 224 even *possible*. JFK is already in the process of reacting
to a shot, and given reaction times, meant that he'd been shot a
number of frames *BEFORE* 224.
And by pegging Connally's shooting to Z-224 - David has ABSOLUTELY NO
EXPLANATION AT ALL for the later violent exhaling he did as a bullet
compressed his chest.
Indeed, I've *NEVER* seen a believer address this fact.
> Unfortunately, that damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during
> what might be a critical point on the film.
We know enough to put the shot *earlier* than Z-224.
> It can therefore never be determined by
> anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
> earlier than Z224.
But we know that **BY** Z-224 he was ALREADY REACTING. Which is a
physical impossibility had he been shot at that frame.
> But, based on the available evidence,
You've cited *none.* And lied about others...
> the SBT (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
> certainly cannot be said to be false.
Sure it can.
*I* say it.
You can't give a credible explanation for all the problems of the SBT.
Starting from the very beginning, YOU HAVE NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR A
TRANSIT OF A BULLET THROUGH JFK.
Period.
End of story.
Bud
Apr 12, 2018, 6:36:43 PM4/12/18
to
On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:52:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Once again, David offers "evidence" that doesn't show the guilt of
> ANYONE AT ALL, let alone the "sole guilt" of someone.
>
> David simply can't even *support*, let alone prove, what he claims.
>
> > 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
> > has still not been proven to be an impossibility. The Zapruder film
> > shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the correct scenario of events
> > that day.
> >
> > Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
> > an identical time, just after Zapruder frame 224. Unfortunately, that
> > damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during what might be a
> > critical point on the film. It can therefore never be determined by
> > anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
> > earlier than Z224. But, based on the available evidence, the SBT
> > (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
> > certainly cannot be said to be false.
>
> Even *IF* the SBT were an historical event, the only thing it
> accomplishes is to allow someone behind JFK to fire *only* three
> shots. That still fails to account for Connally being hit on the wrist
> side of his hand.
Ben is, of course, lying, and the SBT does account for that wound.
> Once again, David offers "evidence" that doesn't show the guilt of
> ANYONE AT ALL, let alone the "sole guilt" of someone.
>
> David simply can't even *support*, let alone prove, what he claims.
>
> > 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
> > has still not been proven to be an impossibility. The Zapruder film
> > shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the correct scenario of events
> > that day.
> >
> > Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
> > an identical time, just after Zapruder frame 224. Unfortunately, that
> > damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during what might be a
> > critical point on the film. It can therefore never be determined by
> > anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
> > earlier than Z224. But, based on the available evidence, the SBT
> > (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
> > certainly cannot be said to be false.
>
> Even *IF* the SBT were an historical event, the only thing it
> accomplishes is to allow someone behind JFK to fire *only* three
> shots. That still fails to account for Connally being hit on the wrist
> side of his hand.
> But the EVIDENCE is against the SBT. As even the Warren Commission
> acknowledged, the extant Zapruder film shows Connally being hit later
> than JFK,
https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
Let Ben look at this clip and tell you why you shouldn`t conclude that what you are seeing is two men being struck by one bullet.
> but too soon to be a followup shot from the Mannlicher
> Carcano.
>
> Now let's look at David's claim in more detail:
>
> > 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
> > has still not been proven to be an impossibility.
>
> Of course it has.
> The very *FIRST* thing you need to accomplish is to demonstrate that a
> bullet *transited* JFK. This has never been done. Indeed, it was
> merely a *speculation*
> that came about ***AFTER*** the autopsy was
> over.
> Next, you'd have to convert an entry wound in JFK's throat into an
> exit wound.
>This can be done with the "shored" argument - except that
> the bullet wound is *ABOVE* the collar & tie.
> Then you'd have to have a ballistics test that showed that a bullet
> could travel fast enough to break the bones that were broken, yet slow
> enough not to be disfigured.
Secondly, notice the bar is set impossibly high. Has anyone ever seen such a criteria used in any other murder case, to show that every wound could be caused by a bullet that looks just like the one in evidence?
> THIS WAS **NEVER** ACCOMPLISHED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION.
> Indeed, the tests performed by the Warren Commission showed SEVERE
> deformation in a bullet that only broke a wrist bone...
> > The Zapruder film shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the
> > correct scenario of events that day.
>
> This is a BLATANT lie on David's part. The Warren Commission was
> forced to speculate about "delayed reactions" on Connally's part in
> order to make the SBT "work."
https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
And all this crying about "speculation", isn`t it only speculation that you should be able to tell the exact 18th of a second someone is hit in a grainy home movie?
> Connally himself never bought it - he viewed the film many times, and
> pinpointed where he believed that he'd been shot.
> And indeed, if you REMOVE COMPLETELY the requirement of having the SBT
> in order to avoid the necessity of a second gunman, no-one would be
> arguing the SBT today.
> It fails every possible test.
> James Chaney, the closest eyewitness to the shooting, clearly asserted
> that a SEPARATE shot had hit Connally.
> The Warren Commission was
> TERRIFIED of having this testimony on the record, so they simply never
> asked him a *SINGLE QUESTION*.
> And try as they might, no believer has EVER offered a credible reason
> for not calling James Chaney.
> So the *FILM* shows a delay...
>the closest WITNESS asserts a multiple
> shot scenario, and Connally himself, a shooting victim himself,
> pointed to another point on the film. **HE** didn't believe in the
> SBT, he didn't believe the film supported the SBT.
>
> Who is David to contradict Connally and the Warren Commission?
>
> > Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
> > an identical time,
>
> That's a lie, and David knows it.
https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
> He's DESPERATE to imply that they
> were reacting AT THE SAME TIME, but David knows that to say this would
> be **TOO MUCH** of an obvious lie. So he merely implies it with the
> weasel word "virtually".
> He knows FOR A FACT that it would be COMPLETELY consistent with the
> evidence to state that "Kennnedy and Connally reacted to their
> respective first bullet strike not the same time."
https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
It looks exactly like two men being hit by the same bullet.
> But the truth doesn't serve his purpose... so David simply turns to a
> lie.
> But unlike his website, and Johnny's censored forum, there's nothing
> here to protect him from people able to point out when he's lying.
>
> >just after Zapruder frame 224.
>
> This is actually a relatively new claim, going back a decade or so.
> Before that, no-one ever made the claim that Connally was showing
> signs of being hit at Z-224. (What they all said was "delayed
> reaction.")
>
> Nor is 224 even *possible*. JFK is already in the process of reacting
> to a shot, and given reaction times, meant that he'd been shot a
> number of frames *BEFORE* 224.
> And by pegging Connally's shooting to Z-224 - David has ABSOLUTELY NO
> EXPLANATION AT ALL for the later violent exhaling he did as a bullet
> compressed his chest.
> Indeed, I've *NEVER* seen a believer address this fact.
> > Unfortunately, that damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during
> > what might be a critical point on the film.
>
> We know enough to put the shot *earlier* than Z-224.
Again, in their desperation to contest the SBT with the two men instantaneously by one bullet they have to posit the two men stuck by two bullets very, very, very, very, very, very nearly instantaneously. And when you are forced to take a position that absurd, it just illustrates that you just don`t want to accept the reality of the event.
> > It can therefore never be determined by
> > anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
> > earlier than Z224.
>
> But we know that **BY** Z-224 he was ALREADY REACTING. Which is a
> physical impossibility had he been shot at that frame.
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z224.jpg
> > But, based on the available evidence,
>
> You've cited *none.* And lied about others...
>
>
> > the SBT (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
> > certainly cannot be said to be false.
>
> Sure it can.
>
> *I* say it.
>
> You can't give a credible explanation for all the problems of the SBT.
> Starting from the very beginning, YOU HAVE NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR A
> TRANSIT OF A BULLET THROUGH JFK.
> Period.
>
> End of story.
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2018, 10:54:46 AM4/23/18
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:36:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:52:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Once again, David offers "evidence" that doesn't show the guilt of
>> ANYONE AT ALL, let alone the "sole guilt" of someone.
>>
>> David simply can't even *support*, let alone prove, what he claims.
>>
>> > 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
>> > has still not been proven to be an impossibility. The Zapruder film
>> > shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the correct scenario of events
>> > that day.
>> >
>> > Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
>> > an identical time, just after Zapruder frame 224. Unfortunately, that
>> > damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during what might be a
>> > critical point on the film. It can therefore never be determined by
>> > anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
>> > earlier than Z224. But, based on the available evidence, the SBT
>> > (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
>> > certainly cannot be said to be false.
>>
>> Even *IF* the SBT were an historical event, the only thing it
>> accomplishes is to allow someone behind JFK to fire *only* three
>> shots. That still fails to account for Connally being hit on the wrist
>> side of his hand.
>
> Ben is, of course, lying, and the SBT does account for that wound.
Then simply cite the evidence that I've contradicted.
*That* is what you need to show a "lie."
But you never do.
Why is that, stump?
>> But the EVIDENCE is against the SBT. As even the Warren Commission
>> acknowledged, the extant Zapruder film shows Connally being hit later
>> than JFK,
>
> Lurkers can view this clip and know that to be a lie...
So the Warren Commission lied?
Let's hear you say it.
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
> Let Ben look at this clip and tell you why you shouldn`t conclude
> that what you are seeing is two men being struck by one bullet.
I already have. Connally's reaction is seen later.
You're simply imagining what you want to believe.
I accept what Connally himself said.
>> but too soon to be a followup shot from the Mannlicher
>> Carcano.
>>
>> Now let's look at David's claim in more detail:
>>
>> > 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
>> > has still not been proven to be an impossibility.
>>
>> Of course it has.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.
Yes, David's claim (and your agreement with it) is quite empty.
You've offered *NO* explanation to the evidence as I've pointed it
out.
You can't even get *STARTED* by showing that any bullet went *through*
JFK. There's no medical evidence BASED ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE BODY
that established transit.
Get busy!
>> The very *FIRST* thing you need to accomplish is to demonstrate that a
>> bullet *transited* JFK. This has never been done. Indeed, it was
>> merely a *speculation*
>
> The conclusion of experts is not "speculation", lurkers. It is the
> conclusion of experts.
The "conclusions" of experts is only as good as the evidence they have
before them... and you can't name a *SINGLE* expert who had the body
in front of him, and was able to show that a bullet transited JFK's
body.
And you're too dishonest to publicly acknowledge this fact.
>> that came about ***AFTER*** the autopsy was
>> over.
>
> More information baffles retards like me.
Yep.
>> Next, you'd have to convert an entry wound in JFK's throat into an
>> exit wound.
>
> The wound in JFK`s throat was never determined to be an entrance,
> lurkers.
Yes, it was. And by the *ONLY* medically trained people ever to have
seen it.
>>This can be done with the "shored" argument - except that
>> the bullet wound is *ABOVE* the collar & tie.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.
Tell the world that this isn't true, and I'll be happy to cite and
show you a liar.
But *YOU* know that what I stated is supported by eyewitness
testimony.
>> Then you'd have to have a ballistics test that showed that a bullet
>> could travel fast enough to break the bones that were broken, yet slow
>> enough not to be disfigured.
>
> First off, Ben is lying when he implies that CE399 isn`t
> disfigured.
stump is still molesting little children in his spare time. He can't
find adults his age that will do anything with him.
> Secondly, notice the bar is set impossibly high.
To ask that a government investigation, with all the power and money
at their beck & call - to simply show why virtually all EXPERTS in
this case rejected CE399 as the "magic bullet" is not setting the bar
too high.
It's *reasonable* to do this.
For otherwise, HE MUST ACCEPT WHAT THE EXPERTS SAID.
>> THIS WAS **NEVER** ACCOMPLISHED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION.
>
> Might not even be possible, lurkers.
Indeed true. It probably isn't. Certainly most of the experts didn't
think it possible.
> Hitting the exact same spot
How **silly**
All you need do is go though 4 inches of skin & tissue. Then go
through a body and break a wrist bone.
The shattering of the rib would only slow the bullet - and can be
ignored... so simply fire a bullet at slower and slower speeds until
you produce a bullet similar to CE399, yet capable of shattering the
wrist.
It's not beyond 1960's technology.
>> Indeed, the tests performed by the Warren Commission showed SEVERE
>> deformation in a bullet that only broke a wrist bone...
>
> The WC did not contend that Connally was struck directly on the
> wrist, lurkers.
It's not up to me to defend the failures of the Warren Commission.
It's up to *YOU* to acknowledge them.
>> > The Zapruder film shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the
>> > correct scenario of events that day.
>>
>> This is a BLATANT lie on David's part. The Warren Commission was
>> forced to speculate about "delayed reactions" on Connally's part in
>> order to make the SBT "work."
>
> Lurkers can look for themselves and see if they see a "delayed reaction"...
Then simply assert that the Warren Commission lied.
But you're too dishonest to do so.
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
> And all this crying about "speculation", isn`t it only speculation
> that you should be able to tell the exact 18th of a second someone is
> hit in a grainy home movie?
Ah! Good of you to acknowledge that *YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU CLAIM TO
SEE*.
>> Connally himself never bought it - he viewed the film many times, and
>> pinpointed where he believed that he'd been shot.
>
> This is like trying to cut diamonds with a rubber hammer, lurkers.
*YOU* pretend that you're able to see.
Then deny that Connally, who reviewed the film over and over, and had
the experience of being there, can't see.
How silly of you!
> In context this is a surprise attack lasting seconds in which Connally
> was seriously wounded.
And described his actions in far better detail than many people would
be able to.
> Looking at the event in the *correct* context
You mean, looking at the event through your faith.
> what reason is there to believe the Connally could pinpoint the
> exact second he was struck?
Probably for the same reason I can.
The violent exhalation of air as a bullet tranversed his chest cavity.
>> And indeed, if you REMOVE COMPLETELY the requirement of having the SBT
>> in order to avoid the necessity of a second gunman, no-one would be
>> arguing the SBT today.
>
> If you remove the requirement of determining what actually
> occurred then the SBT is unnecessary, lurkers. It is only necessary
> for determining what actually occurred.
No, it's only necessary to avoid the PROOF of another shooter.
>> It fails every possible test.
>
> Nonsense, lurkers. It fits and explains the evidence.
I've just shown that it doesn't.
It fails right from the beginning, as there was no transit of a bullet
through JFK's chest. It fails because Connally was hit *LATER* than
JFK. It fails because the closest witnesses assert that the SBT didn't
happen. It fails because the bullet - AS MOST OF THE EXPERTS AGREED -
couldn't have caused this damage. It fails because it couldn't have
struck the outside of Connally's wrist. It fails because the throat
wound wasn't an exit.
> People saw a shooter in the TSBD.
One fact does not a case make.
> At the time that person was seen shooting these two men were lined
> up one in front of the other from that vantage.
That's certainly an opinion. It's not necessarily a fact.
> The film of the event show them reacting simultaneously.
You're lying again, stump. You can't even publicly acknowledge that
you're contradicting the Warren Commission on this point.
WHAT A DISHONEST COWARD YOU ARE!
> Computer modeling shows the wounds on the two men lining up from
> that vantage.
G.I.G.O.
> I'm a tard and can only dream of explaining away the evidence.
Yep.
>> James Chaney, the closest eyewitness to the shooting, clearly asserted
>> that a SEPARATE shot had hit Connally.
>
> Let Ben quote him saying this, lurkers.
Let stump produce his Warren Commission testimony.
>> The Warren Commission was TERRIFIED of having this testimony on
>> the record, so they simply never asked him a *SINGLE QUESTION*.
>
> This statement is meaningless, lurkers, it assumes what Ben can`t begin to show.
I'll add that *YOU* are terrified of trying to give a credible
explanation for why the Warren Commission failed to call James Chaney.
Pretending that it means nothing is just a rather stupid dodge on your
part. One that isn't going to work or convince anyone.
>> And try as they might, no believer has EVER offered a credible reason
>> for not calling James Chaney.
>
> And Ben has consistantly failed to show they were afraid of what
> he might say, lurkers.
You're lying again, stump.
If James Chaney had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY AT ALL - the Warren
Commission wouldn't have been afraid to call him.
>> So the *FILM* shows a delay...
>
> I don`t see one, lurkers.
So you're simply labeling the Warren Commission liars.
The Warren Commission had no problems seeing it. Nor did Connally.
> But what is the alternative, that the two men were struck by
> separate bullets a 18th or two apart?
YOU'RE A **GUTLESS** LIAR.
How far apart did the *WARREN COMMISSION* believe the reactions to be?
Here's a clue: it wasn't an 18th of a second...
> Is this a reasonable alternative or is it just desperation to
> contest what obviously occurred?
You're calling the Warren Commission liars, yet are unwilling to
actually *say* that.
What expertise do *YOU* have that over-rides the experts of the Warren
Commission?
>> the closest WITNESS asserts a multiple
>> shot scenario, and Connally himself, a shooting victim himself,
>> pointed to another point on the film. **HE** didn't believe in the
>> SBT, he didn't believe the film supported the SBT.
>>
>> Who is David to contradict Connally and the Warren Commission?
>
> Can Ben show that the WC did not believe the SBT, lurkers? I think
> he is just lying.
Still molesting little children. Quite despicable of you, you know.
>> > Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
>> > an identical time,
>>
>> That's a lie, and David knows it.
>
> This clip shows that it is Ben who is lying...
This clip doesn't even show Connally's reaction.
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
>> He's DESPERATE to imply that they
>> were reacting AT THE SAME TIME, but David knows that to say this would
>> be **TOO MUCH** of an obvious lie. So he merely implies it with the
>> weasel word "virtually".
>
> This isn`t Mythbusters with high speed cameras showing bullets in
> flight, lurkers. We only have a crude tool to work with, a grainy
> home movie.
Which showed the reaction of JFK and Connally well enough so that both
the Warren Commission and Connally agreed that there was a delay.
Somewhat around 1.6 seconds. Roughly 30 frames.
But you knew this. This is why you lied and claimed that it was
measured in 18th's of a second.
You can't admit a 1.6 second difference as the Warren Commission knew.
>> He knows FOR A FACT that it would be COMPLETELY consistent with the
>> evidence to state that "Kennnedy and Connally reacted to their
>> respective first bullet strike not the same time."
>
> Looks the same to me, lurkers...
Then you're simply lying.
Because you have no explanation for the *NEXT* reaction. Was Connally
hit twice?
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
> It looks exactly like two men being hit by the same bullet.
No it doesn't.
>> But the truth doesn't serve his purpose... so David simply turns to a
>> lie.
>
> I'm just a retard, reality doesn't suit me, so I contest it, lurkers.
Who cares?
>> But unlike his website, and Johnny's censored forum, there's nothing
>> here to protect him from people able to point out when he's lying.
>
> I`m here to point out Ben constantly lying to you lurkers.
And yet, you've been TOTALLY unable to cite what evidence I'm in
conflict with.
> I'm just a retard playing silly games with the deaths of these men.
Yes.
>> >just after Zapruder frame 224.
>>
>> This is actually a relatively new claim, going back a decade or so.
>> Before that, no-one ever made the claim that Connally was showing
>> signs of being hit at Z-224. (What they all said was "delayed
>> reaction.")
>>
>> Nor is 224 even *possible*. JFK is already in the process of reacting
>> to a shot, and given reaction times, meant that he'd been shot a
>> number of frames *BEFORE* 224.
>
> Empty claims and retard figuring, lurkers.
The Warren Commission believed that JFK had been shot as early as 210.
This is simply a fact that stump can't deny.
>> And by pegging Connally's shooting to Z-224 - David has ABSOLUTELY NO
>> EXPLANATION AT ALL for the later violent exhaling he did as a bullet
>> compressed his chest.
>
> Ben assumes all sorts of things, lurkers, and then expects
> explanations for his assumptions.
There's no "assumption" of Connally's true reaction later. The Warren
Commission accepted it. You simply deny it.
>> Indeed, I've *NEVER* seen a believer address this fact.
>
> Watch as Ben fails to establish that it is a fact, lurkers.
It's not up to *me* to establish a negative. I simply point it out,
and if you *CAN*, you'd cite a post that contradicts me.
But you can't.
So *YOU* failed, not I.
>> > Unfortunately, that damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during
>> > what might be a critical point on the film.
>>
>> We know enough to put the shot *earlier* than Z-224.
>
> The retards like to pretend that splitting hairs on 18ths of a
> second
1.6 seconds. Why do you keep lying?
> and making empty claims about what is seen somehow rules out
> the SBT.
You're the one who keeps claiming a mythical "reaction" on Connally's
part as you avoid the real one later.
> Again, in their desperation to contest the SBT with the two men
> instantaneously by one bullet they have to posit the two men stuck by
> two bullets very, very, very, very, very, very nearly instantaneously.
1.6 seconds apart isn't unique or unusual. Nor is it "very, very,
very, very, very, very nearly instantaneously." That's simply a lie.
> And when you are forced to take a position that absurd, it just
> illustrates that you just don`t want to accept the reality of the
> event.
When you're forced to lie about what I'm stating - it just shows that
you understand the weakness of your case.
>> > It can therefore never be determined by
>> > anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
>> > earlier than Z224.
>>
>> But we know that **BY** Z-224 he was ALREADY REACTING. Which is a
>> physical impossibility had he been shot at that frame.
>
> Ben claims to see Kennedy reacting in this frame and even before
> this frame, lurkers...
The Warren Commission claims to see Kennedy reacting in this frame and
>> > the SBT (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
>> > certainly cannot be said to be false.
>>
>> Sure it can.
>>
>> *I* say it.
>>
>> You can't give a credible explanation for all the problems of the SBT.
>
> The problems aren`t with the evidence, lurkers.
Yep... it's the fact that we don't "believe" as you do. We *DO* accept
the evidence in this case - not what the Warren Commission *said* was
the evidence.
> I'm just a retard looking at the evidence and start applying my
> retard figuring to it.
Yep.
>> Starting from the very beginning, YOU HAVE NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR A
>> TRANSIT OF A BULLET THROUGH JFK.
>
> It was the conclusion of the expert who conducted the autopsy, lurkers.
Starting from the very beginning, YOU HAVE NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR A
TRANSIT OF A BULLET THROUGH JFK.
>> Period.
>>
>> End of story.
Anyone notice that stump lied and ran?
wrote:
>On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:52:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Once again, David offers "evidence" that doesn't show the guilt of
>> ANYONE AT ALL, let alone the "sole guilt" of someone.
>>
>> David simply can't even *support*, let alone prove, what he claims.
>>
>> > 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
>> > has still not been proven to be an impossibility. The Zapruder film
>> > shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the correct scenario of events
>> > that day.
>> >
>> > Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
>> > an identical time, just after Zapruder frame 224. Unfortunately, that
>> > damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during what might be a
>> > critical point on the film. It can therefore never be determined by
>> > anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
>> > earlier than Z224. But, based on the available evidence, the SBT
>> > (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
>> > certainly cannot be said to be false.
>>
>> Even *IF* the SBT were an historical event, the only thing it
>> accomplishes is to allow someone behind JFK to fire *only* three
>> shots. That still fails to account for Connally being hit on the wrist
>> side of his hand.
>
> Ben is, of course, lying, and the SBT does account for that wound.
*That* is what you need to show a "lie."
But you never do.
Why is that, stump?
>> But the EVIDENCE is against the SBT. As even the Warren Commission
>> acknowledged, the extant Zapruder film shows Connally being hit later
>> than JFK,
>
> Lurkers can view this clip and know that to be a lie...
Let's hear you say it.
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
> Let Ben look at this clip and tell you why you shouldn`t conclude
> that what you are seeing is two men being struck by one bullet.
You're simply imagining what you want to believe.
I accept what Connally himself said.
>> but too soon to be a followup shot from the Mannlicher
>> Carcano.
>>
>> Now let's look at David's claim in more detail:
>>
>> > 18.) Try as the conspiracy kooks might, the Single-Bullet Theory [SBT]
>> > has still not been proven to be an impossibility.
>>
>> Of course it has.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.
You've offered *NO* explanation to the evidence as I've pointed it
out.
You can't even get *STARTED* by showing that any bullet went *through*
JFK. There's no medical evidence BASED ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE BODY
that established transit.
Get busy!
>> The very *FIRST* thing you need to accomplish is to demonstrate that a
>> bullet *transited* JFK. This has never been done. Indeed, it was
>> merely a *speculation*
>
> The conclusion of experts is not "speculation", lurkers. It is the
> conclusion of experts.
before them... and you can't name a *SINGLE* expert who had the body
in front of him, and was able to show that a bullet transited JFK's
body.
And you're too dishonest to publicly acknowledge this fact.
>> that came about ***AFTER*** the autopsy was
>> over.
>
Yep.
>> Next, you'd have to convert an entry wound in JFK's throat into an
>> exit wound.
>
> The wound in JFK`s throat was never determined to be an entrance,
> lurkers.
seen it.
>>This can be done with the "shored" argument - except that
>> the bullet wound is *ABOVE* the collar & tie.
>
> Empty claim, lurkers.
show you a liar.
But *YOU* know that what I stated is supported by eyewitness
testimony.
>> Then you'd have to have a ballistics test that showed that a bullet
>> could travel fast enough to break the bones that were broken, yet slow
>> enough not to be disfigured.
>
> First off, Ben is lying when he implies that CE399 isn`t
> disfigured.
find adults his age that will do anything with him.
> Secondly, notice the bar is set impossibly high.
at their beck & call - to simply show why virtually all EXPERTS in
this case rejected CE399 as the "magic bullet" is not setting the bar
too high.
It's *reasonable* to do this.
For otherwise, HE MUST ACCEPT WHAT THE EXPERTS SAID.
>> THIS WAS **NEVER** ACCOMPLISHED BY THE WARREN COMMISSION.
>
> Might not even be possible, lurkers.
think it possible.
> Hitting the exact same spot
All you need do is go though 4 inches of skin & tissue. Then go
through a body and break a wrist bone.
The shattering of the rib would only slow the bullet - and can be
ignored... so simply fire a bullet at slower and slower speeds until
you produce a bullet similar to CE399, yet capable of shattering the
wrist.
It's not beyond 1960's technology.
>> Indeed, the tests performed by the Warren Commission showed SEVERE
>> deformation in a bullet that only broke a wrist bone...
>
> The WC did not contend that Connally was struck directly on the
> wrist, lurkers.
It's up to *YOU* to acknowledge them.
>> > The Zapruder film shows that the SBT is more-than-likely the
>> > correct scenario of events that day.
>>
>> This is a BLATANT lie on David's part. The Warren Commission was
>> forced to speculate about "delayed reactions" on Connally's part in
>> order to make the SBT "work."
>
> Lurkers can look for themselves and see if they see a "delayed reaction"...
But you're too dishonest to do so.
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
> And all this crying about "speculation", isn`t it only speculation
> that you should be able to tell the exact 18th of a second someone is
> hit in a grainy home movie?
SEE*.
>> Connally himself never bought it - he viewed the film many times, and
>> pinpointed where he believed that he'd been shot.
>
> This is like trying to cut diamonds with a rubber hammer, lurkers.
Then deny that Connally, who reviewed the film over and over, and had
the experience of being there, can't see.
How silly of you!
> In context this is a surprise attack lasting seconds in which Connally
> was seriously wounded.
be able to.
> Looking at the event in the *correct* context
> what reason is there to believe the Connally could pinpoint the
> exact second he was struck?
The violent exhalation of air as a bullet tranversed his chest cavity.
>> And indeed, if you REMOVE COMPLETELY the requirement of having the SBT
>> in order to avoid the necessity of a second gunman, no-one would be
>> arguing the SBT today.
>
> If you remove the requirement of determining what actually
> occurred then the SBT is unnecessary, lurkers. It is only necessary
> for determining what actually occurred.
>> It fails every possible test.
>
> Nonsense, lurkers. It fits and explains the evidence.
It fails right from the beginning, as there was no transit of a bullet
through JFK's chest. It fails because Connally was hit *LATER* than
JFK. It fails because the closest witnesses assert that the SBT didn't
happen. It fails because the bullet - AS MOST OF THE EXPERTS AGREED -
couldn't have caused this damage. It fails because it couldn't have
struck the outside of Connally's wrist. It fails because the throat
wound wasn't an exit.
> People saw a shooter in the TSBD.
> At the time that person was seen shooting these two men were lined
> up one in front of the other from that vantage.
> The film of the event show them reacting simultaneously.
you're contradicting the Warren Commission on this point.
WHAT A DISHONEST COWARD YOU ARE!
> Computer modeling shows the wounds on the two men lining up from
> that vantage.
> I'm a tard and can only dream of explaining away the evidence.
Yep.
>> James Chaney, the closest eyewitness to the shooting, clearly asserted
>> that a SEPARATE shot had hit Connally.
>
> Let Ben quote him saying this, lurkers.
>> The Warren Commission was TERRIFIED of having this testimony on
>> the record, so they simply never asked him a *SINGLE QUESTION*.
>
> This statement is meaningless, lurkers, it assumes what Ben can`t begin to show.
explanation for why the Warren Commission failed to call James Chaney.
Pretending that it means nothing is just a rather stupid dodge on your
part. One that isn't going to work or convince anyone.
>> And try as they might, no believer has EVER offered a credible reason
>> for not calling James Chaney.
>
> And Ben has consistantly failed to show they were afraid of what
> he might say, lurkers.
If James Chaney had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY AT ALL - the Warren
Commission wouldn't have been afraid to call him.
>> So the *FILM* shows a delay...
>
> I don`t see one, lurkers.
The Warren Commission had no problems seeing it. Nor did Connally.
> But what is the alternative, that the two men were struck by
> separate bullets a 18th or two apart?
How far apart did the *WARREN COMMISSION* believe the reactions to be?
Here's a clue: it wasn't an 18th of a second...
> Is this a reasonable alternative or is it just desperation to
> contest what obviously occurred?
actually *say* that.
What expertise do *YOU* have that over-rides the experts of the Warren
Commission?
>> the closest WITNESS asserts a multiple
>> shot scenario, and Connally himself, a shooting victim himself,
>> pointed to another point on the film. **HE** didn't believe in the
>> SBT, he didn't believe the film supported the SBT.
>>
>> Who is David to contradict Connally and the Warren Commission?
>
> Can Ben show that the WC did not believe the SBT, lurkers? I think
> he is just lying.
>> > Kennedy and Connally are reacting to their initial wounds at virtually
>> > an identical time,
>>
>> That's a lie, and David knows it.
>
> This clip shows that it is Ben who is lying...
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
>> He's DESPERATE to imply that they
>> were reacting AT THE SAME TIME, but David knows that to say this would
>> be **TOO MUCH** of an obvious lie. So he merely implies it with the
>> weasel word "virtually".
>
> This isn`t Mythbusters with high speed cameras showing bullets in
> flight, lurkers. We only have a crude tool to work with, a grainy
> home movie.
the Warren Commission and Connally agreed that there was a delay.
Somewhat around 1.6 seconds. Roughly 30 frames.
But you knew this. This is why you lied and claimed that it was
measured in 18th's of a second.
You can't admit a 1.6 second difference as the Warren Commission knew.
>> He knows FOR A FACT that it would be COMPLETELY consistent with the
>> evidence to state that "Kennnedy and Connally reacted to their
>> respective first bullet strike not the same time."
>
> Looks the same to me, lurkers...
Because you have no explanation for the *NEXT* reaction. Was Connally
hit twice?
> https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq
>
> It looks exactly like two men being hit by the same bullet.
>> But the truth doesn't serve his purpose... so David simply turns to a
>> lie.
>
Who cares?
>> But unlike his website, and Johnny's censored forum, there's nothing
>> here to protect him from people able to point out when he's lying.
>
> I`m here to point out Ben constantly lying to you lurkers.
conflict with.
> I'm just a retard playing silly games with the deaths of these men.
Yes.
>> >just after Zapruder frame 224.
>>
>> This is actually a relatively new claim, going back a decade or so.
>> Before that, no-one ever made the claim that Connally was showing
>> signs of being hit at Z-224. (What they all said was "delayed
>> reaction.")
>>
>> Nor is 224 even *possible*. JFK is already in the process of reacting
>> to a shot, and given reaction times, meant that he'd been shot a
>> number of frames *BEFORE* 224.
>
> Empty claims and retard figuring, lurkers.
This is simply a fact that stump can't deny.
>> And by pegging Connally's shooting to Z-224 - David has ABSOLUTELY NO
>> EXPLANATION AT ALL for the later violent exhaling he did as a bullet
>> compressed his chest.
>
> Ben assumes all sorts of things, lurkers, and then expects
> explanations for his assumptions.
Commission accepted it. You simply deny it.
>> Indeed, I've *NEVER* seen a believer address this fact.
>
> Watch as Ben fails to establish that it is a fact, lurkers.
and if you *CAN*, you'd cite a post that contradicts me.
But you can't.
So *YOU* failed, not I.
>> > Unfortunately, that damn Stemmons sign is blocking our view during
>> > what might be a critical point on the film.
>>
>> We know enough to put the shot *earlier* than Z-224.
>
> The retards like to pretend that splitting hairs on 18ths of a
> second
> and making empty claims about what is seen somehow rules out
> the SBT.
part as you avoid the real one later.
> Again, in their desperation to contest the SBT with the two men
> instantaneously by one bullet they have to posit the two men stuck by
> two bullets very, very, very, very, very, very nearly instantaneously.
very, very, very, very nearly instantaneously." That's simply a lie.
> And when you are forced to take a position that absurd, it just
> illustrates that you just don`t want to accept the reality of the
> event.
you understand the weakness of your case.
>> > It can therefore never be determined by
>> > anybody whether JFK was reacting to his throat/neck wound at a frame
>> > earlier than Z224.
>>
>> But we know that **BY** Z-224 he was ALREADY REACTING. Which is a
>> physical impossibility had he been shot at that frame.
>
> Ben claims to see Kennedy reacting in this frame and even before
> this frame, lurkers...
even before this frame, lurkers...
> https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z224.jpg
>
>> > But, based on the available evidence,
>>
>> You've cited *none.* And lied about others...
Anyone notice that stump cited none either?
> https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z224.jpg
>
>> > But, based on the available evidence,
>>
>> You've cited *none.* And lied about others...
>> > the SBT (judging by the reactions of the two victims in the limo) most
>> > certainly cannot be said to be false.
>>
>> Sure it can.
>>
>> *I* say it.
>>
>> You can't give a credible explanation for all the problems of the SBT.
>
> The problems aren`t with the evidence, lurkers.
the evidence in this case - not what the Warren Commission *said* was
the evidence.
> I'm just a retard looking at the evidence and start applying my
> retard figuring to it.
Yep.
>> Starting from the very beginning, YOU HAVE NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR A
>> TRANSIT OF A BULLET THROUGH JFK.
>
> It was the conclusion of the expert who conducted the autopsy, lurkers.
Starting from the very beginning, YOU HAVE NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE FOR A
TRANSIT OF A BULLET THROUGH JFK.
>>
>> End of story.
Anyone notice that stump lied and ran?
0 new messages