info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Least Plausible Hypothesis
58 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Apr 12, 2017, 11:42:02 AM4/12/17
to
> Least Plausible Hypothesis:
> Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
>
> Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
>
> There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
>
> On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
[Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
Is the most plausible explanation to simply ignore roughly half of the witnesses? Is that really the "simplest" explanation?
What's the most plausible explanation for why dozens of medically trained witnesses to describe a large wound in the back of JFK's head? (To include the official Autopsy Report...) Is the "plausible" and "simplest" explanation to deny these witnesses on the basis of one autopsy photo with no chain of custody, and no camera authentication?
What's the most plausible explanation for the testimony of witnesses saying that Chaney spoke with Curry *IN DEALEY PLAZA*... is it to deny all of them because the Zapruder film shows it never happened?
Believers don't believe in utilizing the most plausible explanation... the evidence *CLEARLY* conflicts, and the simple explanation is there ready for them to accept... but they don't.
> Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
>
> Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
>
> There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
>
> On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
[Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
Is the most plausible explanation to simply ignore roughly half of the witnesses? Is that really the "simplest" explanation?
What's the most plausible explanation for why dozens of medically trained witnesses to describe a large wound in the back of JFK's head? (To include the official Autopsy Report...) Is the "plausible" and "simplest" explanation to deny these witnesses on the basis of one autopsy photo with no chain of custody, and no camera authentication?
What's the most plausible explanation for the testimony of witnesses saying that Chaney spoke with Curry *IN DEALEY PLAZA*... is it to deny all of them because the Zapruder film shows it never happened?
Believers don't believe in utilizing the most plausible explanation... the evidence *CLEARLY* conflicts, and the simple explanation is there ready for them to accept... but they don't.
Bud
Apr 12, 2017, 5:01:39 PM4/12/17
to
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Least Plausible Hypothesis:
>
> > Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
> >
> > Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
> >
> > There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
> >
> > On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
>
> [Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
>
> It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
>
> What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
The reflection of sound is a big thing. And people might just not be good at placing the sound of things when they don`t see the source.
> > Least Plausible Hypothesis:
>
> > Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
> >
> > Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
> >
> > There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
> >
> > On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
>
> [Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
>
> It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
>
> What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> Is the most plausible explanation to simply ignore roughly half of the witnesses?
I don`t understand why conspiracy retards have such a problem with this. Two cases show the problems witnesses have pinpointing location when the shooter is not seen, the Beltway Sniper case and the shooting of police officers in Dallas. Famously in the Beltway Sniper case a white van was thought responsible. In the shooting of the Dallas police they didn`t know where the shooter was and early reports said there were two shooters. From Wikipedia...
"During the shooting, officers, unaware where the shots were coming from, scrambled to block intersections and were exposed to gunfire as a result."
It would be interesting to see testing down, blindfolding a person in an downtown area and see how well they could pinpoint loud noise around them.
It would also be interesting to have all the witness reports in the Beltway Sniper case to see where they indicated they thought the shots came from, and compare that to where shootings actually originated from. The amount of scrutiny in the JFK assassination stems from people who can`t accept the reality of this event is why so much useless information is represented as meaningful.
> Is that really the "simplest" explanation?
> What's the most plausible explanation for why dozens of medically trained witnesses to describe a large wound in the back of JFK's head? (To include the official Autopsy Report...) Is the "plausible" and "simplest" explanation to deny these witnesses on the basis of one autopsy photo with no chain of custody, and no camera authentication?
> What's the most plausible explanation for the testimony of witnesses saying that Chaney spoke with Curry *IN DEALEY PLAZA*... is it to deny all of them because the Zapruder film shows it never happened?
What is the plausible alternative? Hundreds of witnesses and the widespread availability of viewing the z-film, has any witness said that what is portrayed isn`t how they saw it play out?
> Believers don't believe in utilizing the most plausible explanation... the evidence *CLEARLY* conflicts, and the simple explanation is there ready for them to accept... but they don't.
Ben Holmes
Apr 12, 2017, 8:59:27 PM4/12/17
to
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:01:39 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Least Plausible Hypothesis:
> >
> > > Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
> > >
> > > Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
> > >
> > > There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
> > >
> > > On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
> >
> > [Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
> >
> > It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
> >
> > What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
>
> The reflection of sound is a big thing. And people might just not be good at placing the sound of things when they don`t see the source.
The question was: What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Least Plausible Hypothesis:
> >
> > > Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
> > >
> > > Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
> > >
> > > There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
> > >
> > > On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
> >
> > [Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
> >
> > It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
> >
> > What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
>
> The reflection of sound is a big thing. And people might just not be good at placing the sound of things when they don`t see the source.
You evaded and refused to actually *ANSWER* the question.
Why the cowardice, "Bud?"
> > Is the most plausible explanation to simply ignore roughly half of the witnesses?
>
> You don`t ignore them, you recognize the character of the information. Weak.
> > Is that really the "simplest" explanation?
>
> Yes.
Indeed, you are presuming something you *FIRST* need to prove.
>What is the alternative, people hearing three shots from the knoll and other people hearing three completely different shots from the TSBD?
> > What's the most plausible explanation for why dozens of medically trained witnesses to describe a large wound in the back of JFK's head? (To include the official Autopsy Report...) Is the "plausible" and "simplest" explanation to deny these witnesses on the basis of one autopsy photo with no chain of custody, and no camera authentication?
>
> Is it plausible that everything was tampered with?
YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION AGAIN!!!
Such *amusing* cowardice...
You know very well that there's a conflict in the evidence, and *I* can explain it, you simply run from it.
> > What's the most plausible explanation for the testimony of witnesses saying that Chaney spoke with Curry *IN DEALEY PLAZA*... is it to deny all of them because the Zapruder film shows it never happened?
>
> It is plausible that the Zapruder film shows things as they transpired.
Quite the yellow coward, aren't you "Bud?"
> What is the plausible alternative? Hundreds of witnesses and the widespread availability of viewing the z-film, has any witness said that what is portrayed isn`t how they saw it play out?
> > Believers don't believe in utilizing the most plausible explanation... the evidence *CLEARLY* conflicts, and the simple explanation is there ready for them to accept... but they don't.
>
> You slide down a slippery slope, grasping at one fantastic concept after another until your ideas are crushed by the weight of the fantastic. Which is why you will never put your ideas on the table for examination, the absurdity of them would become instantly apparent.
And refuses to answer simple questions...
David Von Pein
Apr 12, 2017, 9:57:40 PM4/12/17
to
Bud's scenario has been on the table for decades. And it's the same as mine....
Oswald fired three shots with his Carcano from the 6th floor of the TSBD, striking the President twice, with one of those "strikes" also hitting Governor Connally. No conspiracy. Just Oswald. Period.
Ben Holmes
Apr 12, 2017, 10:11:41 PM4/12/17
to
It's always amusing when I can get a believer to answer a simple question.
And since you've provided your scenario, I'll do EXACTLY WHAT I'VE REPEATEDLY STATED I WILL DO - which is to provide a scenario EXACTLY as detailed, and with JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE cited as you do.
At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
Now, the next time you or "Bud" or any other believer tries to claim that I've not provided a scenario - *YOU* will know that you or they are lying, won't you?
David Von Pein
Apr 12, 2017, 11:18:57 PM4/12/17
to
BEN HOLMES SAID:
At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
Poor Ben.
Ben Holmes
Apr 12, 2017, 11:47:26 PM4/12/17
to
I've posted a scenario EXACTLY as detailed, and with JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE as you provided.
Indeed, most Americans don't believe your silly theory...
I post evidence almost every day that indicts your scenario - you've not posted ANYTHING that contradicts mine.
Calling it "embarrassingly silly" when you can't refute it shows just who the clown is, doesn't it?
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 3:14:18 PM4/13/17
to
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:47:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:18:57 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> >
> > Poor Ben.
>
> If ad hominem is all you've got, you've got nothing.
>
> I've posted a scenario EXACTLY as detailed, and with JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE as you provided.
You`re lying, of course. Our shooter is in evidence, the murder weapon is in evidence, the shells from the bullets used are in evidence, the shell fragments are in evidence, the witness identification is in evidence, on and on. It isn`t two sides of the same coin.
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:18:57 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> >
> > Poor Ben.
>
> If ad hominem is all you've got, you've got nothing.
>
> I've posted a scenario EXACTLY as detailed, and with JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE as you provided.
> Indeed, most Americans don't believe your silly theory...
> I post evidence almost every day that indicts your scenario - you've not posted ANYTHING that contradicts mine.
> Calling it "embarrassingly silly" when you can't refute it shows just who the clown is, doesn't it?
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 3:38:58 PM4/13/17
to
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:59:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:01:39 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Least Plausible Hypothesis:
> > >
> > > > Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
> > > >
> > > > There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
> > > >
> > > > On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
> > >
> > > [Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
> > >
> > > It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
> > >
> > > What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> >
> > The reflection of sound is a big thing. And people might just not be good at placing the sound of things when they don`t see the source.
>
>
> The question was: What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
Some people were able to accurately pinpoint the source of the shots as coming from the TSBD and some people were fooled by the reflection of sound.
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:01:39 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Least Plausible Hypothesis:
> > >
> > > > Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
> > > >
> > > > There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
> > > >
> > > > On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
> > >
> > > [Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
> > >
> > > It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
> > >
> > > What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> >
> > The reflection of sound is a big thing. And people might just not be good at placing the sound of things when they don`t see the source.
>
>
> The question was: What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> You evaded and refused to actually *ANSWER* the question.
> Why the cowardice, "Bud?"
I haven`t been reading your nonsense lately but I saw the header of this one and thought you might be interested in an exchange of ideas. But you are still just an intellectual cowards afraid to engage on the issues he brings up.
> > > Is the most plausible explanation to simply ignore roughly half of the witnesses?
> >
> > You don`t ignore them, you recognize the character of the information. Weak.
>
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud." Since you refused to answer the first question - IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO ANSWER THE SECOND ONE.
> > > Is that really the "simplest" explanation?
> >
> > Yes.
>
>
> You didn't answer the first question - you cannot deal with the rest of them.
> Indeed, you are presuming something you *FIRST* need to prove.
>
>
> >What is the alternative, people hearing three shots from the knoll and other people hearing three completely different shots from the TSBD?
>
>
> Your question presupposes what you first need to establish.
> > > What's the most plausible explanation for why dozens of medically trained witnesses to describe a large wound in the back of JFK's head? (To include the official Autopsy Report...) Is the "plausible" and "simplest" explanation to deny these witnesses on the basis of one autopsy photo with no chain of custody, and no camera authentication?
> >
> > Is it plausible that everything was tampered with?
>
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud."
>
> YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION AGAIN!!!
> Such *amusing* cowardice...
>
> You know very well that there's a conflict in the evidence, and *I* can explain it, you simply run from it.
>
> > > What's the most plausible explanation for the testimony of witnesses saying that Chaney spoke with Curry *IN DEALEY PLAZA*... is it to deny all of them because the Zapruder film shows it never happened?
> >
> > It is plausible that the Zapruder film shows things as they transpired.
>
>
> Once again, you refuse to answer the question...
>
> Quite the yellow coward, aren't you "Bud?"
> > What is the plausible alternative? Hundreds of witnesses and the widespread availability of viewing the z-film, has any witness said that what is portrayed isn`t how they saw it play out?
>
>
> Tut tut tut "Bud," there you go again, presupposing what you can't show...
> > > Believers don't believe in utilizing the most plausible explanation... the evidence *CLEARLY* conflicts, and the simple explanation is there ready for them to accept... but they don't.
> >
> > You slide down a slippery slope, grasping at one fantastic concept after another until your ideas are crushed by the weight of the fantastic. Which is why you will never put your ideas on the table for examination, the absurdity of them would become instantly apparent.
>
> Said the coward who refuses to post his scenario...
> And refuses to answer simple questions...
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 3:54:12 PM4/13/17
to
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
"Anyone with *half* a brain would see that what *actually* happened is far more likely... Sergeant Hill was given some of the cartridges, he looked at them, then radioed in: "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." ... then, after LHO was arrested, someone figured out that the LHO's pistol and the cartridges don't match.... so into the trash go some cartridges, and into the record go others..."
The is just so much malfeasance packed in just that silly proposition, the Dallas Police deciding to let Tippit`s true murderer go free in order to frame an innocent party, firing the gun Oswald was caught with in order to manufacture shells with the proper firing pin signature and putting them into evidence, getting all cops necessary to be on board with this plot, ect.
Now this is just one aspect of Ben`s fantasies, maybe one percent, he has equally fantastic ideas across the board in this case, visions of manufactured evidence and coerced witnesses from start to finish. But you will never see Ben put his ideas about what he thinks occurred in the whole case on the table for consideration because he knows his ideas are retarded and he is embarrassed by them.
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 4:07:16 PM4/13/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:47:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:18:57 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> > >
> > > Poor Ben.
> >
> > If ad hominem is all you've got, you've got nothing.
> >
> > I've posted a scenario EXACTLY as detailed, and with JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE as you provided.
>
> You`re lying, of course.
If blatant lies like this are all you have - how do you expect to convince anyone?
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:47:26 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:18:57 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> > >
> > > Poor Ben.
> >
> > If ad hominem is all you've got, you've got nothing.
> >
> > I've posted a scenario EXACTLY as detailed, and with JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE as you provided.
>
> You`re lying, of course.
Here's David's: "Oswald fired three shots with his Carcano from the 6th floor of the TSBD, striking the President twice, with one of those "strikes" also hitting Governor Connally. No conspiracy. Just Oswald. Period."
Here's my response: "At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period."
Just as detailed, and just as much evidence cited.
The liar, "Bud," is clearly you.
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 4:08:42 PM4/13/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:38:58 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:59:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:01:39 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > Least Plausible Hypothesis:
> > > >
> > > > > Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
> > > > >
> > > > > Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
> > > > >
> > > > > On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
> > > >
> > > > [Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
> > > >
> > > > It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
> > > >
> > > > What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> > >
> > > The reflection of sound is a big thing. And people might just not be good at placing the sound of things when they don`t see the source.
> >
> >
> > The question was: What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
>
> Some people were able to accurately pinpoint the source of the shots as coming from the TSBD and some people were fooled by the reflection of sound.
Tut tut tut, "Bud" - you're lying again.
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:59:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:01:39 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > Least Plausible Hypothesis:
> > > >
> > > > > Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
> > > > >
> > > > > Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
> > > > >
> > > > > On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
> > > >
> > > > [Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
> > > >
> > > > It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
> > > >
> > > > What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> > >
> > > The reflection of sound is a big thing. And people might just not be good at placing the sound of things when they don`t see the source.
> >
> >
> > The question was: What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
>
> Some people were able to accurately pinpoint the source of the shots as coming from the TSBD and some people were fooled by the reflection of sound.
This is *NOT* the "most plausible explanation" - the most plausible is that there were two shooters.
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 4:18:33 PM4/13/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:18:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> >
> > Poor Ben.
>
> I found this post from Ben a few weeks back, and bookmarked it with the intention of starting a post pertaining to it. It is from a 2007 response to you, and even though Ben claims not to be bashful about presenting his ideas he does so about the same frequency as Haley`s Comet comes around. Here is the post...
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
>
> Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
Tut tut tut, "Bud." Snipping and removing context is the mark of a dishonest coward. So here's the ENTIRE post, including the context:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:18:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> >
> > Poor Ben.
>
> I found this post from Ben a few weeks back, and bookmarked it with the intention of starting a post pertaining to it. It is from a 2007 response to you, and even though Ben claims not to be bashful about presenting his ideas he does so about the same frequency as Haley`s Comet comes around. Here is the post...
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
>
> Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
>> Reiterate all day long; we're NOT fooled.
>
>No....you're just stupid (it would appear).
I know that lurkers will be able to figure out who's "stupid". For, unlike LNT'ers, CT'ers don't have to imagine up to 90% of America is without a "grain of sense", or "stupid".
>It seems that some CTers want to believe that the brainless plotters
>were stupid enough to attempt to frame Oswald for Tippit's murder
>(Patsy Frame-Up #2 of the day of course) by planting the WRONG type of
>cartridge cases on 10th Street -- i.e., planting shells from an
>automatic instead of from Lee Harvey's revolver.
>
>Please tell the world WHY these plotters would attempt something so
>dumb??
What's *dumb* is this particular spin on the story. You somehow imagine that the first detectives to the scene picked up the revolver cartridge shells belonging to LHO's revolver, and someone jumped up and said, "Heh - LHO has an automatic, not a revolver! ... anyone have some automatic cartridges on you?"
Anyone with *half* a brain would see that what *actually* happened is far more likely... Sergeant Hill was given some of the cartridges, he looked at them, then radioed in: "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." ... then, after LHO was arrested, someone figured out that the LHO's pistol and the cartridges don't match.... so into the trash go some cartridges, and into the record go others...
legitimate case that the above scenario is impossible.
The same thing happened with CE399 - it was quickly discovered that the bullet that had been recovered matched one of the other rifles used in the assassination - so it was simply swapped. This is why no-one who handled it is willing to testify that it's the same bullet *now* as it was *then*.
Now, if you're looking for something *planted* at the Tippit scene, you don't need to look any further than a wallet.
But you won't... gutless as you are.
***************************************************
Now, watch as "Bud" refuses to refute even a single word I said...
And cite for it.
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 5:23:55 PM4/13/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:18:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> > >
> > > Poor Ben.
> >
> > I found this post from Ben a few weeks back, and bookmarked it with the intention of starting a post pertaining to it. It is from a 2007 response to you, and even though Ben claims not to be bashful about presenting his ideas he does so about the same frequency as Haley`s Comet comes around. Here is the post...
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
> >
> > Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
>
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud." Snipping and removing context is the mark of a dishonest coward.
I linked to the discussion up above, stupid. I selected the portion that I wanted to use to make my point.
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:18:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> > >
> > > Poor Ben.
> >
> > I found this post from Ben a few weeks back, and bookmarked it with the intention of starting a post pertaining to it. It is from a 2007 response to you, and even though Ben claims not to be bashful about presenting his ideas he does so about the same frequency as Haley`s Comet comes around. Here is the post...
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
> >
> > Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
>
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud." Snipping and removing context is the mark of a dishonest coward.
>So here's the ENTIRE post, including the context:
>
> >> Reiterate all day long; we're NOT fooled.
> >
> >No....you're just stupid (it would appear).
>
> I know that lurkers will be able to figure out who's "stupid". For, unlike LNT'ers, CT'ers don't have to imagine up to 90% of America is without a "grain of sense", or "stupid".
>
>
> >It seems that some CTers want to believe that the brainless plotters
> >were stupid enough to attempt to frame Oswald for Tippit's murder
> >(Patsy Frame-Up #2 of the day of course) by planting the WRONG type of
> >cartridge cases on 10th Street -- i.e., planting shells from an
> >automatic instead of from Lee Harvey's revolver.
> >
> >Please tell the world WHY these plotters would attempt something so
> >dumb??
>
> What's *dumb* is this particular spin on the story. You somehow imagine that the first detectives to the scene picked up the revolver cartridge shells belonging to LHO's revolver, and someone jumped up and said, "Heh - LHO has an automatic, not a revolver! ... anyone have some automatic cartridges on you?"
>
> Anyone with *half* a brain would see that what *actually* happened is far more likely... Sergeant Hill was given some of the cartridges, he looked at them, then radioed in: "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." ... then, after LHO was arrested, someone figured out that the LHO's pistol and the cartridges don't match.... so into the trash go some cartridges, and into the record go others...
>
> And because there's no legitimate chain of possession - no LNT'er can make a
> legitimate case that the above scenario is impossible.
>
> The same thing happened with CE399 - it was quickly discovered that the bullet that had been recovered matched one of the other rifles used in the assassination - so it was simply swapped. This is why no-one who handled it is willing to testify that it's the same bullet *now* as it was *then*.
>
> Now, if you're looking for something *planted* at the Tippit scene, you don't need to look any further than a wallet.
>
> But you won't... gutless as you are.
>
> ***************************************************
>
> Now, watch as "Bud" refuses to refute even a single word I said...
>
> And cite for it.
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 5:33:39 PM4/13/17
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 5:42:16 PM4/13/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:23:55 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:18:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > >
> > > > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> > > >
> > > > Poor Ben.
> > >
> > > I found this post from Ben a few weeks back, and bookmarked it with the intention of starting a post pertaining to it. It is from a 2007 response to you, and even though Ben claims not to be bashful about presenting his ideas he does so about the same frequency as Haley`s Comet comes around. Here is the post...
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
> > >
> > > Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
> >
> >
> > Tut tut tut, "Bud." Snipping and removing context is the mark of a dishonest coward.
>
> I linked to the discussion up above, stupid. I selected the portion that I wanted to use to make my point.
And I put back in the ENTIRE conversation, along with the context you quite dishonestly didn't want...
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:18:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > >
> > > > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> > > >
> > > > Poor Ben.
> > >
> > > I found this post from Ben a few weeks back, and bookmarked it with the intention of starting a post pertaining to it. It is from a 2007 response to you, and even though Ben claims not to be bashful about presenting his ideas he does so about the same frequency as Haley`s Comet comes around. Here is the post...
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
> > >
> > > Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
> >
> >
> > Tut tut tut, "Bud." Snipping and removing context is the mark of a dishonest coward.
>
> I linked to the discussion up above, stupid. I selected the portion that I wanted to use to make my point.
> >So here's the ENTIRE post, including the context:
> >
> > >> Reiterate all day long; we're NOT fooled.
> > >
> > >No....you're just stupid (it would appear).
> >
> > I know that lurkers will be able to figure out who's "stupid". For, unlike LNT'ers, CT'ers don't have to imagine up to 90% of America is without a "grain of sense", or "stupid".
> >
> >
> > >It seems that some CTers want to believe that the brainless plotters
> > >were stupid enough to attempt to frame Oswald for Tippit's murder
> > >(Patsy Frame-Up #2 of the day of course) by planting the WRONG type of
> > >cartridge cases on 10th Street -- i.e., planting shells from an
> > >automatic instead of from Lee Harvey's revolver.
> > >
> > >Please tell the world WHY these plotters would attempt something so
> > >dumb??
> >
> > What's *dumb* is this particular spin on the story. You somehow imagine that the first detectives to the scene picked up the revolver cartridge shells belonging to LHO's revolver, and someone jumped up and said, "Heh - LHO has an automatic, not a revolver! ... anyone have some automatic cartridges on you?"
> >
> > Anyone with *half* a brain would see that what *actually* happened is far more likely... Sergeant Hill was given some of the cartridges, he looked at them, then radioed in: "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." ... then, after LHO was arrested, someone figured out that the LHO's pistol and the cartridges don't match.... so into the trash go some cartridges, and into the record go others...
> >
> > And because there's no legitimate chain of possession - no LNT'er can make a
> > legitimate case that the above scenario is impossible.
> >
> > The same thing happened with CE399 - it was quickly discovered that the bullet that had been recovered matched one of the other rifles used in the assassination - so it was simply swapped. This is why no-one who handled it is willing to testify that it's the same bullet *now* as it was *then*.
> >
> > Now, if you're looking for something *planted* at the Tippit scene, you don't need to look any further than a wallet.
> >
> > But you won't... gutless as you are.
> >
> > ***************************************************
> >
> > Now, watch as "Bud" refuses to refute even a single word I said...
> >
> > And cite for it.
>
> Wasn`t the point.
You never *can* refute the statements I make about this case... you can only sit back and snipe away...
> The point was to illustrate the fact that you always opt for fantastic explanations.
You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain the radio transmission... then you complain when someone gives a perfectly credible and reasonable explanation.
> You do it throughout the case.
You refuse to offer specifics that can be instantly refuted... and prefer to stick with these broad generalities that no-one could refute instantly with evidence.
So I'll just label you a gutless liar and move on...
> If you were ever to produce your ideas from start to finish the ridiculousness of your ideas would become readily apparent.
You've simply lied about that fact, and then demonstrate just what a coward you are by refusing yet again to post *YOUR* scenario.
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 5:42:45 PM4/13/17
to
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 7:08:16 PM4/13/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 5:42:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:23:55 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:18:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Poor Ben.
> > > >
> > > > I found this post from Ben a few weeks back, and bookmarked it with the intention of starting a post pertaining to it. It is from a 2007 response to you, and even though Ben claims not to be bashful about presenting his ideas he does so about the same frequency as Haley`s Comet comes around. Here is the post...
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
> > > >
> > > > Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
> > >
> > >
> > > Tut tut tut, "Bud." Snipping and removing context is the mark of a dishonest coward.
> >
> > I linked to the discussion up above, stupid. I selected the portion that I wanted to use to make my point.
>
>
> And I put back in the ENTIRE conversation, along with the context you quite dishonestly didn't want...
Yes, that is why I linked to the discussion, because I didn`t want anyone to see it.
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:23:55 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:18:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Poor Ben.
> > > >
> > > > I found this post from Ben a few weeks back, and bookmarked it with the intention of starting a post pertaining to it. It is from a 2007 response to you, and even though Ben claims not to be bashful about presenting his ideas he does so about the same frequency as Haley`s Comet comes around. Here is the post...
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
> > > >
> > > > Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
> > >
> > >
> > > Tut tut tut, "Bud." Snipping and removing context is the mark of a dishonest coward.
> >
> > I linked to the discussion up above, stupid. I selected the portion that I wanted to use to make my point.
>
>
> And I put back in the ENTIRE conversation, along with the context you quite dishonestly didn't want...
> > >So here's the ENTIRE post, including the context:
> > >
> > > >> Reiterate all day long; we're NOT fooled.
> > > >
> > > >No....you're just stupid (it would appear).
> > >
> > > I know that lurkers will be able to figure out who's "stupid". For, unlike LNT'ers, CT'ers don't have to imagine up to 90% of America is without a "grain of sense", or "stupid".
> > >
> > >
> > > >It seems that some CTers want to believe that the brainless plotters
> > > >were stupid enough to attempt to frame Oswald for Tippit's murder
> > > >(Patsy Frame-Up #2 of the day of course) by planting the WRONG type of
> > > >cartridge cases on 10th Street -- i.e., planting shells from an
> > > >automatic instead of from Lee Harvey's revolver.
> > > >
> > > >Please tell the world WHY these plotters would attempt something so
> > > >dumb??
> > >
> > > What's *dumb* is this particular spin on the story. You somehow imagine that the first detectives to the scene picked up the revolver cartridge shells belonging to LHO's revolver, and someone jumped up and said, "Heh - LHO has an automatic, not a revolver! ... anyone have some automatic cartridges on you?"
> > >
> > > Anyone with *half* a brain would see that what *actually* happened is far more likely... Sergeant Hill was given some of the cartridges, he looked at them, then radioed in: "the shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." ... then, after LHO was arrested, someone figured out that the LHO's pistol and the cartridges don't match.... so into the trash go some cartridges, and into the record go others...
> > >
> > > And because there's no legitimate chain of possession - no LNT'er can make a
> > > legitimate case that the above scenario is impossible.
> > >
> > > The same thing happened with CE399 - it was quickly discovered that the bullet that had been recovered matched one of the other rifles used in the assassination - so it was simply swapped. This is why no-one who handled it is willing to testify that it's the same bullet *now* as it was *then*.
> > >
> > > Now, if you're looking for something *planted* at the Tippit scene, you don't need to look any further than a wallet.
> > >
> > > But you won't... gutless as you are.
> > >
> > > ***************************************************
> > >
> > > Now, watch as "Bud" refuses to refute even a single word I said...
> > >
> > > And cite for it.
> >
> > Wasn`t the point.
>
> Of *course* it isn't...
> You never *can* refute the statements I make about this case... you can only sit back and snipe away...
> > The point was to illustrate the fact that you always opt for fantastic explanations.
>
> Nothing "fantastic" about it at all... which is why you won't defend such a blatant lie.
You don`t debate ridiculous positions, you ridicule ridiculous positions.
> You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to explain the radio transmission... then you complain when someone gives a perfectly credible and reasonable explanation.
> > You do it throughout the case.
>
>
> And *YOU* repeatedly lie.
>
> You refuse to offer specifics that can be instantly refuted... and prefer to stick with these broad generalities that no-one could refute instantly with evidence.
> So I'll just label you a gutless liar and move on...
>
> > If you were ever to produce your ideas from start to finish the ridiculousness of your ideas would become readily apparent.
>
>
> I provably *HAVE* given my scenario EACH AND EVERY TIME a believer has offered theirs...
And what does it matter who else posts what, if you have the truth on your side you shouldn`t balk at presenting it. But you know you only have contrived nonsense to offer.
> You've simply lied about that fact, and then demonstrate just what a coward you are by refusing yet again to post *YOUR* scenario.
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 7:14:00 PM4/13/17
to
Wrong. Some people on the front steps of the TSBD thought the shots came from the TSBD, some thought the shots came from the knoll. How do you explain this?
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 7:37:24 PM4/13/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:08:16 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 5:42:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:23:55 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:18:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Poor Ben.
> > > > >
> > > > > I found this post from Ben a few weeks back, and bookmarked it with the intention of starting a post pertaining to it. It is from a 2007 response to you, and even though Ben claims not to be bashful about presenting his ideas he does so about the same frequency as Haley`s Comet comes around. Here is the post...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
> > > > >
> > > > > Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud." Snipping and removing context is the mark of a dishonest coward.
> > >
> > > I linked to the discussion up above, stupid. I selected the portion that I wanted to use to make my point.
> >
> >
> > And I put back in the ENTIRE conversation, along with the context you quite dishonestly didn't want...
>
> Yes, that is why I linked to the discussion, because I didn`t want anyone to see it.
Of course, without the context, it looks far better for you...
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 5:42:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:23:55 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:18:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:54:12 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:18:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Poor Ben.
> > > > >
> > > > > I found this post from Ben a few weeks back, and bookmarked it with the intention of starting a post pertaining to it. It is from a 2007 response to you, and even though Ben claims not to be bashful about presenting his ideas he does so about the same frequency as Haley`s Comet comes around. Here is the post...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/hBZGkBxyv-s/2LbuVIxdm8gJ
> > > > >
> > > > > Not trying to debate this issue, just for the edification of the lurkers this is just the smallest slice of the nonsense that Ben believes. He says..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud." Snipping and removing context is the mark of a dishonest coward.
> > >
> > > I linked to the discussion up above, stupid. I selected the portion that I wanted to use to make my point.
> >
> >
> > And I put back in the ENTIRE conversation, along with the context you quite dishonestly didn't want...
>
> Yes, that is why I linked to the discussion, because I didn`t want anyone to see it.
Which is why you removed the context.
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 7:38:18 PM4/13/17
to
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:14:00 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 5:42:45 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:33:39 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:08:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:38:58 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:59:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:01:39 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Least Plausible Hypothesis:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reflection of sound is a big thing. And people might just not be good at placing the sound of things when they don`t see the source.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The question was: What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> > > > >
> > > > > Some people were able to accurately pinpoint the source of the shots as coming from the TSBD and some people were fooled by the reflection of sound.
> > > >
> > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud" - you're lying again.
> > > >
> > > > This is *NOT* the "most plausible explanation" - the most plausible is that there were two shooters.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> This is the full point the intellectual coward is running from....
Simply admit that you're lying, then the debate can move forward...
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 5:42:45 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 2:33:39 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 4:08:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:38:58 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:59:27 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:01:39 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Least Plausible Hypothesis:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: "I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Oswald's rifle was in Mrs. Paine's garage. In the morning Oswald's rifle was gone. Clearly Oswald's rifle was taken by DAVID FERRIE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called "Occam's Razor", and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be "the most parsimonious", meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On ward rounds, medical students love to come up with the most obscure explanations for common problems. A traditional response is to tell them "If you hear hoof beats, don't automatically think of zebras".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [Found in McAdam's censored forum...]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's truly amusing that believers will post such apparently logical material, then fail to follow it themselves...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reflection of sound is a big thing. And people might just not be good at placing the sound of things when they don`t see the source.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The question was: What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
> > > > >
> > > > > Some people were able to accurately pinpoint the source of the shots as coming from the TSBD and some people were fooled by the reflection of sound.
> > > >
> > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud" - you're lying again.
> > > >
> > > > This is *NOT* the "most plausible explanation" - the most plausible is that there were two shooters.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> This is the full point the intellectual coward is running from....
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 7:40:57 PM4/13/17
to
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 7:41:49 PM4/13/17
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 7:58:49 PM4/13/17
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 7:59:14 PM4/13/17
to
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 8:13:51 PM4/13/17
to
Bud
Apr 13, 2017, 8:15:33 PM4/13/17
to
David Von Pein
Apr 13, 2017, 8:41:58 PM4/13/17
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 9:15:39 PM4/13/17
to
You see, I *ENJOY* forcing believers to publicly assert facts contrary to their faith.
So tell us "Bud," - What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
Perhaps I should remove the specific references... even a moron as cowardly as "Bud" would probably give the correct answer if I made it a generic question...
Tell us "Bud," what's the most plausible explanation for witnesses describing shots from one or both of two different locations?
Ben Holmes
Apr 13, 2017, 9:24:38 PM4/13/17
to
EVEN BELIEVERS REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF OTHER BELIEVERS!!!
> And one of those witnesses who was on the TSBD steps who thought all the shots came from the direction of the Knoll/Railroad yard is Buell Frazier, whom CTers just LOVE (because of his "paper bag" testimony).
Bud
Apr 14, 2017, 3:04:37 PM4/14/17
to
> but the answer would come in the form of a question that "Bud" would never answer.
> You see, I *ENJOY* forcing believers to publicly assert facts contrary to their faith.
> So tell us "Bud," - What's the most plausible explanation for the witnesses describing shots from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll?
What good does information do you Ben? You are a stump.
> Perhaps I should remove the specific references... even a moron as cowardly as "Bud" would probably give the correct answer if I made it a generic question...
>
> Tell us "Bud," what's the most plausible explanation for witnesses describing shots from one or both of two different locations?
Ben Holmes
Apr 14, 2017, 3:22:18 PM4/14/17
to
Since shots came from multiple directions, people had differing opinions as to where the shots came from. Some were accurate enough (and resisted the intimidation enough) to assert multiple directions.
Now... "Red" or "Green?"
You can run again... as you usually do - but it's clear that I'm capable of answering, WITH CREDIBLE EXPLANATIONS, any question on this case you can ask... but the opposite isn't true.
You're a coward, as are all believers... you simply refuse to answer the questions I ask.
Nor will you apologize for the provable lie you just told.
Bud
Apr 14, 2017, 3:47:20 PM4/14/17
to
> Since shots came from multiple directions, people had differing opinions as to where the shots came from. Some were accurate enough (and resisted the intimidation enough) to assert multiple directions.
And this doesn`t solve your problem of some witnesses indicating 3 shots from one place, and other indicating 3 shots from another place. Were they hearing different sets of three shots?
Not that I expect any in depth thinking from you on this, being a stump and all.
Ben Holmes
Apr 14, 2017, 3:52:23 PM4/14/17
to
You must be able to CITE EVIDENCE.
You can't... therefore, *YOU* are the liar.
> > Since shots came from multiple directions, people had differing opinions as to where the shots came from. Some were accurate enough (and resisted the intimidation enough) to assert multiple directions.
>
> Very few witnesses indicated multiple directions. Were the rest intimidated?
And, had they been properly cross-examined - OR EVEN ASKED PROPERLY FROM THE BEGINNING - I rather suspect that there'd have been quite a few more witnesses that pointed to two different directions.
> And this doesn`t solve your problem of some witnesses indicating 3 shots from one place, and other indicating 3 shots from another place. Were they hearing different sets of three shots?
You're lying again, "Bud."
> Not that I expect any in depth thinking from you on this, being a stump and all.
You're a coward, "Bud."
> > Now... "Red" or "Green?"
> >
> > You can run again... as you usually do - but it's clear that I'm capable of answering, WITH CREDIBLE EXPLANATIONS, any question on this case you can ask... but the opposite isn't true.
> >
> > You're a coward, as are all believers... you simply refuse to answer the questions I ask.
> >
> > Nor will you apologize for the provable lie you just told.
Bud
Apr 14, 2017, 5:20:28 PM4/14/17
to
> You must be able to CITE EVIDENCE.
>
> You can't... therefore, *YOU* are the liar.
>
>
> > > Since shots came from multiple directions, people had differing opinions as to where the shots came from. Some were accurate enough (and resisted the intimidation enough) to assert multiple directions.
> >
> > Very few witnesses indicated multiple directions. Were the rest intimidated?
>
>
> You can't explain 'em...
Are you suggesting that the smallest group, witnesses indicating the sound of the shots came from two separate directions are the ones who got it right?
> And, had they been properly cross-examined - OR EVEN ASKED PROPERLY FROM THE BEGINNING - I rather suspect that there'd have been quite a few more witnesses that pointed to two different directions.
You have to be able to offer ideas that make sense.
>
> > And this doesn`t solve your problem of some witnesses indicating 3 shots from one place, and other indicating 3 shots from another place. Were they hearing different sets of three shots?
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> > Not that I expect any in depth thinking from you on this, being a stump and all.
>
>
> You're a coward, "Bud."
Ben Holmes
Apr 14, 2017, 6:27:18 PM4/14/17
to
Bud
Apr 14, 2017, 6:43:55 PM4/14/17
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 14, 2017, 7:24:10 PM4/14/17
to
Being labeled an "intellectual coward" by someone who continues to refuse to debate the topic is fairly meaningless, isn't it?
Bud
Apr 15, 2017, 6:06:40 AM4/15/17
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 15, 2017, 11:12:15 AM4/15/17
to
0 new messages