Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #8

134 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 11:00:00 AM4/3/18
to
> 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
> his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination. .... But, of
> course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in linking LHO
> to the weapon. Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
> the weapon was Oswald's.

> It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
> himself; and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
> the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
> handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
> him.

> Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
> trigger. But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
> (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
> of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
> 22?

> The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
> handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
> Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
> what might be the implications of doing so?

> As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
> rifle topic, some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
> stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
> Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
> conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
> have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.

Once again, David has COMPLETELY FAILED in his quest to prove the
"sole guilt" of anyone at all.

Indeed, David admits that this item *DOESN'T EVEN PROVE OSWALD GUILTY
OF ANYTHING AT ALL* - so how can it prove "sole guilt" when he's not
even proving guilt???

stump wants to claim that you can add up all these non-proofs, and get
a proof - but he also failed math. 0+0+0+0+0... will never equal 1.

But, this garbage of David is worth refuting statement by statement,
so here's a repeat of his item 8, with commentary:

> 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
> his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination.


*EXTREMELY* debatable, and David knows it. Both the FBI and Warren
Commission had grave doubts of this "fact," and attempted to pin it
down unsuccessfully. The simple fact that Lt. Day photographed ALL
OTHER PRINTS shows far more than "reasonable doubt" - and it rather
teilling that David even bothers with this claim.


> .... But, of course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in
> linking LHO to the weapon.

David knows full well the problems of the "palmprint" - so he very
carefully backtracks in advance. He's clearly aware of just how weak
this claim is - and shows it.


> Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
> the weapon was Oswald's.


No David, it's not. The problems with the ownership of the Mannlicher
Carcano are lengthy, and you've done your best to try to resurrect the
Warren Commission's claim - but it's *FAR* from certain that Oswald
owned this rifle. There's problems with **ALL** of the evidence
linking him to the rifle, as you well know.


> It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
> himself;

No, it wasn't. It was a presumption of the Warren Commission, who
ignored their own evidence in order to come to this "conclusion."

There's no evidence that David will cite that proves this claim.

Nor will David *DARE* to refer to the evidence of a real "Hidell" in
this case...

> and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
> the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
> handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
> him.

No on both counts. (And David already knows this!)

It was *NOT* "positively proven" to have been his handwriting.
Handwriting experts routinely state that *originals* are needed to
make a judgement, not copies.

Nor was the rifle shown to have been delivered to the P.O. box that
Oswald had.


> Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
> trigger.


This is, of course... a presumption. It's never been proven that
Oswald owned a rifle.

The major difficulties with his assumed ownership have always been
glossed over. Indeed, we merely need to look at the most recent
attempts by David to show that the money order went through the normal
banking system... a complete failure on his part.

Not that he will admit it... but fail he did.


> But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
> (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
> of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
> 22?

This is a frequent "go-to" bit of logic on the part of believers...
the "common sense" argument.

It's frequently used because there's a *LACK OF EVIDENCE* for their
claims. If evidence existed, wouldn't believers like David produce the
evidence instead of their reliance on "garden-variety logic" or
"common sense?"

"Ownership" of a weapon has never been used in a court of law, to my
knowledge... **POSSESSION* is the critical idea here. And possession
would be a certainty if we had fingerprint (or palmprint) evidence
that was credible.

But David knows that we don't. He's TERRIFIED of debating a more
knowledgeable critic - he's been schooled on more than one occasion on
evidence he *should* have been familiar with.

> The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
> handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
> Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
> what might be the implications of doing so?

This is not the alternative.

David pretends that if an owner of a weapon isn't guilty of a crime
with that weapon, that the only other possibility is that the owner
handed over his weapon to another.

This is **PROVABLY** stupid and wrong. (Simply Google "Stolen Guns
Used In Crime" - I included this to prevent stump from whining about
an "empty claim.")

Nor is the claim that if one loans a weapon to someone else, they
"know full well" what's going to occur...

David is guilty of rather stupid speculation based on his
preconceptions of what happened.

And if *this* is the best that David can do...


> As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
> rifle topic,

The idea that Occam's Razor shows that the owner of a gun is the prime
suspect in any crime *committed* with the gun is a fallacy and an
outright lie on David's part.

This is the sort of slick glossing over of facts that believers are
frequently guilty of.

The fact that the David & dufus duo keep making these sorts of claims
tells the true tale, doesn't it?


> some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
> stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
> Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
> conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
> have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.

How silly! I'm often amused at how frequently believers like to argue
against theories they **presume** a critic would proffer, rather than
the **REAL** ones...

Why can't David demonstrate how Oswald was *NOT* framed with a weapon?
This **IS** a supportable theory proposed by a critic. There was *NO*
rifle in a blanket - seen by no-one, and not shown to be owned by
Oswald, so no-one needed to "steal" it.

As usual - David being the coward that he is, will not dare to defend
his lies in an open forum not controlled by friendly believers...

It will be left to dufus to dance, whine & lie... but yet again we see
the central claim of David - completely unsupported.

Bud

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 2:18:36 PM4/3/18
to
Who does Oswald`s prints on the murder weapon implicate, Santa Claus lurkers?

> Indeed, David admits that this item *DOESN'T EVEN PROVE OSWALD GUILTY
> OF ANYTHING AT ALL* - so how can it prove "sole guilt" when he's not
> even proving guilt???

It is impossible for a single thing to prove someone`s guilt, lurkers. Hence, a list.

> stump wants to claim that you can add up all these non-proofs, and get
> a proof - but he also failed math. 0+0+0+0+0... will never equal 1.

Just because retards have contrived reasons to disregard the indications of Oswald`s guilt does not mean they are nullified, lurkers. It means retards have been playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

And so *many* indications, coming in from all directions. Retards think they can steer Oswald through all these indications *after the fact*, but they can`t show it would have been possible to anticipate a single thing beforehand.

> But, this garbage of David is worth refuting statement by statement,
> so here's a repeat of his item 8, with commentary:
>
> > 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
> > his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination.
>
>
> *EXTREMELY* debatable, and David knows it. Both the FBI and Warren
> Commission had grave doubts of this "fact," and attempted to pin it
> down unsuccessfully. The simple fact that Lt. Day photographed ALL
> OTHER PRINTS shows far more than "reasonable doubt" - and it rather
> teilling that David even bothers with this claim.

Like I said, lurkers, retards have contrived reasons to disregard the evidence. And they do this time and time and time again. How does "they were all working against poor Oswald" become the default? This is the same sort of stupidity the OJ Simpson jurors bought into.

>
> > .... But, of course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in
> > linking LHO to the weapon.
>
> David knows full well the problems of the "palmprint" - so he very
> carefully backtracks in advance. He's clearly aware of just how weak
> this claim is - and shows it.

He didn`t "backtrack", lurkers. He just pointed out that it was overkill.

> > Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
> > the weapon was Oswald's.
>
>
> No David, it's not. The problems with the ownership of the Mannlicher
> Carcano are lengthy, and you've done your best to try to resurrect the
> Warren Commission's claim - but it's *FAR* from certain that Oswald
> owned this rifle. There's problems with **ALL** of the evidence
> linking him to the rifle, as you well know.

Like I said lurkers, the retards feel if they dispute something that this nullifies the evidence against Oswald. There is only one reasonable conclusion, that Oswald owned and used this weapon. The retards can`t even begin to put a more reasonable explanation on the table, their ideas can only be wildly fantastic.

>
> > It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
> > himself;
>
> No, it wasn't. It was a presumption of the Warren Commission, who
> ignored their own evidence in order to come to this "conclusion."

Nonsense, lurkers.

> There's no evidence that David will cite that proves this claim.

Perhaps if Oswald was arrested with fake ID bearing this name, lurkers. Oh, thats right, he was.

> Nor will David *DARE* to refer to the evidence of a real "Hidell" in
> this case...

Neither will Ben, lurkers.

> > and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
> > the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
> > handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
> > him.
>
> No on both counts. (And David already knows this!)
>
> It was *NOT* "positively proven" to have been his handwriting.

It was the conclusion of experts who examined the material, lurkers.

> Handwriting experts routinely state that *originals* are needed to
> make a judgement, not copies.

Let Ben quote these experts who say it is impossible to make these determinations from copies, lurkers.

I searched "handwriting analysis from copies" on google and the first thing on the list disputes his claim...

https://www.forensicdocexaminer.com/photocopies-for-evidence-beware/

The articles cites difficulties but doesn`t say it can`t be done.

> Nor was the rifle shown to have been delivered to the P.O. box that
> Oswald had.

The BY photo shows it was, lurkers. The serial number on the rifle shows it was.

> > Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
> > trigger.
>
>
> This is, of course... a presumption. It's never been proven that
> Oswald owned a rifle.

It has been shown, lurkers.

> The major difficulties with his assumed ownership have always been
> glossed over. Indeed, we merely need to look at the most recent
> attempts by David to show that the money order went through the normal
> banking system... a complete failure on his part.

The file locator number show the money order had been through the banking system, lurkers.

> Not that he will admit it... but fail he did.
>
>
> > But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
> > (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
> > of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
> > 22?
>
> This is a frequent "go-to" bit of logic on the part of believers...
> the "common sense" argument.

When there is evidence coming in from every direction it is retarded to believe it was all fabricated, lurkers. The retarded thinking of conspiracy crackpots is the opposite of common sense.

> It's frequently used because there's a *LACK OF EVIDENCE* for their
> claims. If evidence existed, wouldn't believers like David produce the
> evidence instead of their reliance on "garden-variety logic" or
> "common sense?"

The retards ignore the evidence and then say "what evidence?", lurkers.

> "Ownership" of a weapon has never been used in a court of law, to my
> knowledge... **POSSESSION* is the critical idea here. And possession
> would be a certainty if we had fingerprint (or palmprint) evidence
> that was credible.

We have fingerprint evidence, photographic evidence, documentation and witness testimony, lurkers. Retards choose to disregard it all, what could matter less?

> But David knows that we don't. He's TERRIFIED of debating a more
> knowledgeable critic - he's been schooled on more than one occasion on
> evidence he *should* have been familiar with.
>
> > The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
> > handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
> > Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
> > what might be the implications of doing so?
>
> This is not the alternative.
>
> David pretends that if an owner of a weapon isn't guilty of a crime
> with that weapon, that the only other possibility is that the owner
> handed over his weapon to another.
>
> This is **PROVABLY** stupid and wrong. (Simply Google "Stolen Guns
> Used In Crime" - I included this to prevent stump from whining about
> an "empty claim.")
>
> Nor is the claim that if one loans a weapon to someone else, they
> "know full well" what's going to occur...

Of course none of Ben`s offerings make the least bit of sense in the context of this crime. If Oswald`s rifle was loaned or stolen, what are the first words out of his mouth when he is in custody, lurkers?

> David is guilty of rather stupid speculation based on his
> preconceptions of what happened.

It is only stupid speculation if the presumptions of retards are given weight. If one makes reasonable conclusions then the scenario DVP offered is sound. What the tards demand is that you stand on your head like they do to view things. They refuse to look at things from a reasonable perspective and bitch when other people do.

> And if *this* is the best that David can do...
>
>
> > As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
> > rifle topic,
>
> The idea that Occam's Razor shows that the owner of a gun is the prime
> suspect in any crime *committed* with the gun is a fallacy and an
> outright lie on David's part.

I`ve never seen a conspiracy retard who understands Occam`s Razor, lurkers. DVP was entirely correct in that Oswald as rifle owner and shooter best satisfies the simplicity Occam`s Razor favors. It requires the least number of presumptions.


> This is the sort of slick glossing over of facts that believers are
> frequently guilty of.

Conspiracy retards insist looking at the wrong things, lurkers. If you don`t follow their lead they level charges like the one Ben just made above. You have to be stumped by the same "go nowhere" issues they have chosen to be stumped by.

> The fact that the David & dufus duo keep making these sorts of claims
> tells the true tale, doesn't it?

Don`t pat any attention to this nonsense, lurkers.

> > some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
> > stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
> > Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
> > conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
> > have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.
>
> How silly! I'm often amused at how frequently believers like to argue
> against theories they **presume** a critic would proffer, rather than
> the **REAL** ones...

<snicker> Have you ever seen a conspiracy retard who is willing to put his beliefs out there for scrutiny, lurkers? We often find ourselves addressing the arguments they *seem* to be making because their ideas are so childish they are ashamed to say what they actually are.

> Why can't David demonstrate how Oswald was *NOT* framed with a weapon?

What a retarded approach, lurkers. Let DVP try to show Oswald wasn`t an alien. Let DVP try to prove to a flat Earther that the Earth is round. Let DVP show to a Truther that the WTC buildings weren`t brought down by explosives.

> This **IS** a supportable theory proposed by a critic. There was *NO*
> rifle in a blanket - seen by no-one, and not shown to be owned by
> Oswald, so no-one needed to "steal" it.

So Marina took the police into the garage to show them the nice blanket she kept there, lurkers?

And why doesn`t Ben take his denials one step further, and claim there was no Lee Harvey Oswald?

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 4:26:27 PM4/3/18
to
That's a good boy, Ben. Keep ignoring all the evidence of Oswald's guilt, and keep pretending I have offered **no evidence** at all. After all, that's what a good ABO CT Fantasist does best. (Just ask anybody at the Edu. Forum.)

For the one or two "lurkers" Bud keeps addressing, I'll offer up a couple of links from my JFK Archives that deal with Oswald's ownership and possession of Carcano Rifle #C2766....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

And if any "lurkers" want to see my archived discussions involving other JFK sub-topics, just use the Search Box in the upper-left corner on any page of my "DVP's JFK Archives" blog and type in the relevant keywords, such as:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Rifle+Palmprint+CE637

The above search request provides lots of things for Ben Holmes to either totally ignore or mangle.

Here's another one....A general search of my archives for "Alias A.J. Hidell". This search returns many interesting facts and tidbits....all just waiting for Ben to twist and distort (or to ignore altogether):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Alias+A.J.+Hidell

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 9:13:20 PM4/3/18
to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:26:26 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>That's a good boy, Ben.

Ridicule isn't a defense to your *PROVABLE* lies, David. Indeed, it's
just childish.

All you're doing here is implicitly admitting that you have no
defense.

> Keep ignoring all the evidence of Oswald's guilt,


Tut tut tut liar... Oswald's *SOLE* Guilt is your claim. Why can't you
support your claim?

Why are you lying about what your claim actually *IS*?


> and keep pretending
> I have offered **no evidence** at all.

You've offered NOT ONE SINGLE BIT OF EVIDENCE to support your claim...
which is the *SOLE* guilt of someone. You even publicly state that
some of the items you raise HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVING OSWALD
GUILTY... and *NONE* of your items prove ... OR EVEN SUPPORT, his
"sole guilt."

So no, you're lying about what I state, and yes, you've offered *NO
EVIDENCE AT ALL* for the *CLAIM THAT YOU MADE* - to wit, the *sole*
guilt of anyone at all.


> After all, that's what a good
> ABO CT Fantasist does best. (Just ask anybody at the Edu. Forum.)


Can you name a *SINGLE* member of the Education Forum that can quote
any one of your 20 items that actually supports the "sole guilt" of
anyone at all?


No?


I thought not. If *you* can't, and stump can't... then certainly
no-one in any other forum will be capable of doing so.



**YOU** have the best incentive to defend your website, AND YOU REFUSE
TO DO SO!


And that fact tells the tale...


> For the one or two "lurkers" Bud keeps addressing, I'll offer up a
> couple of links from my JFK Archives...

And I'll delete 'em.

Because just like this post, you'll refuse to defend any others you've
written as well.

What does it say when the *AUTHOR* of a piece is unwilling to defend
it against critical review?

Bud

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 9:41:34 PM4/3/18
to
Wise, when the "critics" are nothing more than foaming at the mouth lunatics, lurkers.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 3, 2018, 11:58:57 PM4/3/18
to
Here's what this "lurker" notices, Bud...that you used the ad-hominem "retard" 15 times in a single post, which speaks volumes as to your intelligence, lack of substantial argument on the topic at hand, and weak support of what little argument you give.

>>> Bud says: "I`ve never seen a conspiracy retard who understands Occam`s Razor, lurkers."

An entry wound in the throat. A bullet hole in the windshield. A head that's thrown backwards. An occipital exit wound. Metal bits of Frangible bullet mapping a front-to-back trajectory in the x-ray.

Occam's Razor suggests a minimum of two shooters. Even if one of them *is* Oswald.

Thanks.

Bud

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:05:42 AM4/4/18
to
You counted them? Thats pretty retarded.

> which speaks volumes as to your intelligence,

Indeed it does. Good or bad.

> lack of substantial argument on the topic at hand,

There is little of substance to argue against, which Ben proves with every post he makes, raising issue after issue that he can go nowhere with. By his own admission he is a critic, and who can`t criticize other people`s work (like you are doing here with mine)?

> and weak support of what little argument you give.

You seem as confused about what I do as Ben is. Ben starts posts advancing ideas. I point out the problems with the ideas he puts forth, put the idea in the correct context, point out the deficiencies in his arguments, ect.

> >>> Bud says: "I`ve never seen a conspiracy retard who understands Occam`s Razor, lurkers."
>
> An entry wound in the throat. A bullet hole in the windshield. A head that's thrown backwards. An occipital exit wound. Metal bits of Frangible bullet mapping a front-to-back trajectory in the x-ray.

That is cherry picking mixed with erroneous assumptions. Now you put forth ideas and I will see if these ideas hold water.

"An entry wound in the throat."

What is the name of the wound ballistic or forensic expert who examined the wound in Kennedy`s neck and determined it was an entry wound?

"A bullet hole in the windshield."

Show this.

And plot a trajectory from any wound to any passenger through that hole to a shooting location.

"A head that's thrown backwards."

When Kennedy`s head is struck by the bullet his head goes forward.

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9f/Anim_essay_BedrockEvidence_Z308-317AnimF.gif

"An occipital exit wound."

What is the name of the wound ballistic or forensic expert who stated there was an occipital exit wound?

"Metal bits of Frangible bullet mapping a front-to-back trajectory in the x-ray."

What is the name of the ballistic or forensic expert who stated that the metal fragments in Kennedy`s skull establish a front to back trajectory.

You shoot the same blanks Ben does, no wonder you see his arguments as stronger.

> Occam's Razor suggests a minimum of two shooters. Even if one of them *is* Oswald.

What you offered is not Occam`s Razor. Occam`s Razor is that you shouldn`t posit a second shooter if one isn`t necessary to explain the evidence. You haven`t shown that a second shooter is necessary to explain the evidence.

> Thanks.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 10:53:00 AM4/4/18
to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 20:58:56 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
I've been trying to train stump out of that habit, but it seems a
hopeless task.


>>>> Bud says: "I`ve never seen a conspiracy retard who understands Occam`s Razor, lurkers."
>
> An entry wound in the throat. A bullet hole in the windshield. A
> head that's thrown backwards. An occipital exit wound. Metal bits of
> Frangible bullet mapping a front-to-back trajectory in the x-ray.

All of these items are denied by believers. I can't even get stump to
say where he sees the larger bullet fragments in JFK's X-rays... he
knows enough about physics to know what this shows... so you can't get
him to publicly address it.

>Occam's Razor suggests a minimum of two shooters. Even if one of them *is* Oswald.
>
>Thanks.

Indeed!

Bud

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 11:10:04 AM4/4/18
to
<snicker> Ben expects me to address an idea when he is too much of an intellectual coward to say what the idea is. He vaguely alludes that physics supports the idea that he is too much of an intellectual coward to say what the idea is. Then they wonder why I use the word "retard" to explain this behavior.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 11:35:19 AM4/4/18
to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 18:41:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Another empty claim. Did your mother lock you in the bathroom again?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 11:35:20 AM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 04:05:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> You counted them? I'm pretty retarded.


Are you amazed that someone can count? Or amazed at your poor
reasoning & debate skills?



>> which speaks volumes as to your intelligence,
>
> Indeed it does. Good or bad.


ROTFLMAO!!! Even stump sees the obvious conclusions!


>> lack of substantial argument on the topic at hand,
>
> There is little of substance to argue against, which Ben proves
> with every post he makes, raising issue after issue that he can go
> nowhere with. By his own admission he is a critic, and who can`t
> criticize other people`s work (like you are doing here with mine)?


You can't defend the Warren Commission with whining & ad hominem.

As I criticize it with citation, evidence, and logical argument.


>> and weak support of what little argument you give.
>
> You seem as confused about what I do as Ben is. Ben starts posts
> advancing ideas. I point out the problems with the ideas he puts
> forth, put the idea in the correct context, point out the deficiencies
> in his arguments, ect.


You *claim* this... but what you're really doing is illustrating
cowardice & dishonesty at every turn.

You even refuse to define basic terms... such as "evidence," or
"conspiracy."

That fact tells the tale.


>> >>> Bud says: "I`ve never seen a conspiracy retard who understands Occam`s Razor, lurkers."
>>
>> An entry wound in the throat. A bullet hole in the windshield. A head that's thrown backwards. An occipital exit wound. Metal bits of Frangible bullet mapping a front-to-back trajectory in the x-ray.
>
> That is cherry picking mixed with erroneous assumptions. Now you
> put forth ideas and I will see if these ideas hold water.


No, you won't. You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite any evidence or expert
opinion.



> "An entry wound in the throat."
>
> What is the name of the wound ballistic or forensic expert who
> examined the wound in Kennedy`s neck and determined it was an entry
> wound?

What is the name of the identity expert who confirmed that the person
shot was indeed "JFK?"

These sorts of questions are moronic at best... and show your
desperation. Any *honest* person can easily acknowledge that the
throat wound appeared in *ALL* respects to be an entry wound.

You may try to explain *why* it looked that way, but it's sheer
dishonesty to evade as you do.

> "A bullet hole in the windshield."
>
> Show this.
>
> And plot a trajectory from any wound to any passenger through that hole to a shooting location.

Been there, done that. Even cited a graphic I'd made showing the line
to a perfectly credible shooting location.

But believers are too stupid to simply acknowledge something once it's
been done... they have to be shown TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

But that's simply an evasion tactic to avoid real debate.

The evidence for a bullet hole in the windshield is good enough to
take to any court in the land.

And that's a fact.


> "A head that's thrown backwards."
>
> When Kennedy`s head is struck by the bullet his head goes forward.

Nope. The uncertainty from camera blur and the fact that **EVERYONE**
moved forward does **NOT** allow this to be a certain statement.

Indeed, from stump's argument, everyone else was shot in the limo -
since they *ALL* went forward. Take a look at Roy Kellerman, he's the
most obvious of them.

Even if one were to accept that JFK moved forward due to the shot,
(and not due to the braking of the limo), stump has no explanation for
the extended, violent, and obvious movement of JFK starting at that
moment.

Indeed, he's simply silent on the issue.



> https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9f/Anim_essay_BedrockEvidence_Z308-317AnimF.gif
>
> "An occipital exit wound."
>
> What is the name of the wound ballistic or forensic expert who
> stated there was an occipital exit wound?


Dr. Finck.


> "Metal bits of Frangible bullet mapping a front-to-back trajectory in the x-ray."
>
> What is the name of the ballistic or forensic expert who stated
> that the metal fragments in Kennedy`s skull establish a front to back
> trajectory.

You can't even acknowledge what your own eyes see. It doesn't take
expert authority to take basic physics, and apply it to what we see.

If you didn't already realize what it would mean, you'd have no
problem publicly stating where the largest bullet fragments can be
seen in JFK's X-ray. But you *DO* know the implications of that fact.
**YOU** don't need a "ballistic or forensic expert" to tell you - and
this fact tells the tale.


> You shoot the same blanks Ben does, no wonder you see his
> arguments as stronger.


Which argument is stronger - one that others lie about, and run from?

Or the argument that is promptly answered by logical debate and
citation to evidence?

You won't answer, of course.


>> Occam's Razor suggests a minimum of two shooters. Even if one of them *is* Oswald.
>
> What you offered is not Occam`s Razor. Occam`s Razor is that you
> shouldn`t posit a second shooter if one isn`t necessary to explain the
> evidence. You haven`t shown that a second shooter is necessary to
> explain the evidence.


You're lying about the evidence.


>> Thanks.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 11:35:20 AM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 08:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
As stated before:

And if I explained in great detail the significance, you *STILL* would
refuse to answer.

There's nothing that *would* make you answer, other than me standing
behind you with a bat in my hand.

So this is simply an amusing diversion on your part to "answer"
without answering.

You're a coward, Dufus.




Interestingly, I've never been able to get a *SINGLE* believer to
publicly acknowledge where the larger bullet fragments are in relation
to the front or back of JFK's skull. Believers are TERRIFIED of this
question - it can't be explained away.

So they stick their heads in the sand and pretend they don't need to
answer.


> He vaguely alludes that physics supports the idea that he is too
> much of an intellectual coward to say what the idea is.


Will you publicly assert that you'll answer the question in full to my
satisfaction if I explain in complete detail what I'm "alluding?"

The answer, of course, is "no."


> Then they wonder why I'm a retard...


Who's wondering?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 11:35:20 AM4/4/18
to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Who does Lt. Day's prints on the murder weapon implicate dufus?


>> Indeed, David admits that this item *DOESN'T EVEN PROVE OSWALD GUILTY
>> OF ANYTHING AT ALL* - so how can it prove "sole guilt" when he's not
>> even proving guilt???
>
> It is impossible for a single thing to prove someone`s guilt, lurkers. Hence, a list.


It's also impossible for 0+0+0+0+0+0... to equal 1.

You can't seem to understand that basic fact.



>> stump wants to claim that you can add up all these non-proofs, and get
>> a proof - but he also failed math. 0+0+0+0+0... will never equal 1.
>
> Just because I'm a retard...

Indeed.

> My fellow Retards think...

Who would care?

>> But, this garbage of David is worth refuting statement by statement,
>> so here's a repeat of his item 8, with commentary:
>>
>> > 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
>> > his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination.
>>
>>
>> *EXTREMELY* debatable, and David knows it. Both the FBI and Warren
>> Commission had grave doubts of this "fact," and attempted to pin it
>> down unsuccessfully. The simple fact that Lt. Day photographed ALL
>> OTHER PRINTS shows far more than "reasonable doubt" - and it rather
>> teilling that David even bothers with this claim.
>
> I said I'm a retard...


Yes, but what you *NEED* to say is how Lt. Day photographed everything
but the one single critical tie to the alleged assassin.

And why it's silly of the Warren Commission & FBI to doubt Lt. Day.


>> > .... But, of course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in
>> > linking LHO to the weapon.
>>
>> David knows full well the problems of the "palmprint" - so he very
>> carefully backtracks in advance. He's clearly aware of just how weak
>> this claim is - and shows it.
>
> He didn`t "backtrack", lurkers. He just pointed out that it was overkill.

He backtracked. David *knows* he can't base his theory on such
incredibly weak evidence... especially knowing how easily I can trash
it using the historical evidence.

Wanna put it to a poll?


>> > Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
>> > the weapon was Oswald's.
>>
>>
>> No David, it's not. The problems with the ownership of the Mannlicher
>> Carcano are lengthy, and you've done your best to try to resurrect the
>> Warren Commission's claim - but it's *FAR* from certain that Oswald
>> owned this rifle. There's problems with **ALL** of the evidence
>> linking him to the rifle, as you well know.
>
> As I said, us retards feel...


No-one cares...



>> > It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
>> > himself;
>>
>> No, it wasn't. It was a presumption of the Warren Commission, who
>> ignored their own evidence in order to come to this "conclusion."
>
> Nonsense, lurkers.

Empty claim. You'll NEVER hear the truth of the testimony speaking of
"Hidell" from stump.


>> There's no evidence that David will cite that proves this claim.
>
> Perhaps if Oswald was arrested with fake ID bearing this name,
> lurkers. Oh, thats right, he was.


If this were true, why didn't they charge Hidell?

Run stump, Run!!!


>> Nor will David *DARE* to refer to the evidence of a real "Hidell" in
>> this case...
>
> Neither will Ben, lurkers.


Already have. "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission #7" Feel free to
educate yourself, then come back here and admit that you lied.



>> > and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
>> > the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
>> > handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
>> > him.
>>
>> No on both counts. (And David already knows this!)
>>
>> It was *NOT* "positively proven" to have been his handwriting.
>
> It was the conclusion of experts who examined the material, lurkers.

You're lying again, stump.

You'll refuse to cite...

>> Handwriting experts routinely state that *originals* are needed to
>> make a judgement, not copies.
>
> Let Ben quote these experts who say it is impossible to make these
> determinations from copies, lurkers.

Feel free to examine actual HSCA testimony...

Mr. FAUNTROY. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting
for analysis purposes?
Mr. MCNALLY. No, never.

> I searched "handwriting analysis from copies" on google and the
> first thing on the list disputes his claim...

Why are you afraid to examine the testimony of the actual handwriting
experts who testified on this matter?


> https://www.forensicdocexaminer.com/photocopies-for-evidence-beware/
>
> The articles cites difficulties but doesn`t say it can`t be done.


It can't be done *RELIABLY*.

There are many factors of handwriting visible on originals, that
cannot be seen or examined in copies... pressure, micro tremors, etc.

I'm no handwriting expert, and *I* know this... why don't you, stump?


>> Nor was the rifle shown to have been delivered to the P.O. box that
>> Oswald had.
>
> The BY photo shows it was, lurkers. The serial number on the rifle shows it was.


A rather stupid logical fallacy on your part.



>> > Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
>> > trigger.
>>
>>
>> This is, of course... a presumption. It's never been proven that
>> Oswald owned a rifle.
>
> It has been shown, lurkers.


Nope.



>> The major difficulties with his assumed ownership have always been
>> glossed over. Indeed, we merely need to look at the most recent
>> attempts by David to show that the money order went through the normal
>> banking system... a complete failure on his part.
>
> The file locator number show the money order had been through the
> banking system, lurkers.


Nope.



>> Not that he will admit it... but fail he did.
>>
>>
>> > But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
>> > (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
>> > of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
>> > 22?
>>
>> This is a frequent "go-to" bit of logic on the part of believers...
>> the "common sense" argument.
>
> I'm retarded to believe...


Yep, but no-one cares...


>> It's frequently used because there's a *LACK OF EVIDENCE* for their
>> claims. If evidence existed, wouldn't believers like David produce the
>> evidence instead of their reliance on "garden-variety logic" or
>> "common sense?"
>
> I'm a retards...


Got a mouse in your pocket?


>> "Ownership" of a weapon has never been used in a court of law, to my
>> knowledge... **POSSESSION* is the critical idea here. And possession
>> would be a certainty if we had fingerprint (or palmprint) evidence
>> that was credible.
>
> We have fingerprint evidence


No you don't.


> photographic evidence


Disputed.


> documentation


Quite likely forged, no independent ability for anyone to check now...
the FBI destroyed the evidence.


> and witness testimony


Of a proven liar. Doesn't get you very far...


>I'm a Retard...


No-one cares, stump.


>> But David knows that we don't. He's TERRIFIED of debating a more
>> knowledgeable critic - he's been schooled on more than one occasion on
>> evidence he *should* have been familiar with.
>>
>> > The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
>> > handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
>> > Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
>> > what might be the implications of doing so?
>>
>> This is not the alternative.
>>
>> David pretends that if an owner of a weapon isn't guilty of a crime
>> with that weapon, that the only other possibility is that the owner
>> handed over his weapon to another.
>>
>> This is **PROVABLY** stupid and wrong. (Simply Google "Stolen Guns
>> Used In Crime" - I included this to prevent stump from whining about
>> an "empty claim.")
>>
>> Nor is the claim that if one loans a weapon to someone else, they
>> "know full well" what's going to occur...
>
> Of course none of Ben`s offerings make the least bit of sense in
> the context of this crime. If Oswald`s rifle was loaned or stolen,
> what are the first words out of his mouth when he is in custody,
> lurkers?


"I don't own a rifle, I can prove that photo is faked..."



>> David is guilty of rather stupid speculation based on his
>> preconceptions of what happened.
>
> It is only stupid speculation if the presumptions of retards ...


No, David doesn't have to be a "retard" in order to engage in stupid
speculation.



>> And if *this* is the best that David can do...
>>
>>
>> > As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
>> > rifle topic,
>>
>> The idea that Occam's Razor shows that the owner of a gun is the prime
>> suspect in any crime *committed* with the gun is a fallacy and an
>> outright lie on David's part.
>
> I`ve never seen a retard ...


Don't have mirrors where your from?



>> This is the sort of slick glossing over of facts that believers are
>> frequently guilty of.
>
> I'm a retards...


It's no excuse.



>> The fact that the David & dufus duo keep making these sorts of claims
>> tells the true tale, doesn't it?
>
> Don`t pat any attention to this nonsense, lurkers.


I've noted before the interesting phenomena of believers losing their
ability to spell when they get frustrated.



>> > some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
>> > stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
>> > Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
>> > conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
>> > have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.
>>
>> How silly! I'm often amused at how frequently believers like to argue
>> against theories they **presume** a critic would proffer, rather than
>> the **REAL** ones...
>
> <snicker> Have you ever seen a retard...


No, but you're not welcome here anyway...



>> Why can't David demonstrate how Oswald was *NOT* framed with a weapon?
>
> I'm retarded...


No excuses...


>> This **IS** a supportable theory proposed by a critic. There was *NO*
>> rifle in a blanket - seen by no-one, and not shown to be owned by
>> Oswald, so no-one needed to "steal" it.
>
> So Marina took the police into the garage to show them the nice
> blanket she kept there, lurkers?


The same Marina who repeated said that Oswald didn't own a rifle?
*That* Marina?



> And why doesn`t Ben take his denials one step further, and claim
> there was no Lee Harvey Oswald?


And why doesn't dufus take it one step further, and talk about the
pink elephant in that garage?



>> As usual - David being the coward that he is, will not dare to defend
>> his lies in an open forum not controlled by friendly believers...
>>
>> It will be left to dufus to dance, whine & lie... but yet again we see
>> the central claim of David - completely unsupported.

Yep... and David snipped **ALL** of this, and refused to try defending
his lies.

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 12:45:56 PM4/4/18
to
I'll just address one: the windshield crack.

From FBI special agent Robert Frazier's testimony in the Clay Shaw trial.

Q: Did you find anything unusual about the windshield and if so, please describe that condition?

Frazier: The windshield was partially broken in a star-shaped fashion, that is there was a crack in the windshield. I made a specific examination of it to determine what caused the crack. I found on the inside surface of the windshield a deposit of lead which had been forced against the glass and had splattered and as a result determined the glass had been broken by the impact of a projectile striking the inside surface of the glass and fracturing the windshield in the outer layer.

Q: Upon what did you base your determination that the glass had been hit by a projectile hitting the inside rather than the outside?

A: As a result of having examined hundreds of pieces of glass which have been broken in a known fashion, that is by a blow delivered in a known way, it is possible by studying the radial cracks or fractures emanating from the point of force to determine the side of the glass on which the force was applied.

Using the stress lines left on this glass at the time the glass was broken and caused by the object which broke the glass it is possible to determine the direction the force was applied. This examination of the cracks showed that the pressure had been applied on the inside surface.

Q: Now the opinion which you formed as to which side of the windshield had been hit, Mr. Frazier, was that a definite opinion or was there any doubt in your mind as an expert?

A: It is a definite conclusion.
___________

Obviously, he could be wrong. But if so where did the bullet go? When did it hit the windshield? We don't see any crack in the windshield in the Altgens photo so it must have happened AFTER JFK was hit in the back or throat or wherever you believe he was hit.

Frazier's testimony is here: http://www.jfk-online.com/rfraziershaw.html

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 12:53:13 PM4/4/18
to
>> ME: Here's what this "lurker" notices, Bud...that you used the ad-hominem "retard" 15 times in a single post,
>> BUD: You counted them? Thats pretty retarded.

It's called CTRL+F. And your “thats” needs an apostrophe.

>> ME: which speaks volumes as to your intelligence...
>> BUD: Indeed it does. Good or bad.

Yes. I just said that. *You're* not supposed to admit it.

>> BUD: What is the name of the wound ballistic or forensic expert who examined the wound in Kennedy`s neck and determined it was an entry wound?

Prior to the tracheotomy, Parkland surgeons witnessed a hole 3-8 mm in diameter, its neatness lacked the characteristic tearing of a high-velocity exit wound. They later agreed that it could have been an exit wound ONLY by a bullet exiting at a greatly reduced velocity. By definition ALL exit wounds are caused by a bullet of *some* reduced velocity. But considering what the Magic Bullshit Theory claims CE399 achieved, you cannot say there was very much of a reduction in velocity, can you? Or...are you going to try to have it both ways again?

>> ME: A bullet hole in the windshield...
>> BUD: Show this.

Here’s a link to an article by Douglas Horne you won’t read:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

There, a full summation of the account of no less than six (6) witnesses who saw a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. And that article does not even mention the interaction between Greer and USPP Officer Nick Prencipe, to whom Greer describes “shots coming from every direction, one came right through the windshield,” and which Prencipe visually confirms as well.

You are now going to attack the integrity and character of these witnesses, because you have to. But there’s no need; even your fellow believers have stopped denying a hole in the windshield. They’ve since moved on to “it was caused by a piece of Kennedy’s skull.” You should try running with that canard instead. That way you’d only look misinformed rather than dishonest.

>> ME: A head that's thrown backwards.
>> BUD: When Kennedy`s head is struck by the bullet his head goes forward.

Then perhaps you can explain why Hargis—who was back and to the left of Kennedy—was sprayed with so much effluence he himself believed he was shot. Apparently Bud believes we are still in the 1960s, when the general population was not privy to the Zapruder film.

>> ME: Metal bits of Frangible bullet mapping a front-to-back trajectory in the x-ray.
>> BUD: What is the name of the ballistic or forensic expert who stated that the metal fragments in Kennedy`s skull establish a front to back trajectory.

You have only to Google-Image “JFK + lead snowstorm.” It is the first image that appears. Your failure to understand the science of trajectory does not make it a less authentic problem.

>> ME: An occipital exit wound.
>> BUD: What is the name of the wound ballistic or forensic expert who stated there was an occipital exit wound?

I see Ben has already answered this. The answer is Dr. Finck, just in case you try to pretend you didn’t notice. And if you are going to deny severe occipital damage (assuming you know what “occipital” is, which I doubt), then we’re done here.

Thanks

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 1:30:36 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 09:45:55 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
And you'll lie by omission in doing so.

This fact tells the tale. Why can't you be honest?



>From FBI special agent Robert Frazier's testimony in the Clay Shaw trial.
>
>Q: Did you find anything unusual about the windshield and if so, please describe that condition?
>
>Frazier: The windshield was partially broken in a star-shaped fashion, that is there was a crack in the windshield. I made a specific examination of it to determine what caused the crack. I found on the inside surface of the windshield a deposit of lead which had been forced against the glass and had splattered and as a result determined the glass had been broken by the impact of a projectile striking the inside surface of the glass and fracturing the windshield in the outer layer.
>
>Q: Upon what did you base your determination that the glass had been hit by a projectile hitting the inside rather than the outside?
>
>A: As a result of having examined hundreds of pieces of glass which have been broken in a known fashion, that is by a blow delivered in a known way, it is possible by studying the radial cracks or fractures emanating from the point of force to determine the side of the glass on which the force was applied.
>
>Using the stress lines left on this glass at the time the glass was broken and caused by the object which broke the glass it is possible to determine the direction the force was applied. This examination of the cracks showed that the pressure had been applied on the inside surface.
>
>Q: Now the opinion which you formed as to which side of the windshield had been hit, Mr. Frazier, was that a definite opinion or was there any doubt in your mind as an expert?
>
>A: It is a definite conclusion.
> ___________
>
> Obviously, he could be wrong.


That you were afraid to list the opposing and contradicting evidence
shows that you realize the weakness of your case.

Another poster has already done so in this thread, so no need to
repeat what you already know.


> But if so where did the bullet go?


Into JFK's neck. What was happening to JFK's body between 6:40 and
8:00pm?


> When did it hit the windshield? We don't see any crack in the
> windshield in the Altgens photo so it must have happened AFTER JFK was
> hit in the back or throat or wherever you believe he was hit.


Based on poor logic.


>Frazier's testimony is here: http://www.jfk-online.com/rfraziershaw.html


Why were you afraid to cite *ALL* of the evidence?

On what basis do you discount all the contradicting evidence?

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 1:43:49 PM4/4/18
to
Just one again: Nick Prencipe said he talked to Greer the evening of the assassination after the limo was brought to the WH.

A problem is that Greer was at Bethesda all evening watching the autopsy. He didn't get to the WH until after the autopsy was finished and the morticians have worked on JFK's body. This was, by most accounts, about 2-3 in the morning.

The timeline doesn't match up. Obviously, Prencipe may just have the hour wrong. Witnesses and times are a problem.

Additionally Prencipe says he saw a crack low on the passenger's side of the windshield.

The crack is located high near the driver's side.

As in here: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/06/b4/ff/06b4ffe396c4e165531b54faa9980a18.jpg

And we have Frazier's testimony on what he saw.

As with a lot of this, one can pick and choose what witnesses to believe.

I'll believe the experts who studies these issues over eyewitnesses who has brief, hurried looks.

Others can disagree.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 2:10:51 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 10:43:48 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
No, you're lying again Steve.

You believe "experts" only when they validate your faith. When they
don't - YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEM.

Go ahead, refute what I just said.

But you won't.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 2:13:16 PM4/4/18
to
Interestingly, although Steve, David, and stump have all answered
here, not a *SINGLE* one of them has been honest enough to agree that
this item goes *nowhere* in proving the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.

The truth is like kryptonite to these believers... absolutely deadly.

Bud

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 3:43:55 PM4/4/18
to
This is how it always is with conspiracy types, lurkers, there minds always turns information into what they are comfortable with.

> Or amazed at your poor
> reasoning & debate skills?

This is like Natalie Wood critiquing Mark Spitz on swimming, lurkers.

> >> which speaks volumes as to your intelligence,
> >
> > Indeed it does. Good or bad.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! Even stump sees the obvious conclusions!

The obvious conclusion is that the things I write reflect my intelligence, good or bad, lurkers.

> >> lack of substantial argument on the topic at hand,
> >
> > There is little of substance to argue against, which Ben proves
> > with every post he makes, raising issue after issue that he can go
> > nowhere with. By his own admission he is a critic, and who can`t
> > criticize other people`s work (like you are doing here with mine)?
>
>
> You can't defend the Warren Commission with whining & ad hominem.

They can`t effectively attack it with invalid arguments, lurkers. When I see them mount an effective attack I`ll decide whether I feel it needs defending, lurkers.

> As I criticize it with citation, evidence, and logical argument.

I characterize what Ben does much more accurately, lurkers. He looks at the wrong things and then looks at those wrong things incorrectly. His arguments consist of little more than bluff, bluster, lies, various fallacious arguments (chiefly empty claims, shifting of the burden and ad hominem), dishonesty and hot air. Ultimately he is playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

> >> and weak support of what little argument you give.
> >
> > You seem as confused about what I do as Ben is. Ben starts posts
> > advancing ideas. I point out the problems with the ideas he puts
> > forth, put the idea in the correct context, point out the deficiencies
> > in his arguments, ect.
>
>
> You *claim* this...

What does Ben contest about this obviously accurate statement, lurkers. Is he saying he doesn`t start posts advancing ideas? Does he contest that I am constantly challenging him to support the ideas he expresses and he refuses?

> but what you're really doing is illustrating
> cowardice & dishonesty at every turn.

<snicker> How does Ben running every time I challenge him to support his words translate to be being a coward, lurkers?

> You even refuse to define basic terms... such as "evidence," or
> "conspiracy."
>
> That fact tells the tale.

It does, but not the way Ben implies lurkers, it is just another way he chooses to argue in a crooked manner. He can`t engage on ideas so he chooses what the argument is rendered down to. Since I don`t agree with what he has rendered the issue down to I don`t play his crooked game. He runs from every point and counter arguments offered and repeats the same question over and over as if that is the whole of the issue. That might pass for debate in a kindergarten schoolyard but among adults it is intellectual cowardice.

>
> >> >>> Bud says: "I`ve never seen a conspiracy retard who understands Occam`s Razor, lurkers."
> >>
> >> An entry wound in the throat. A bullet hole in the windshield. A head that's thrown backwards. An occipital exit wound. Metal bits of Frangible bullet mapping a front-to-back trajectory in the x-ray.
> >
> > That is cherry picking mixed with erroneous assumptions. Now you
> > put forth ideas and I will see if these ideas hold water.
>
>
> No, you won't. You'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite any evidence or expert
> opinion.

Note the shifting of the burden, lurkers. This person offered these things in support of a premise. As soon as I call for the things offered to be supported Ben acts as if there is something *I* need to do.

> > "An entry wound in the throat."
> >
> > What is the name of the wound ballistic or forensic expert who
> > examined the wound in Kennedy`s neck and determined it was an entry
> > wound?
>
> What is the name of the identity expert who confirmed that the person
> shot was indeed "JFK?"
>
> These sorts of questions are moronic at best...

Which is why morons compose them, lurkers. The question I asked speaks to the issue of what weight, if any, the claim being made should have.

>and show your
> desperation. Any *honest* person can easily acknowledge that the
> throat wound appeared in *ALL* respects to be an entry wound.

I don`t care if some clouds look like bunny rabbits, lurkers. It doesn`t mean they are.

It was simply impossible for the people who saw the wound to make a determination whether it was an entrance or an exit. They didn`t have the necessary expertise and they didn`t make the proper examination.

> You may try to explain *why* it looked that way, but it's sheer
> dishonesty to evade as you do.

I evaded nothing, lurkers, I looked at what is being offered correctly so as to weigh its value as evidence correctly. The retards hate to do this because doing this does great harm to the silly games they wish to play.

> > "A bullet hole in the windshield."
> >
> > Show this.
> >
> > And plot a trajectory from any wound to any passenger through that hole to a shooting location.
>
> Been there, done that. Even cited a graphic I'd made showing the line
> to a perfectly credible shooting location.

Have you lurkers seen Ben do this? Keep in mind he loves to lie.

> But believers are too stupid to simply acknowledge something once it's
> been done... they have to be shown TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN.
>
> But that's simply an evasion tactic to avoid real debate.
>
> The evidence for a bullet hole in the windshield is good enough to
> take to any court in the land.

Then why hasn`t it, lurkers?

> And that's a fact.

Thats an empty claim, lurkers.

>
> > "A head that's thrown backwards."
> >
> > When Kennedy`s head is struck by the bullet his head goes forward.
>
> Nope.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9f/Anim_essay_BedrockEvidence_Z308-317AnimF.gif

> The uncertainty from camera blur and the fact that **EVERYONE**
> moved forward does **NOT** allow this to be a certain statement.

I`ll let the lurkers decide. Look at one of several reference points, Jackie`s hat, Jackie`s arm behind JFK, JFK`s shoulder, see if you can tell whether JFK pitches forward when he is struck in the head by a bullet or it is attributable to blurring.

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9f/Anim_essay_BedrockEvidence_Z308-317AnimF.gif

Pay special attention to Jackie`s hat, see if you think the distance closes between JFK`s head and hers. If everyone`s head is going forward why would this distance close?

> Indeed, from stump's argument, everyone else was shot in the limo -
> since they *ALL* went forward. Take a look at Roy Kellerman, he's the
> most obvious of them.

This is a strawman argument, lurkers, I didn`t say anything about anyone else. One person was shot in the head with a bullet. When he was his head went forward.

> Even if one were to accept that JFK moved forward due to the shot,
> (and not due to the braking of the limo), stump has no explanation for
> the extended, violent, and obvious movement of JFK starting at that
> moment.

Why would I need an explanation for movement not attributable to Kennedy being struck by a bullet, lurkers?

> Indeed, he's simply silent on the issue.

Lurkers can find dozens of posts of me being silent on this issue on the moderated board.

>
>
>
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9f/Anim_essay_BedrockEvidence_Z308-317AnimF.gif
> >
> > "An occipital exit wound."
> >
> > What is the name of the wound ballistic or forensic expert who
> > stated there was an occipital exit wound?
>
>
> Dr. Finck.

Let Ben quote him, lurkers.


> > "Metal bits of Frangible bullet mapping a front-to-back trajectory in the x-ray."
> >
> > What is the name of the ballistic or forensic expert who stated
> > that the metal fragments in Kennedy`s skull establish a front to back
> > trajectory.
>
> You can't even acknowledge what your own eyes see. It doesn't take
> expert authority to take basic physics, and apply it to what we see.

Again with this lame appeal to science, lurkers. Can he make an argument that this evidence supports a rear shot and support it or not? The answer to this should be obvious by now.

> If you didn't already realize what it would mean, you'd have no
> problem publicly stating where the largest bullet fragments can be
> seen in JFK's X-ray. But you *DO* know the implications of that fact.

Now Ben vaguely alludes to "implications", lurkers. Why can`t the coward just say what his idea is?

> **YOU** don't need a "ballistic or forensic expert" to tell you - and
> this fact tells the tale.

I haven`t even really looked, lurkers, Ben hasn`t shown how this information lends any insight into what occurred.

> > You shoot the same blanks Ben does, no wonder you see his
> > arguments as stronger.
>
>
> Which argument is stronger - one that others lie about, and run from?

Ironic, isn`t it lurkers? Ben constantly tries to advance arguments and when I challenge him to support them he invariably lies and runs.

> Or the argument that is promptly answered by logical debate and
> citation to evidence?

Truthers also believe they are working from citation and logic, lurkers. What crackpots can convince themselves of isn`t very meaningful.

> You won't answer, of course.
>
>
> >> Occam's Razor suggests a minimum of two shooters. Even if one of them *is* Oswald.
> >
> > What you offered is not Occam`s Razor. Occam`s Razor is that you
> > shouldn`t posit a second shooter if one isn`t necessary to explain the
> > evidence. You haven`t shown that a second shooter is necessary to
> > explain the evidence.
>
>
> You're lying about the evidence.

If this were true Ben could show that a second shooter is necessary to explain this event, lurkers.

>
> >> Thanks.

Bud

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 4:03:24 PM4/4/18
to
And if pig`s flew we`d have to wear protective headgear when we went outside, lurkers.

There is only on thing preventing Ben from making the argument he wants to make lurkers, and that is he can`t support the conclusions he wants to make about this evidence. So he is trying to shift the burden to me, where I have to unprove the argument he is too cowardly to make, a very retarded approach.


> There's nothing that *would* make you answer, other than me standing
> behind you with a bat in my hand.

Don`t they teach submission holds in judo? They might work, but I wouldn`t willing fall for such a blatant shifting of the burden. You have to learn to be a man and put your idea and the support for that idea on the table for consideration.

> So this is simply an amusing diversion on your part to "answer"
> without answering.

If and when Ben becomes man enough to make the argument I will address the argument, lurkers.

> You're a coward, Dufus.
>
>
>
>
> Interestingly, I've never been able to get a *SINGLE* believer to
> publicly acknowledge where the larger bullet fragments are in relation
> to the front or back of JFK's skull.

I can`t get Ben to say what he feels the significance of this is, lurkers.

> Believers are TERRIFIED of this
> question - it can't be explained away.

Can Ben show where an LNer has used the sizes of the fragments in Kennedy`s head in support of an idea, lurkers? It is the kind of thing the tards bring up, we don`t.

> So they stick their heads in the sand and pretend they don't need to
> answer.

If Ben can make an argument about this issue I would be glad to address that argument, lurkers. He needs to become a man and put his ideas and the support for those ideas on the table for consideration.


>
> > He vaguely alludes that physics supports the idea that he is too
> > much of an intellectual coward to say what the idea is.
>
>
> Will you publicly assert that you'll answer the question in full to my
> satisfaction if I explain in complete detail what I'm "alluding?"

Thats just weird, lurkers. Why would Ben think he can set conditions on me in order for him to make an argument? What does the argument have to do with me at all? Just make it.

> The answer, of course, is "no."

Of course it is "no", lurkers, what a stupid approach. Why can`t Ben make the argument as if I`m not here? What impact does my presence have on the validity of his ideas?

>
> > Then they wonder why I'm a retard...
>
>
> Who's wondering?

You lurkers should be wondering about Ben by now.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 5:16:18 PM4/4/18
to
All the "lurkers" are noticing is that the troll known as BUD spent the entirety of his post gossiping about Ben, Ben, Ben, and ignored my post entirely. BUD is on life support, and he knows it.

His next post will be an ad-hominem.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 5:19:17 PM4/4/18
to
> As with a lot of this, one can pick and choose what witnesses to believe.
>
> I'll believe the experts who studies these issues over eyewitnesses who has brief, hurried looks.

What kind of “expert” do you need to be, Steve? Do you think six different people don’t know what a “through-and-through” hole is without being an expert in...whatever it is you need to be an expert in? Do you need an expert to tell you there are holes in your Cheerios?

Or if you wish to continue that route...what is Frazier's expertise with glass fissures?

Bud

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 5:25:41 PM4/4/18
to
This is why retards are rarely tapped to investigate murder, lurkers.

> >> Indeed, David admits that this item *DOESN'T EVEN PROVE OSWALD GUILTY
> >> OF ANYTHING AT ALL* - so how can it prove "sole guilt" when he's not
> >> even proving guilt???
> >
> > It is impossible for a single thing to prove someone`s guilt, lurkers. Hence, a list.
>
>
> It's also impossible for 0+0+0+0+0+0... to equal 1.

Ben doesn`t feel that anything on DVP`s list constitutes evidence that indicates Oswald`s guilt, lurkers. What could matter less? I suspect real criminal investigators would feel differently.

> You can't seem to understand that basic fact.
>
>
>
> >> stump wants to claim that you can add up all these non-proofs, and get
> >> a proof - but he also failed math. 0+0+0+0+0... will never equal 1.
> >
> > Just because I'm a retard...
>
> Indeed.
>
> > My fellow Retards think...
>
> Who would care?

Ben`s scumbaggery aside, this is the wisdom Ben cut and ran from, lurkers...

"Like I said, lurkers, retards have contrived reasons to disregard the evidence. And they do this time and time and time again. How does "they were all working against poor Oswald" become the default? This is the same sort of stupidity the OJ Simpson jurors bought into."

> >> But, this garbage of David is worth refuting statement by statement,
> >> so here's a repeat of his item 8, with commentary:
> >>
> >> > 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
> >> > his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination.
> >>
> >>
> >> *EXTREMELY* debatable, and David knows it. Both the FBI and Warren
> >> Commission had grave doubts of this "fact," and attempted to pin it
> >> down unsuccessfully. The simple fact that Lt. Day photographed ALL
> >> OTHER PRINTS shows far more than "reasonable doubt" - and it rather
> >> teilling that David even bothers with this claim.
> >
> > I said I'm a retard...
>
>
> Yes, but what you *NEED* to say is how Lt. Day photographed everything
> but the one single critical tie to the alleged assassin.

Why do I need to say anything on this, lurkers? Am I Lt. Day?

I do see some possibilities in his testimony. This is one...

Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?

Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.

It seems he only photographed prints he *didn`t* lift.

> And why it's silly of the Warren Commission & FBI to doubt Lt. Day.

What did they doubt, lurkers?

>
> >> > .... But, of course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in
> >> > linking LHO to the weapon.
> >>
> >> David knows full well the problems of the "palmprint" - so he very
> >> carefully backtracks in advance. He's clearly aware of just how weak
> >> this claim is - and shows it.
> >
> > He didn`t "backtrack", lurkers. He just pointed out that it was overkill.
>
> He backtracked.

Ben lies, lurkers, Saying it is a "bonus" is not backing off a previously stated position.

>David *knows* he can't base his theory on such
> incredibly weak evidence... especially knowing how easily I can trash
> it using the historical evidence.
>
> Wanna put it to a poll?

What a dope, lurkers.

>
> >> > Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
> >> > the weapon was Oswald's.
> >>
> >>
> >> No David, it's not. The problems with the ownership of the Mannlicher
> >> Carcano are lengthy, and you've done your best to try to resurrect the
> >> Warren Commission's claim - but it's *FAR* from certain that Oswald
> >> owned this rifle. There's problems with **ALL** of the evidence
> >> linking him to the rifle, as you well know.
> >
> > As I said, us retards feel...
>
>
> No-one cares...
>
>
>
> >> > It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
> >> > himself;
> >>
> >> No, it wasn't. It was a presumption of the Warren Commission, who
> >> ignored their own evidence in order to come to this "conclusion."
> >
> > Nonsense, lurkers.
>
> Empty claim. You'll NEVER hear the truth of the testimony speaking of
> "Hidell" from stump.

Its nonsense, lurkers.

>
> >> There's no evidence that David will cite that proves this claim.
> >
> > Perhaps if Oswald was arrested with fake ID bearing this name,
> > lurkers. Oh, thats right, he was.
>
>
> If this were true, why didn't they charge Hidell?

Because they were real criminal investigators and not retards playing silly games with the deaths of these men, lurkers.

> Run stump, Run!!!
>
>
> >> Nor will David *DARE* to refer to the evidence of a real "Hidell" in
> >> this case...
> >
> > Neither will Ben, lurkers.
>
>
> Already have. "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission #7" Feel free to
> educate yourself, then come back here and admit that you lied.

No matter how much Ben lies, Heindel will never be Hidell, lurkers.

And it is a strawman anyway, because it doesn`t speak to DVP`s claim.

> >> > and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
> >> > the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
> >> > handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
> >> > him.
> >>
> >> No on both counts. (And David already knows this!)
> >>
> >> It was *NOT* "positively proven" to have been his handwriting.
> >
> > It was the conclusion of experts who examined the material, lurkers.
>
> You're lying again, stump.
>
> You'll refuse to cite...

Ben is correct here, lurkers, I must have been looking at the wrong number last night. Here is the handwriting analysis of the HSCA....

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm

The most they were willing to say about #30...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=661&tab=page

Was...

"The envelope addressed to Kleins (item 30) was available only in the form of a microfilm enlargement. This is even less satisfactory than a photocopy as a basis for an opinion on handwriting. It can only be said that as far as the pictorial aspects of form or design. proportions, alignment, slant, and connecting strokes are concerned, the writing on this envelope, although it purports to be that of one Hidell, conforms with the original writing submitted for examination which purported to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald."

I don`t see comment at all on the form, only on the envelope (which has indications of being consistent with Oswald`s writing).


> >> Handwriting experts routinely state that *originals* are needed to
> >> make a judgement, not copies.
> >
> > Let Ben quote these experts who say it is impossible to make these
> > determinations from copies, lurkers.
>
> Feel free to examine actual HSCA testimony...
>
> Mr. FAUNTROY. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting
> for analysis purposes?
> Mr. MCNALLY. No, never.

Strawman, lurkers. It isn`t a question of whether one is better than the other, the question is whether copies can be used.

> > I searched "handwriting analysis from copies" on google and the
> > first thing on the list disputes his claim...
>
> Why are you afraid to examine the testimony of the actual handwriting
> experts who testified on this matter?

If Ben has something that he thinks supports his position he should produce it, lurkers.

>
> > https://www.forensicdocexaminer.com/photocopies-for-evidence-beware/
> >
> > The articles cites difficulties but doesn`t say it can`t be done.
>
>
> It can't be done *RELIABLY*.

Let Ben support the claim that a copy can never be used to identify handwriting, lurkers. I saw nothing like that in the forensic source I linked to.

> There are many factors of handwriting visible on originals, that
> cannot be seen or examined in copies... pressure, micro tremors, etc.
>
> I'm no handwriting expert, and *I* know this... why don't you, stump?
>
>
> >> Nor was the rifle shown to have been delivered to the P.O. box that
> >> Oswald had.
> >
> > The BY photo shows it was, lurkers. The serial number on the rifle shows it was.
>
>
> A rather stupid logical fallacy on your part.

It is how criminal investigatoin solves solves crimes, lurkers.

> >> > Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
> >> > trigger.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is, of course... a presumption. It's never been proven that
> >> Oswald owned a rifle.
> >
> > It has been shown, lurkers.
>
>
> Nope.

All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed out of hand, lurkers.


> >> The major difficulties with his assumed ownership have always been
> >> glossed over. Indeed, we merely need to look at the most recent
> >> attempts by David to show that the money order went through the normal
> >> banking system... a complete failure on his part.
> >
> > The file locator number show the money order had been through the
> > banking system, lurkers.
>
>
> Nope.

All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.

> >> Not that he will admit it... but fail he did.
> >>
> >>
> >> > But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
> >> > (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
> >> > of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
> >> > 22?
> >>
> >> This is a frequent "go-to" bit of logic on the part of believers...
> >> the "common sense" argument.
> >
> > I'm retarded to believe...
>
>
> Yep, but no-one cares...
>
>
> >> It's frequently used because there's a *LACK OF EVIDENCE* for their
> >> claims. If evidence existed, wouldn't believers like David produce the
> >> evidence instead of their reliance on "garden-variety logic" or
> >> "common sense?"
> >
> > I'm a retards...
>
>
> Got a mouse in your pocket?
>
>
> >> "Ownership" of a weapon has never been used in a court of law, to my
> >> knowledge... **POSSESSION* is the critical idea here. And possession
> >> would be a certainty if we had fingerprint (or palmprint) evidence
> >> that was credible.
> >
> > We have fingerprint evidence
>
>
> No you don't.

All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.

> > photographic evidence

> Disputed.

All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.

> > documentation
>
>
> Quite likely forged, no independent ability for anyone to check now...
> the FBI destroyed the evidence.

All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.

> > and witness testimony
>
>
> Of a proven liar. Doesn't get you very far...

All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.

> >I'm a Retard...
>
>
> No-one cares, stump.
>
>
> >> But David knows that we don't. He's TERRIFIED of debating a more
> >> knowledgeable critic - he's been schooled on more than one occasion on
> >> evidence he *should* have been familiar with.
> >>
> >> > The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
> >> > handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
> >> > Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
> >> > what might be the implications of doing so?
> >>
> >> This is not the alternative.
> >>
> >> David pretends that if an owner of a weapon isn't guilty of a crime
> >> with that weapon, that the only other possibility is that the owner
> >> handed over his weapon to another.
> >>
> >> This is **PROVABLY** stupid and wrong. (Simply Google "Stolen Guns
> >> Used In Crime" - I included this to prevent stump from whining about
> >> an "empty claim.")
> >>
> >> Nor is the claim that if one loans a weapon to someone else, they
> >> "know full well" what's going to occur...
> >
> > Of course none of Ben`s offerings make the least bit of sense in
> > the context of this crime. If Oswald`s rifle was loaned or stolen,
> > what are the first words out of his mouth when he is in custody,
> > lurkers?
>
>
> "I don't own a rifle, I can prove that photo is faked..."

Does it make sense that he would say these things if his rifle was lost or stolen, lurkers?

> >> David is guilty of rather stupid speculation based on his
> >> preconceptions of what happened.
> >
> > It is only stupid speculation if the presumptions of retards ...
>
>
> No, David doesn't have to be a "retard" in order to engage in stupid
> speculation.
>
>
>
> >> And if *this* is the best that David can do...
> >>
> >>
> >> > As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
> >> > rifle topic,
> >>
> >> The idea that Occam's Razor shows that the owner of a gun is the prime
> >> suspect in any crime *committed* with the gun is a fallacy and an
> >> outright lie on David's part.
> >
> > I`ve never seen a retard ...
>
>
> Don't have mirrors where your from?
>
>
>
> >> This is the sort of slick glossing over of facts that believers are
> >> frequently guilty of.
> >
> > I'm a retards...
>
>
> It's no excuse.
>
>
>
> >> The fact that the David & dufus duo keep making these sorts of claims
> >> tells the true tale, doesn't it?
> >
> > Don`t pat any attention to this nonsense, lurkers.
>
>
> I've noted before the interesting phenomena of believers losing their
> ability to spell when they get frustrated.

Pretty desperate to score points when you have to jump on a typo, lurkers.

> >> > some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
> >> > stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
> >> > Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
> >> > conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
> >> > have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.
> >>
> >> How silly! I'm often amused at how frequently believers like to argue
> >> against theories they **presume** a critic would proffer, rather than
> >> the **REAL** ones...
> >
> > <snicker> Have you ever seen a retard...
>
>
> No, but you're not welcome here anyway...
>
>
>
> >> Why can't David demonstrate how Oswald was *NOT* framed with a weapon?
> >
> > I'm retarded...
>
>
> No excuses...
>
>
> >> This **IS** a supportable theory proposed by a critic. There was *NO*
> >> rifle in a blanket - seen by no-one, and not shown to be owned by
> >> Oswald, so no-one needed to "steal" it.
> >
> > So Marina took the police into the garage to show them the nice
> > blanket she kept there, lurkers?
>
>
> The same Marina who repeated said that Oswald didn't own a rifle?

Did Marina want to show the cops the blanket she kept in the garage, lurkers? I think she took them there because she thought her husband kept a rifle there, and this retard is focusing on the wrong thing because he is playing silly games with the deaths of these men.

> *That* Marina?
>
>
>
> > And why doesn`t Ben take his denials one step further, and claim
> > there was no Lee Harvey Oswald?
>
>
> And why doesn't dufus take it one step further, and talk about the
> pink elephant in that garage?

Kennedy wasn`t trampled to death, lurkers.

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 5:28:40 PM4/4/18
to
As I said, I believe experts who study an issue/matter closely over eyewitnesses who had quick looks at some distance. Can the experts be wrong? Of course, but we need to explain why they are wrong.

How many of these witnesses viewed the inside of the windshield? Do you know? How closely were they? Do you know?

Where did the bullet go? Where was it fired from? When did it hit the windshield? These questions need to be addressed before we uncritically accept an eyewitness account.

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Do you believe Howard Brennan? Do you believe Markham and the other witnesses who identified Oswald as the killer of Tippit?

In any case, I cited Frazier's account of what he found upon close examination. As to his expertise on "glass fissures" he explained his knowledge on it.

You and others can accept it or reject it in favor of eyewitnesses who did not examine the windshield closely.



Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 5:45:47 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 14:28:39 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 5:19:17 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > As with a lot of this, one can pick and choose what witnesses to believe.
>> >
>> > I'll believe the experts who studies these issues over eyewitnesses who has brief, hurried looks.
>>
>> What kind of “expert” do you need to be, Steve? Do you think six different people don’t know what a “through-and-through” hole is without being an expert in...whatever it is you need to be an expert in? Do you need an expert to tell you there are holes in your Cheerios?
>>
>> Or if you wish to continue that route...what is Frazier's expertise with glass fissures?
>
> As I said, I believe experts who study an issue/matter closely over
> eyewitnesses who had quick looks at some distance. Can the experts be
> wrong? Of course, but we need to explain why they are wrong.


Interestingly, you refused to offer Frazier's qualifications as an
expert in glass holes.

Doesn't surprise me. Believers are cowards at heart.


> How many of these witnesses viewed the inside of the windshield? Do
> you know? How closely were they? Do you know?


Several, as I recall. How close? Within a few feet.

But you already know this, don't you?


> Where did the bullet go?


Into JFK's throat, most likely.


> Where was it fired from?


The area forward and to the left of the limo. The *other* grassy knoll
with a parking lot behind it and plenty of sheltering trees &
greenery.


> When did it hit
> the windshield?


Just microseconds before striking JFK's throat.


> These questions need to be addressed before we
> uncritically accept an eyewitness account.


Answered.

Now you'll acknowledge that you lied by omission?

You'll actually list the eyewitnesses now, and explain how to conflate
their apparent contradictions?

Or will you run like a coward again?


> Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Do you believe
> Howard Brennan? Do you believe Markham and the other witnesses who
> identified Oswald as the killer of Tippit?


You can't name even *ONE* eyewitness whom you believe completely.

This fact tells the tale.


> In any case, I cited Frazier's account of what he found upon close
> examination. As to his expertise on "glass fissures" he explained his
> knowledge on it.


You presume too much. Fortunately, critics aren't required to follow
your preconceptions.


> You and others can accept it or reject it in favor of eyewitnesses
> who did not examine the windshield closely.


False dichotomy.


I can, with but mere microseconds, and at a dozen yards, testify in
court on the fact that the observed donut has a hole in it.

I need not examine it from inches away utilitizing magnifying glasses,
X-rays and electron microscopes.

Nor do I need any particular expertise. I can do it as well as the top
donut man at the FBI. Perhaps the NSA's donut man might identify the
hole a few microseconds ahead of me, and the average police officer
merely *smell* it... but my expertise is good enough.

(No Steve, people are not really laughing at you... it just seems that
way...)

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 5:46:55 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 14:16:17 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
No fair!

That's an *easy* prediction to make!

As Karl Popper asserted, predictions have to be risky to be valid.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 5:54:27 PM4/4/18
to
> As I said, I believe experts who study an issue/matter closely over eyewitnesses who had quick looks at some distance. Can the experts be wrong? Of course, but we need to explain why they are wrong.
>
> How many of these witnesses viewed the inside of the windshield? Do you know? How closely were they? Do you know?

Yes, I know, because I read the Douglas Horne article provided, which you clearly did not. Otherwise, you would know who George Whitaker, Sr. was, his position and title at the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge Plant, the number of years' experience he had dealing with cars and windshields, what his role was on the morning of November 25th, what he was ordered to do with the original windshield, etc.


> Where did the bullet go? Where was it fired from? When did it hit the windshield? These questions need to be addressed before we uncritically accept an eyewitness account.

Why? You would not accept those answers anyway. The first two questions were answered by Ben. The answer to the third question is November 22, 1963. Hope that helps.

> Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Do you believe Howard Brennan?

I will give you this one as a freebie. LN believers consistently fail to understand that Howard Brennan's eyewitness account of the man in the window is a huge detriment to the WC cause. Howard Brennan is no help to you.

Do you believe Markham and the other witnesses who identified Oswald as the killer of Tippit?

I'll believe any witness you want, as long as you concede to believe in Acquilla Clemons, Butch Burroughs, Bernard Haire, etc. Those three alone will sink you. So get cracking on those ad-homs, stat. They are your only hope.

Thanks

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 6:04:18 PM4/4/18
to
I believe eyewitness accounts if they're corroborated by hard evidence. You can chart a different course.

Look, we've all been to this rodeo before. We know the evidence, the accounts.

You can believe those that fit your conspiracy worldview (frankly, someone who believes anything posted at the absurd Lew Rockwell site is making a mistake; but it's a free country). You can believe in multiple Oswalds and two caskets and two shooters and altered films and altered wounds and coverups upon coverups upon coverups.

And I can believe that evidence that shows that Lee Oswald, a unstable erratic individual took his rifle and shot JFK. As Kennedy reportedly said the day of the assassination, "If someone wants to shoot me from a tall building there's nothing we can do."

BTW, if you're really against ad-homs then do something about your conspiracy friends who post here.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 6:23:32 PM4/4/18
to
> I believe eyewitness accounts if they're corroborated by hard evidence. You can chart a different course.

You will believe eyewitness accounts only on the condition they do not absolve Oswald in any way. This is not unique to you. It's the Lone Nutter lunch special. You have nothing to say on Whitaker, for example. You're right about having been to this rodeo before. It's getting boring.


> You can believe in multiple Oswalds and two caskets and two shooters and altered films and altered wounds and coverups upon coverups upon coverups.

Well...that's enough strawmen for a whole army of scarecrows.

> And I can believe that evidence that shows that Lee Oswald, a unstable erratic individual took his rifle and shot JFK.

Do you believe the evidence that shows a magician elevating on TV?

> BTW, if you're really against ad-homs then do something about your conspiracy friends who post here.

Your whataboutism aside, you have no understanding what ad-homs are. They are not insults. They are insults IN LIEU OF evidence. Attacking and degrading out of need to discredit. Like, for example, your calling the Lew Rockwell site "absurd," or Oswald an "unstable, erratic" crackpot. It doesn't matter if the Lew Rockwell site is absurd or not; the site is merely a vessel for the Horne article. What you mean to do, therefore, is call Douglas Horne absurd, not the Lew Rockwell site. In addition, you need to assess the multiple witnesses in his article as absurd. All of them. Which you also did, in your own LN way.

Bud

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 6:28:54 PM4/4/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 12:53:13 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> ME: Here's what this "lurker" notices, Bud...that you used the ad-hominem "retard" 15 times in a single post,
> >> BUD: You counted them? Thats pretty retarded.
>
> It's called CTRL+F. And your “thats” needs an apostrophe.

Yes, my posting is sloppy. That isn`t likely to change.

> >> ME: which speaks volumes as to your intelligence...
> >> BUD: Indeed it does. Good or bad.
>
> Yes. I just said that. *You're* not supposed to admit it.

<snicker> The fact that I bother to even post here speaks to my intelligence (and now yours). That I engage retards on a resolved issue speaks to my intelligence also.

> >> BUD: What is the name of the wound ballistic or forensic expert who examined the wound in Kennedy`s neck and determined it was an entry wound?
>
> Prior to the tracheotomy, Parkland surgeons witnessed a hole 3-8 mm in diameter, its neatness lacked the characteristic tearing of a high-velocity exit wound.

Despite your careful selection of words it is still an apple you are trying to represent as an orange. They had no training to determine whether it was an entrance wound, and they made no examination to determine whether it was an entrance wound. Nor will you ever find an expert in the proper fields willing to attest to it being an entrance based solely on the observations of these witnesses.

> They later agreed that it could have been an exit wound ONLY by a bullet exiting at a greatly reduced velocity.

How much time is spent in medical school on determining the velocity of bullets?

> By definition ALL exit wounds are caused by a bullet of *some* reduced velocity. But considering what the Magic Bullshit Theory claims CE399 achieved, you cannot say there was very much of a reduction in velocity, can you? Or...are you going to try to have it both ways again?

I`d suggest you chew whats in your mouth before taking more bites.

> >> ME: A bullet hole in the windshield...
> >> BUD: Show this.
>
> Here’s a link to an article by Douglas Horne you won’t read:

How can photography not produced be "convincing photography"?

> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/
>
> There, a full summation of the account of no less than six (6) witnesses who saw a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. And that article does not even mention the interaction between Greer and USPP Officer Nick Prencipe, to whom Greer describes “shots coming from every direction, one came right through the windshield,” and which Prencipe visually confirms as well.
>
> You are now going to attack the integrity and character of these witnesses, because you have to. But there’s no need; even your fellow believers have stopped denying a hole in the windshield. They’ve since moved on to “it was caused by a piece of Kennedy’s skull.” You should try running with that canard instead. That way you’d only look misinformed rather than dishonest.

I only asked you to show me the hole in the windshield. You failed. You offer what some people said. The more fantastic the idea the less weight "someone said" has.

> >> ME: A head that's thrown backwards.
> >> BUD: When Kennedy`s head is struck by the bullet his head goes forward.
>
> Then perhaps you can explain why Hargis—who was back and to the left of Kennedy—was sprayed with so much effluence he himself believed he was shot.

You expect me to explain Hargis`s mistaken impressions?

As far as your shifting the burden, you need to show that Hargis having the much gunk on him can only be explained by Kennedy getting shot from a particular direction. Get to work.

> Apparently Bud believes we are still in the 1960s, when the general population was not privy to the Zapruder film.

You can see Hargis hit by gunk in the Zapruder film?

> >> ME: Metal bits of Frangible bullet mapping a front-to-back trajectory in the x-ray.
> >> BUD: What is the name of the ballistic or forensic expert who stated that the metal fragments in Kennedy`s skull establish a front to back trajectory.
>
> You have only to Google-Image “JFK + lead snowstorm.” It is the first image that appears. Your failure to understand the science of trajectory does not make it a less authentic problem.

Another person unable to formulate an argument regarding this evidence. Claiming it is a "problem" isn`t an argument. You have to show that what is seen is inconsistent with Kennedy being struck from behind by a bullet. Experts would help your case immensely, saying "it looks that way to me" does not.

> >> ME: An occipital exit wound.
> >> BUD: What is the name of the wound ballistic or forensic expert who stated there was an occipital exit wound?
>
> I see Ben has already answered this. The answer is Dr. Finck, just in case you try to pretend you didn’t notice.

Quote him.

> And if you are going to deny severe occipital damage (assuming you know what “occipital” is, which I doubt), then we’re done here.

You are claiming that Finck stated that Kennedy had a bullet entry wound in the occipital region. I expect that what you produce will not be that.

> Thanks

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 6:32:50 PM4/4/18
to
Ad homs are personal attacks on a person's character or name. Ad hominem - to the body or person.

Calling a website absurd is not calling a person anything since it's not a person.

As I said, if you're against personal attacks then you need to address your conspiracy friends here who regularly engage in them. It's your standard not mine. It's not "whataboutism" it's asking a person to stand by the standard they say they believe in.





Bud

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 6:47:38 PM4/4/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 5:16:18 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> All the "lurkers" are noticing is that the troll known as BUD spent the entirety of his post gossiping about Ben, Ben, Ben, and ignored my post entirely. BUD is on life support, and he knows it.

I don`t know this guy well enough to gossip about him yet, lurkers, but I`m learning. I don`t know what he is referring to here, since he removed all the content. In my response to him I remember making point after point, yet he seems to have rendered this down to a few comments I made about Ben. I suppose this gave him something to misdirect towards.

> His next post will be an ad-hominem.

What was this post if not ad hominem in its entirety?


borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 6:56:50 PM4/4/18
to
> Ad homs are personal attacks on a person's character or name. Ad hominem - to the body or person.
>
> Calling a website absurd is not calling a person anything since it's not a person.

Everything on the mcadams website is absurd. My position is now fact. I don't have to defend it.

> As I said, if you're against personal attacks then you need to address your conspiracy friends here who regularly engage in them. It's your standard not mine. It's not "whataboutism" it's asking a person to stand by the standard they say they believe in.

You've *again* addressed nothing--nothing--in my post relating to the assassination. You're kicking your feet and pointing at the guy in the corner and whining "But-but-but Teacherrrr!!!" You started out civil; it took me less than a day to reduce you to what you really are.

Have a good night.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 6:57:37 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 14:54:26 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> As I said, I believe experts who study an issue/matter closely
>> over eyewitnesses who had quick looks at some distance. Can the
>> experts be wrong? Of course, but we need to explain why they are
>> wrong.
>>
>> How many of these witnesses viewed the inside of the windshield?
>> Do you know? How closely were they? Do you know?
>
> Yes, I know, because I read the Douglas Horne article provided,
> which you clearly did not. Otherwise, you would know who George
> Whitaker, Sr. was, his position and title at the Ford Motor Company’s
> Rouge Plant, the number of years' experience he had dealing with cars
> and windshields, what his role was on the morning of November 25th,
> what he was ordered to do with the original windshield, etc.


Watch the cowardice begin.



>> Where did the bullet go? Where was it fired from? When did it hit
>> the windshield? These questions need to be addressed before we
>> uncritically accept an eyewitness account.


Of course, now having been answered, Steve will *STILL* show his
dishonesty & cowardice.


> Why? You would not accept those answers anyway. The first two
> questions were answered by Ben. The answer to the third question is
> November 22, 1963. Hope that helps.


Actually, I thought I'd answered all three. :)

But it doesn't matter. Believers have their faith, and they ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to defend their faith to those who critically review their
false claims.

Steve will only respond to you long enough to find out that you can
answer any question he cares to raise about the evidence, then he'll
find some reason to stop responding.


>> Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Do you believe Howard Brennan?
>
> I will give you this one as a freebie. LN believers consistently
> fail to understand that Howard Brennan's eyewitness account of the man
> in the window is a huge detriment to the WC cause. Howard Brennan is
> no help to you.

Indeed he isn't.

His behavior and actions are PERFECTLY explained by critics. He did
*NOT* identify Oswald - and he was quite in accord with other
witnesses as to the clothing description - WHICH DID NOT MATCH OSWALD.

He was later intimidated into identifying Oswald.

This explains PERFECTLY the known facts.

Steve won't answer this - because he's a coward, and he knows he
really doesn't *have* a credible answer.

Steve won't admit it, but he can't name *ANY* eyewitness whom he
believes completely in their 1963-64 statements & testimony.

And *that* fact tells the tale.


>> Do you believe Markham and the other witnesses who identified Oswald
>> as the killer of Tippit?
>
> I'll believe any witness you want, as long as you concede to believe
> in Acquilla Clemons, Butch Burroughs, Bernard Haire, etc. Those three
> alone will sink you. So get cracking on those ad-homs, stat. They are
> your only hope.
>
>Thanks

I'd be happy if Steve could actually list *ANY* eyewitness he believes
completely.

It will never happen, however.

So I'm doomed to disappointment...

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:07:21 PM4/4/18
to
I posted Robert Frazier's testimony on his examination of the windshield.

You deflected, hemmed, hawed and went off on some other tangents.

Indeed, have a good day.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:09:23 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:04:17 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 5:54:27 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > As I said, I believe experts who study an issue/matter closely over eyewitnesses who had quick looks at some distance. Can the experts be wrong? Of course, but we need to explain why they are wrong.
>> >
>> > How many of these witnesses viewed the inside of the windshield? Do you know? How closely were they? Do you know?
>>
>> Yes, I know, because I read the Douglas Horne article provided, which you clearly did not. Otherwise, you would know who George Whitaker, Sr. was, his position and title at the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge Plant, the number of years' experience he had dealing with cars and windshields, what his role was on the morning of November 25th, what he was ordered to do with the original windshield, etc.
>>
>>
>> > Where did the bullet go? Where was it fired from? When did it hit the windshield? These questions need to be addressed before we uncritically accept an eyewitness account.
>>
>> Why? You would not accept those answers anyway. The first two questions were answered by Ben. The answer to the third question is November 22, 1963. Hope that helps.
>>
>> > Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Do you believe Howard Brennan?
>>
>> I will give you this one as a freebie. LN believers consistently fail to understand that Howard Brennan's eyewitness account of the man in the window is a huge detriment to the WC cause. Howard Brennan is no help to you.
>>
>> Do you believe Markham and the other witnesses who identified Oswald as the killer of Tippit?
>>
>> I'll believe any witness you want, as long as you concede to believe in Acquilla Clemons, Butch Burroughs, Bernard Haire, etc. Those three alone will sink you. So get cracking on those ad-homs, stat. They are your only hope.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> I believe eyewitness accounts if they're corroborated by hard
> evidence. You can chart a different course.


Which means, of course, that you can pick and chose who to believe.

There's no such thing as "hard evidence" - there's only witnesses.

I DARE you to produce "hard evidence"... you won't be able to.


> Look, we've all been to this rodeo before. We know the evidence, the
> accounts.


Then how do you explain the non-stop lying on the part of believers
such as yourself?



> You can believe those that fit your conspiracy worldview (frankly,
> someone who believes anything posted at the absurd Lew Rockwell site
> is making a mistake; but it's a free country). You can believe in
> multiple Oswalds and two caskets and two shooters and altered films
> and altered wounds and coverups upon coverups upon coverups.

Amusing! Coming from someone who RAN LIKE A COWARD the moment I asked
you to tell us what time the casket entered Bethesda, this is truly
amusing!

You *KNOW FOR A FACT* that there's evidence for multiple Oswalds,
multiple caskets, multiple shooters, altered film & wounds...

And you're TERRIFIED of that evidence!

Particularly when that evidence is in the hands of someone quick
enough to spot your every lie.


> And I can believe that evidence that shows that Lee Oswald, a
> unstable erratic individual took his rifle and shot JFK. As Kennedy
> reportedly said the day of the assassination, "If someone wants to
> shoot me from a tall building there's nothing we can do."


Of course, this explains *NOT AT ALL* the previous two assassination
attempts.


> BTW, if you're really against ad-homs then do something about your
> conspiracy friends who post here.


The same way you are doing something about the trolls on your side?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:15:07 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:23:31 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

> > I believe eyewitness accounts if they're corroborated by hard evidence. You can chart a different course.
>
> You will believe eyewitness accounts only on the condition they do
> not absolve Oswald in any way. This is not unique to you. It's the
> Lone Nutter lunch special. You have nothing to say on Whitaker, for
> example. You're right about having been to this rodeo before. It's
> getting boring.


Indeed... well stated.


>> You can believe in multiple Oswalds and two caskets and two
>> shooters and altered films and altered wounds and coverups upon
>> coverups upon coverups.
>
>Well...that's enough strawmen for a whole army of scarecrows.


Steve is TERRIFIED of going head to head on any of these issues.



>> And I can believe that evidence that shows that Lee Oswald, a unstable erratic individual took his rifle and shot JFK.
>
>Do you believe the evidence that shows a magician elevating on TV?


How about a magician catching bullets in his teeth? What we need is a
few magicians in the Secret Service. Had they trained JFK, he might
have only had a sore jaw.



>> BTW, if you're really against ad-homs then do something about your conspiracy friends who post here.
>
> Your whataboutism aside, you have no understanding what ad-homs are.
> They are not insults. They are insults IN LIEU OF evidence. Attacking
> and degrading out of need to discredit. Like, for example, your
> calling the Lew Rockwell site "absurd," or Oswald an "unstable,
> erratic" crackpot. It doesn't matter if the Lew Rockwell site is
> absurd or not; the site is merely a vessel for the Horne article. What
> you mean to do, therefore, is call Douglas Horne absurd, not the Lew
> Rockwell site. In addition, you need to assess the multiple witnesses
> in his article as absurd. All of them. Which you also did, in your own
> LN way.

My favorite two "ad-homs" are the charge of lying, and the charge of
cowardice - both of which are merely word descriptions of actions done
by others.

*TRUE* ad hominems, such as "retard" - will never be addressed by
Steve.

*THIS* fact shows his dishonesty.

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:16:20 PM4/4/18
to
For those not familiar with it, Lew Rockwell's website regularly publishes articles that claim the 9/11 attacks were done by the government, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that vaccines cause autism, that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag operation and other assorted demonstrably false conspiracy theories.

It's an absurd website that traffics in nonsense conspiracy claims that preys upon gullible minds.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:17:31 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:32:49 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

> Ad homs are personal attacks on a person's character or name. Ad
> hominem - to the body or person.

But an ACCURATE description of someone's character, such as telling
lies, or running away from the evidence, isn't ad hominem.


> Calling a website absurd is not calling a person anything since it's
> not a person.
>
> As I said, if you're against personal attacks then you need to
> address your conspiracy friends here who regularly engage in them.
> It's your standard not mine. It's not "whataboutism" it's asking a
> person to stand by the standard they say they believe in.

So you don't mind if your side calls people "retards" or "child
molesters"

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:18:38 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:56:49 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
I didn't think it would take long for Steve to show his cowardice.
"Boris" showed just a tad too much knowledge of this case.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:29:33 PM4/4/18
to
Believers always start with this veneer of civility that seldom lasts beyond their third or fourth post. I guess it’s because they arrive at forums boasting an artificial confidence that comes from reading one too many pages of Bugliosi’s stupid book. And I can call it stupid, because it’s not a person. There...now I’ve thoroughly discredited it.

Ben, you could out-debate this crowd in a coma. You are slumming it here, frankly. Where’s Henry when you need him? Speaking of which, there is a Facebook group called “Fair Play for JFK”, whose members include Henry and Dale. I joined it before I realized it was a pro-LN group, but I was there long enough to see some of their posts. And would you believe it...they’re STILL talking about you, all these years later. You butt-hurt them that hard. So please...go gentle on Steve and Bud, or in 20 years you’ll still haunt their dreams ;-)

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:33:42 PM4/4/18
to
This is amazing. We have a conspiracy believer here who has posted dozens and dozens of posts where he calls people liars and cowards and child molesters.

And then a conspiracy believer comes here and says lone assassin believers are uncivil?

Oy.

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:38:09 PM4/4/18
to
And let it be noted: I have not engaged in a single personal attack on the conspiracy poster who posted here.

Any claims otherwise are simply not true.

Read my posts. Nowhere did I attack him personally.

And again: a website is not a person.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 7:58:46 PM4/4/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:29:32 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Believers always start with this veneer of civility that seldom
> lasts beyond their third or fourth post. I guess it’s because they
> arrive at forums boasting an artificial confidence that comes from
> reading one too many pages of Bugliosi’s stupid book. And I can call
> it stupid, because it’s not a person. There...now I’ve thoroughly
> discredited it.

You give them too much credit. I can only name a few who've
demonstrated by their knowledge that they could have read all the way
through Bugliosi's tome.

Many, if not most believers are simply trolls or ignorant.

Ignorance can be cured if they can let go of their ego.


> Ben, you could out-debate this crowd in a coma. You are slumming it
> here, frankly.


It's one of the few completely public, and completely uncensored
arenas.

Which explains the lack of knowledgeable believers...


> Where’s Henry when you need him? Speaking of which,
> there is a Facebook group called “Fair Play for JFK”, whose members
> include Henry and Dale. I joined it before I realized it was a pro-LN
> group, but I was there long enough to see some of their posts. And
> would you believe it...they’re STILL talking about you, all these
> years later. You butt-hurt them that hard. So please...go gentle on
> Steve and Bud, or in 20 years you’ll still haunt their dreams ;-)

ROFLMAO!

They don't DARE debate in an open forum...

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 8:14:04 PM4/4/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:16:20 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> For those not familiar with it, Lew Rockwell's website regularly publishes articles...

You still fail to understand why ad-hominem and appeal to ridicule are logical fallacies. I can't be clearer than my last post. I posted an article written by Douglas Horne (which you so obviously did not read). The content of the article is what's important here. Not the website. You see? It's Douglas Horne you need to discredit. Not the website. You see?

> Lew Rockwell's website regularly publishes articles that claim the 9/11 attacks were done by the government, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that vaccines cause autism, that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag operation and other assorted demonstrably false conspiracy theories.

The JFK assassination and 9/11 WERE conspiracies. Absolutely, I believe it. No doubt "Bud" will mock me for those beliefs. Will you?

Bud

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 8:14:36 PM4/4/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:58:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:29:32 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > Believers always start with this veneer of civility that seldom
> > lasts beyond their third or fourth post. I guess it’s because they
> > arrive at forums boasting an artificial confidence that comes from
> > reading one too many pages of Bugliosi’s stupid book. And I can call
> > it stupid, because it’s not a person. There...now I’ve thoroughly
> > discredited it.
>
> You give them too much credit. I can only name a few who've
> demonstrated by their knowledge that they could have read all the way
> through Bugliosi's tome.
>
> Many, if not most believers are simply trolls or ignorant.
>
> Ignorance can be cured if they can let go of their ego.

What is it but ego that allows Ben to believe he is better than the career criminal investigators and the accomplished personages that served on the Warren Commission, lurkers?

> > Ben, you could out-debate this crowd in a coma. You are slumming it
> > here, frankly.
>
>
> It's one of the few completely public, and completely uncensored
> arenas.
>
> Which explains the lack of knowledgeable believers...

Perhaps it is because most of the time it sounds like a monkey dropped into a deep fryer around here, lurkers.

> > Where’s Henry when you need him? Speaking of which,
> > there is a Facebook group called “Fair Play for JFK”, whose members
> > include Henry and Dale. I joined it before I realized it was a pro-LN
> > group, but I was there long enough to see some of their posts. And
> > would you believe it...they’re STILL talking about you, all these
> > years later. You butt-hurt them that hard. So please...go gentle on
> > Steve and Bud, or in 20 years you’ll still haunt their dreams ;-)
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
> They don't DARE debate in an open forum...

I DARE Ben not to be retarded, lurkers.

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 8:25:29 PM4/4/18
to
Once again: you said my characterization of the website was an ad hominem attack. It's a website not a person.

I did not say Horne was absurd or his article. I said the website was absurd since it's not a site where people can obtain accurate, fair information that is screened for accuracy and objectivity. That's my view. You can disagree.

Once again: you are critical of ad hominem attacks but remain absolutely silent when a conspiracy believer here posts dozens and dozens of posts calling people liars and cowards and child molesters. Yes, child molesters.

If you're against ad hom attacks - as you stated here - then why the silence over these far more egregious examples?

Second, I quoted Robert Frazier's testimony about his examination of the windshield crack. He examined it quite closely. He stated what he found.

You cite eyewitnesses - or more accurately cite Horne who cites them - who did NOT examine the windshield. They saw the windshield at some distance and thought it was a bullet hole.

I believe Frazier's close examination over these eyewitness accounts made at a distant. You can disagree.

I also asked you about where any bullet striking the windshield went. I asked where the shooter would have fired from. You responded that I wouldn't believe your response and declined to answer.

That's ducking my questions. I reserve the right in any discussion not to agree with what the other person says. I think you reserve that right too.

As to 9/11: Yes, it was a conspiracy pulled off by radical Islamists who belonged to Al Qaeda.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 8:44:33 PM4/4/18
to

> I did not say Horne was absurd or his article. I said the website was absurd since it's not a site where people can obtain accurate, fair information that is screened for accuracy and objectivity. That's my view. You can disagree.

Yes, Steve, and that is why I gave you an open forum and ALL THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE WORLD to rebut what you felt was bias information. Remember, George Whitaker? I asked you twice to comment on him. Or was it three times? I don't know. At least twice. And each time, you squandered the opportunity. Instead, you give me Frazier, someone with NO expertise on...glass. Yet I am to take his word over the corroborating accounts of six to eight witnesses, including someone who spent 40 years handling windshields.

I'm not sure you remember either, but the thing about the windshield was only ONE point I made in my original post. You don't even attempt to touch my other refutations. Instead you remain content to just cherry pick one thing...and waste time.

> I also asked you about where any bullet striking the windshield went. I asked where the shooter would have fired from. You responded that I wouldn't believe your response and declined to answer. That's ducking my questions.

Really? Let's see.....

YOU: Where did the bullet go? Where was it fired from? When did it hit the windshield? These questions need to be addressed before we uncritically accept an eyewitness account.

ME: Why? You would not accept those answers anyway. The first two questions were answered by Ben. The answer to the third question is November 22, 1963. Hope that helps.

[earlier]

YOU: Where did the bullet go?

BEN: Into JFK's throat, most likely.

YOU: Where was it fired from?

BEN: The area forward and to the left of the limo. The *other* grassy knoll
with a parking lot behind it and plenty of sheltering trees &
greenery.

YOU: When did it hit the windshield?

BEN: Just microseconds before striking JFK's throat.

Congratulations, Steve, you are now a liar. And that’s no ad-hominem. That’s a fact.

Bud

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 8:58:26 PM4/4/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:17:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 15:32:49 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> > Ad homs are personal attacks on a person's character or name. Ad
> > hominem - to the body or person.
>
> But an ACCURATE description of someone's character, such as telling
> lies, or running away from the evidence, isn't ad hominem.

And guess who has appointed himself to determine when someone is lying or running from evidence, lurkers. The guy who does all the lying and running!

>
> > Calling a website absurd is not calling a person anything since it's
> > not a person.
> >
> > As I said, if you're against personal attacks then you need to
> > address your conspiracy friends here who regularly engage in them.
> > It's your standard not mine. It's not "whataboutism" it's asking a
> > person to stand by the standard they say they believe in.
>
> So you don't mind if your side calls people "retards" or "child
> molesters"

Ben is solely responsible that the rhetoric in this place has reached that level, lurkers. He is retarded that way.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 9:09:50 PM4/4/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 5:25:41 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 11:35:20 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 11:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 11:00:00 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> > 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
> > >> > his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination. .... But, of
> > >> > course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in linking LHO
> > >> > to the weapon. Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
> > >> > the weapon was Oswald's.
> > >>
> > >> > It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
> > >> > himself; and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
> > >> > the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
> > >> > handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
> > >> > him.
> > >>
> > >> > Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
> > >> > trigger. But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
> > >> > (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
> > >> > of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
> > >> > 22?
> > >>
> > >> > The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
> > >> > handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
> > >> > Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
> > >> > what might be the implications of doing so?
> > >>
> > >> > As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
> > >> > rifle topic, some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
> > >> > stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
> > >> > Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
> > >> > conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
> > >> > have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.
> > >>
> > >> Once again, David has COMPLETELY FAILED in his quest to prove the
> > >> "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
> > >
> > > Who does Oswald`s prints on the murder weapon implicate, Santa Claus lurkers?
> >
> >
> > Who does Lt. Day's prints on the murder weapon implicate dufus?
>
> This is why retards are rarely tapped to investigate murder, lurkers.
>
> > >> Indeed, David admits that this item *DOESN'T EVEN PROVE OSWALD GUILTY
> > >> OF ANYTHING AT ALL* - so how can it prove "sole guilt" when he's not
> > >> even proving guilt???
> > >
> > > It is impossible for a single thing to prove someone`s guilt, lurkers. Hence, a list.
> >
> >
> > It's also impossible for 0+0+0+0+0+0... to equal 1.
>
> Ben doesn`t feel that anything on DVP`s list constitutes evidence that indicates Oswald`s guilt, lurkers. What could matter less? I suspect real criminal investigators would feel differently.
>
> > You can't seem to understand that basic fact.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> stump wants to claim that you can add up all these non-proofs, and get
> > >> a proof - but he also failed math. 0+0+0+0+0... will never equal 1.
> > >
> > > Just because I'm a retard...
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > > My fellow Retards think...
> >
> > Who would care?
>
> Ben`s scumbaggery aside, this is the wisdom Ben cut and ran from, lurkers...
>
> "Like I said, lurkers, retards have contrived reasons to disregard the evidence. And they do this time and time and time again. How does "they were all working against poor Oswald" become the default? This is the same sort of stupidity the OJ Simpson jurors bought into."
>
> > >> But, this garbage of David is worth refuting statement by statement,
> > >> so here's a repeat of his item 8, with commentary:
> > >>
> > >> > 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
> > >> > his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> *EXTREMELY* debatable, and David knows it. Both the FBI and Warren
> > >> Commission had grave doubts of this "fact," and attempted to pin it
> > >> down unsuccessfully. The simple fact that Lt. Day photographed ALL
> > >> OTHER PRINTS shows far more than "reasonable doubt" - and it rather
> > >> teilling that David even bothers with this claim.
> > >
> > > I said I'm a retard...
> >
> >
> > Yes, but what you *NEED* to say is how Lt. Day photographed everything
> > but the one single critical tie to the alleged assassin.
>
> Why do I need to say anything on this, lurkers? Am I Lt. Day?
>
> I do see some possibilities in his testimony. This is one...
>
> Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
>
> Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
>
> It seems he only photographed prints he *didn`t* lift.
>
> > And why it's silly of the Warren Commission & FBI to doubt Lt. Day.
>
> What did they doubt, lurkers?
>
> >
> > >> > .... But, of course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in
> > >> > linking LHO to the weapon.
> > >>
> > >> David knows full well the problems of the "palmprint" - so he very
> > >> carefully backtracks in advance. He's clearly aware of just how weak
> > >> this claim is - and shows it.
> > >
> > > He didn`t "backtrack", lurkers. He just pointed out that it was overkill.
> >
> > He backtracked.
>
> Ben lies, lurkers, Saying it is a "bonus" is not backing off a previously stated position.
>
> >David *knows* he can't base his theory on such
> > incredibly weak evidence... especially knowing how easily I can trash
> > it using the historical evidence.
> >
> > Wanna put it to a poll?
>
> What a dope, lurkers.
>
> >
> > >> > Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
> > >> > the weapon was Oswald's.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> No David, it's not. The problems with the ownership of the Mannlicher
> > >> Carcano are lengthy, and you've done your best to try to resurrect the
> > >> Warren Commission's claim - but it's *FAR* from certain that Oswald
> > >> owned this rifle. There's problems with **ALL** of the evidence
> > >> linking him to the rifle, as you well know.
> > >
> > > As I said, us retards feel...
> >
> >
> > No-one cares...
> >
> >
> >
> > >> > It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
> > >> > himself;
> > >>
> > >> No, it wasn't. It was a presumption of the Warren Commission, who
> > >> ignored their own evidence in order to come to this "conclusion."
> > >
> > > Nonsense, lurkers.
> >
> > Empty claim. You'll NEVER hear the truth of the testimony speaking of
> > "Hidell" from stump.
>
> Its nonsense, lurkers.
>
> >
> > >> There's no evidence that David will cite that proves this claim.
> > >
> > > Perhaps if Oswald was arrested with fake ID bearing this name,
> > > lurkers. Oh, thats right, he was.
> >
> >
> > If this were true, why didn't they charge Hidell?
>
> Because they were real criminal investigators and not retards playing silly games with the deaths of these men, lurkers.
>
> > Run stump, Run!!!
> >
> >
> > >> Nor will David *DARE* to refer to the evidence of a real "Hidell" in
> > >> this case...
> > >
> > > Neither will Ben, lurkers.
> >
> >
> > Already have. "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission #7" Feel free to
> > educate yourself, then come back here and admit that you lied.
>
> No matter how much Ben lies, Heindel will never be Hidell, lurkers.
>
> And it is a strawman anyway, because it doesn`t speak to DVP`s claim.
>
> > >> > and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
> > >> > the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
> > >> > handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
> > >> > him.
> > >>
> > >> No on both counts. (And David already knows this!)
> > >>
> > >> It was *NOT* "positively proven" to have been his handwriting.
> > >
> > > It was the conclusion of experts who examined the material, lurkers.
> >
> > You're lying again, stump.
> >
> > You'll refuse to cite...
>
> Ben is correct here, lurkers, I must have been looking at the wrong number last night. Here is the handwriting analysis of the HSCA....
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm
>
> The most they were willing to say about #30...
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=661&tab=page
>
> Was...
>
> "The envelope addressed to Kleins (item 30) was available only in the form of a microfilm enlargement. This is even less satisfactory than a photocopy as a basis for an opinion on handwriting. It can only be said that as far as the pictorial aspects of form or design. proportions, alignment, slant, and connecting strokes are concerned, the writing on this envelope, although it purports to be that of one Hidell, conforms with the original writing submitted for examination which purported to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald."
>

But the 2 experts for the WC testified that the writing found on the order form and envelope (CE773) was positively the writing of Oswald....

Mr. COLE --- "774-783, is the author of the handwriting on Commission Exhibit 773."

Mr. CADIGAN -- "The writer of the known standards, Lee Harvey Oswald, prepared the handwriting and hand printing on Commission Exhibit No. 773."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cole1.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm




> I don`t see comment at all on the form, only on the envelope (which has indications of being consistent with Oswald`s writing).
>
>
> > >> Handwriting experts routinely state that *originals* are needed to
> > >> make a judgement, not copies.
> > >
> > > Let Ben quote these experts who say it is impossible to make these
> > > determinations from copies, lurkers.
> >
> > Feel free to examine actual HSCA testimony...
> >
> > Mr. FAUNTROY. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting
> > for analysis purposes?
> > Mr. MCNALLY. No, never.
>
> Strawman, lurkers. It isn`t a question of whether one is better than the other, the question is whether copies can be used.
>
> > > I searched "handwriting analysis from copies" on google and the
> > > first thing on the list disputes his claim...
> >
> > Why are you afraid to examine the testimony of the actual handwriting
> > experts who testified on this matter?
>
> If Ben has something that he thinks supports his position he should produce it, lurkers.
>
> >
> > > https://www.forensicdocexaminer.com/photocopies-for-evidence-beware/
> > >
> > > The articles cites difficulties but doesn`t say it can`t be done.
> >
> >
> > It can't be done *RELIABLY*.
>
> Let Ben support the claim that a copy can never be used to identify handwriting, lurkers. I saw nothing like that in the forensic source I linked to.
>
> > There are many factors of handwriting visible on originals, that
> > cannot be seen or examined in copies... pressure, micro tremors, etc.
> >
> > I'm no handwriting expert, and *I* know this... why don't you, stump?
> >
> >
> > >> Nor was the rifle shown to have been delivered to the P.O. box that
> > >> Oswald had.
> > >
> > > The BY photo shows it was, lurkers. The serial number on the rifle shows it was.
> >
> >
> > A rather stupid logical fallacy on your part.
>
> It is how criminal investigatoin solves solves crimes, lurkers.
>
> > >> > Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
> > >> > trigger.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This is, of course... a presumption. It's never been proven that
> > >> Oswald owned a rifle.
> > >
> > > It has been shown, lurkers.
> >
> >
> > Nope.
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed out of hand, lurkers.
>
>
> > >> The major difficulties with his assumed ownership have always been
> > >> glossed over. Indeed, we merely need to look at the most recent
> > >> attempts by David to show that the money order went through the normal
> > >> banking system... a complete failure on his part.
> > >
> > > The file locator number show the money order had been through the
> > > banking system, lurkers.
> >
> >
> > Nope.
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.
>
> > >> Not that he will admit it... but fail he did.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
> > >> > (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
> > >> > of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
> > >> > 22?
> > >>
> > >> This is a frequent "go-to" bit of logic on the part of believers...
> > >> the "common sense" argument.
> > >
> > > I'm retarded to believe...
> >
> >
> > Yep, but no-one cares...
> >
> >
> > >> It's frequently used because there's a *LACK OF EVIDENCE* for their
> > >> claims. If evidence existed, wouldn't believers like David produce the
> > >> evidence instead of their reliance on "garden-variety logic" or
> > >> "common sense?"
> > >
> > > I'm a retards...
> >
> >
> > Got a mouse in your pocket?
> >
> >
> > >> "Ownership" of a weapon has never been used in a court of law, to my
> > >> knowledge... **POSSESSION* is the critical idea here. And possession
> > >> would be a certainty if we had fingerprint (or palmprint) evidence
> > >> that was credible.
> > >
> > > We have fingerprint evidence
> >
> >
> > No you don't.
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.
>
> > > photographic evidence
>
> > Disputed.
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.
>
> > > documentation
> >
> >
> > Quite likely forged, no independent ability for anyone to check now...
> > the FBI destroyed the evidence.
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.
>
> > > and witness testimony
> >
> >
> > Of a proven liar. Doesn't get you very far...
>
> All evidence that goes against the silly ideas of the conspiracy retards is dismissed, lurkers.
>
> > >I'm a Retard...
> >
> >
> > No-one cares, stump.
> >
> >
> > >> But David knows that we don't. He's TERRIFIED of debating a more
> > >> knowledgeable critic - he's been schooled on more than one occasion on
> > >> evidence he *should* have been familiar with.
> > >>
> > >> > The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
> > >> > handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
> > >> > Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
> > >> > what might be the implications of doing so?
> > >>
> > >> This is not the alternative.
> > >>
> > >> David pretends that if an owner of a weapon isn't guilty of a crime
> > >> with that weapon, that the only other possibility is that the owner
> > >> handed over his weapon to another.
> > >>
> > >> This is **PROVABLY** stupid and wrong. (Simply Google "Stolen Guns
> > >> Used In Crime" - I included this to prevent stump from whining about
> > >> an "empty claim.")
> > >>
> > >> Nor is the claim that if one loans a weapon to someone else, they
> > >> "know full well" what's going to occur...
> > >
> > > Of course none of Ben`s offerings make the least bit of sense in
> > > the context of this crime. If Oswald`s rifle was loaned or stolen,
> > > what are the first words out of his mouth when he is in custody,
> > > lurkers?
> >
> >
> > "I don't own a rifle, I can prove that photo is faked..."
>
> Does it make sense that he would say these things if his rifle was lost or stolen, lurkers?
>
> > >> David is guilty of rather stupid speculation based on his
> > >> preconceptions of what happened.
> > >
> > > It is only stupid speculation if the presumptions of retards ...
> >
> >
> > No, David doesn't have to be a "retard" in order to engage in stupid
> > speculation.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> And if *this* is the best that David can do...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
> > >> > rifle topic,
> > >>
> > >> The idea that Occam's Razor shows that the owner of a gun is the prime
> > >> suspect in any crime *committed* with the gun is a fallacy and an
> > >> outright lie on David's part.
> > >
> > > I`ve never seen a retard ...
> >
> >
> > Don't have mirrors where your from?
> >
> >
> >
> > >> This is the sort of slick glossing over of facts that believers are
> > >> frequently guilty of.
> > >
> > > I'm a retards...
> >
> >
> > It's no excuse.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> The fact that the David & dufus duo keep making these sorts of claims
> > >> tells the true tale, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > Don`t pat any attention to this nonsense, lurkers.
> >
> >
> > I've noted before the interesting phenomena of believers losing their
> > ability to spell when they get frustrated.
>
> Pretty desperate to score points when you have to jump on a typo, lurkers.
>
> > >> > some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
> > >> > stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
> > >> > Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
> > >> > conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
> > >> > have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.
> > >>
> > >> How silly! I'm often amused at how frequently believers like to argue
> > >> against theories they **presume** a critic would proffer, rather than
> > >> the **REAL** ones...
> > >
> > > <snicker> Have you ever seen a retard...
> >
> >
> > No, but you're not welcome here anyway...
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Why can't David demonstrate how Oswald was *NOT* framed with a weapon?
> > >
> > > I'm retarded...
> >
> >
> > No excuses...
> >
> >
> > >> This **IS** a supportable theory proposed by a critic. There was *NO*
> > >> rifle in a blanket - seen by no-one, and not shown to be owned by
> > >> Oswald, so no-one needed to "steal" it.
> > >
> > > So Marina took the police into the garage to show them the nice
> > > blanket she kept there, lurkers?
> >
> >
> > The same Marina who repeated said that Oswald didn't own a rifle?
>
> Did Marina want to show the cops the blanket she kept in the garage, lurkers? I think she took them there because she thought her husband kept a rifle there, and this retard is focusing on the wrong thing because he is playing silly games with the deaths of these men.
>
> > *That* Marina?
> >
> >
> >
> > > And why doesn`t Ben take his denials one step further, and claim
> > > there was no Lee Harvey Oswald?
> >
> >
> > And why doesn't dufus take it one step further, and talk about the
> > pink elephant in that garage?
>
> Kennedy wasn`t trampled to death, lurkers.
>
> > >> As usual - David being the coward that he is, will not dare to defend
> > >> his lies in an open forum not controlled by friendly believers...
> > >>
> > >> It will be left to dufus to dance, whine & lie... but yet again we see
> > >> the central claim of David - completely unsupported.
> >
> > Yep... and David snipped **ALL** of this, and refused to try defending
> > his lies.

Bud

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 9:22:10 PM4/4/18
to
Very good, David, I didn`t look there. Seems Ben was lying again.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 9:29:34 PM4/4/18
to
The FACT that there is definitive proof (via photos and Bob Frazier's testimony) that there was never a HOLE in the windshield of the SS-100-X limousine will never sway a dedicated CTer from insisting year after year that there was a hole in the windshield. It's become a religion amongst CTers to pretend that such a "hole" was there, even though the photos and testimony prove that it was just a crack and not a "hole".

Funny thing is, even if there WAS a hole in the glass, how would that fact PROVE that the bullet that caused such a hole came from the FRONT instead of from Oswald's gun? Seems to me that if such a hole existed, it could just as easily have come from a bullet (or fragment) from Oswald's C2766 rifle. Why is that an impossibility in the CT world? After all, we know that a fragment from the head shot (fired by LHO, of course) DID, in fact, damage the windshield to the point that it left a lead smear on the INSIDE of the glass and caused a small crack. So with just a tiny bit more velocity, that fragment probably would have gone through the glass. But in the CT world, a "hole" MUST equal "Second Shooter". But that's silly, IMO.

It'd be nice if the CTers could produce a picture of the "hole". But they can't, of course, since no hole ever existed in the first place.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 10:34:02 PM4/4/18
to
Message has been deleted

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 11:42:52 PM4/4/18
to
> > Then perhaps you can explain why Hargis—who was back and to the left of Kennedy—was sprayed with so much effluence he himself believed he was shot.
>
> You expect me to explain Hargis`s mistaken impressions?

What?

> As far as your shifting the burden, you need to show that Hargis having the much gunk on him can only be explained by Kennedy getting shot from a particular direction. Get to work.

What???


> > Apparently Bud believes we are still in the 1960s, when the general population was not privy to the Zapruder film.
>
> You can see Hargis hit by gunk in the Zapruder film?

What?!?!?


> > You have only to Google-Image “JFK + lead snowstorm.” It is the first image that appears. Your failure to understand the science of trajectory does not make it a less authentic problem.
>
> Another person unable to formulate an argument regarding this evidence. Claiming it is a "problem" isn`t an argument. You have to show that what is seen is inconsistent with Kennedy being struck from behind by a bullet.

WHAT?!?!?



> > And if you are going to deny severe occipital damage (assuming you know what “occipital” is, which I doubt), then we’re done here.
>
> You are claiming that Finck stated that Kennedy had a bullet entry wound in the occipital region. I expect that what you produce will not be that.

Oh my God!

Whose side are you on anyway? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? DVP, help your boy out. Explain how and why he buried himself multiple times in a single post. Maybe start by telling him what the occipital is, and why he's correct in stating that, no, I cannot produce evidence of a bullet ENTRY wound there.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 4, 2018, 11:59:48 PM4/4/18
to
Bud meant to say.....

"You are claiming that Finck stated that Kennedy had a bullet **EXIT** wound in the occipital region. I expect that what you produce will not be that."

And the above corrected statement is true, of course. Dr. Finck never said that JFK had a big EXIT hole in the back (occipital) part of his head. Finck signed the autopsy report which states....

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

Plus, this X-ray proves for all time that there was no large exit hole in the back (occipital) part of the President's head....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-H_fBxmWdSk4/UcpVuTy7TVI/AAAAAAAAu6o/4ziEd8x0xng/s1600/JFK-Head-Xray.jpg

Please point out the large "occipital" exit wound in the above X-ray.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 10:56:50 AM4/5/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:33:41 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

> This is amazing. We have a conspiracy believer here who has posted
> dozens and dozens of posts where he calls people liars and cowards and
> child molesters.

Nah, what's *REALLY* crazy is that you're illustrating both your
cowardice AND your dishonesty in a single post.

Nor do I "call" people liars... I merely point out the FACT that they
are lying... and each time I point out an outright lie, Steve is
no-where to be found defending the lie.

I label people who make claims, then run away from defending those
claims as cowards... it's a perfectly good English word, and has a
meaning.

What time did JFK's casket enter Bethesda?

Nothing but *COWARDICE* can explain your consistent refusal to defend
your lying.

> And then a conspiracy believer comes here and says lone assassin
> believers are uncivil?
>
>Oy.

Strangely enough, the troll who constantly called everyone "retards"
isn't mentioned at all by Steve.

No need to wonder why... Steve is a fellow traveler...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:11:37 AM4/5/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 16:38:08 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:33:42 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> This is amazing. We have a conspiracy believer here who has posted dozens and dozens of posts where he calls people liars and cowards and child molesters.
>>
>> And then a conspiracy believer comes here and says lone assassin believers are uncivil?
>>
>> Oy.
>
> And let it be noted: I have not engaged in a single personal attack
> on the conspiracy poster who posted here.

You're lying again, Steve. Here's one example: "Amazing, this is like
trying to reason with a child. You have to explain using simple words
and concepts."

Another: "I cannot believe I have to explain simple ideas like this.

Another: "What is especially funny is you guys think "the Government"
(capital "G" right?) cares about what you silly people say about the
assassination."

And another: "It's called critical thinking. In conspiracy world
that's not allowed."

And another: "Why I am trying to reason with people who are
unreasonable is my mistake."

I can continue... but the point is made. YOU'RE A LIAR, you do indeed
engage in personal attack. You simply can't label me a liar, because I
can cite the evidence for EVERYTHING I assert... and you can't call me
a coward, because I'm happy to reply to all posts, and defend my
statements.

>Any claims otherwise are simply not true.

See above.


>Read my posts. Nowhere did I attack him personally.
>
>And again: a website is not a person.

A coward can be defined as someone who makes it clear that he thinks
anyone who believes in multiple casket entries is a loon (or at the
very least, a crank who believes in every conspiracy theory that comes
along...) - yet runs the moment he's asked to defend his idea that
only one casket entered Bethesda.

Of course, I'm used to believers running away... I know the evidence
and facts as well as most, and can quickly point out the lies I'm
frequently facing.

And since you clearly don't think it's "uncivil" - I'm free to label
you a retard... right?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:26:38 AM4/5/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:29:32 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 6:56:50 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > Ad homs are personal attacks on a person's character or name. Ad hominem - to the body or person.
>> > >
>> > > Calling a website absurd is not calling a person anything since it's not a person.
>> >
>> > Everything on the mcadams website is absurd. My position is now fact. I don't have to defend it.
>> >
>> > > As I said, if you're against personal attacks then you need to address your conspiracy friends here who regularly engage in them. It's your standard not mine. It's not "whataboutism" it's asking a person to stand by the standard they say they believe in.
>> >
>> > You've *again* addressed nothing--nothing--in my post relating to the assassination. You're kicking your feet and pointing at the guy in the corner and whining "But-but-but Teacherrrr!!!" You started out civil; it took me less than a day to reduce you to what you really are.
>> >
>> > Have a good night.
>>
>> I posted Robert Frazier's testimony on his examination of the windshield.
>>
>> You deflected, hemmed, hawed and went off on some other tangents.
>>
>> Indeed, have a good day.
>
> The FACT that there is definitive proof

Nope. Your "definitive" proof is merely *contradicting* evidence.


> (via photos and Bob
> Frazier's testimony) that there was never a HOLE in the windshield of
> the SS-100-X limousine will never sway a dedicated CTer from insisting
> year after year that there was a hole in the windshield. It's become a
> religion amongst CTers to pretend that such a "hole" was there, even
> though the photos and testimony prove that it was just a crack and not
> a "hole".


And as soon as you provide the chain of custody for the windshield,
then you'll have something acceptable in court.

But you can't... can you?


> Funny thing is, even if there WAS a hole in the glass, how would
> that fact PROVE that the bullet that caused such a hole came from the
> FRONT instead of from Oswald's gun?

Because of how holes made by bullets in glass look.

You *really* need to brush up on basic facts before looking the fool.

How did the prosectors determine the direction of the bullet hole
(half hole, that is) that was in JFK's skull?


> Seems to me that if such a hole
> existed, it could just as easily have come from a bullet (or fragment)
> from Oswald's C2766 rifle.


Isn't meaningless speculation fun!

Simply *IGNORE* the evidence... and create your own reality!


> Why is that an impossibility in the CT
> world?


Because we look to the evidence.


> After all, we know that a fragment from the head shot (fired by
> LHO, of course) DID, in fact, damage the windshield to the point that
> it left a lead smear on the INSIDE of the glass and caused a small
> crack. So with just a tiny bit more velocity, that fragment probably
> would have gone through the glass. But in the CT world, a "hole" MUST
> equal "Second Shooter". But that's silly, IMO.

Sorry David, that's not the case made for a second shooter. If you're
going to be honest, you should at least correctly state the opposing
opinion.

> It'd be nice if the CTers could produce a picture of the "hole". But
> they can't, of course, since no hole ever existed in the first place.

Logical fallacy.

I dare you to produce the picture of the knife that O.J. Simpson used
to murder two people... oh, you can't? Must not have ever been a
knife.

Rather silly logic, but it's yours.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:27:37 AM4/5/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 19:34:00 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html

You refuse to defend these against critical review.

It's simply blatant propaganda, isn't it?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:36:53 AM4/5/18
to
That is, of course .. PRECISELY where the large wound was located.

It was not stated to be the "exit" wound, but the large wound *WAS*
located in the back of the head.

You're a liar to suggest any different.

And you're too much a coward to specify the *LOCATION* of the large
wound, according to the Autopsy Report.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:45:43 AM4/5/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:09:49 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:


> But the 2 experts for the WC testified that the writing found on the
> order form and envelope (CE773) was positively the writing of
> Oswald....

The topic is the "sole guilt" of Oswald - you've managed to change it
to something else. You, David Von Pein - are a coward... you refuse to
address the critical reviews of your website.

But it doesn't matter. What you cannot publicly admit is that
handwriting analysis *NOT* done on originals is more art than science,
and no handwriting expert worth his salt would try to analyse a copy
if an original were available.

For more detail, see:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17496-oswalds-handwriting/

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 11:57:36 AM4/5/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:25:28 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 8:14:04 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:16:20 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > For those not familiar with it, Lew Rockwell's website regularly publishes articles...
>>
>> You still fail to understand why ad-hominem and appeal to ridicule are logical fallacies. I can't be clearer than my last post. I posted an article written by Douglas Horne (which you so obviously did not read). The content of the article is what's important here. Not the website. You see? It's Douglas Horne you need to discredit. Not the website. You see?
>>
>> > Lew Rockwell's website regularly publishes articles that claim the 9/11 attacks were done by the government, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that vaccines cause autism, that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag operation and other assorted demonstrably false conspiracy theories.
>>
>> The JFK assassination and 9/11 WERE conspiracies. Absolutely, I believe it. No doubt "Bud" will mock me for those beliefs. Will you?
>
> Once again: you said my characterization of the website was an ad
> hominem attack. It's a website not a person.

Yep, absolutely *NO* slur intended on the person who pulled an article
from *that* website.

RIGHT.....

Tell us Steve, do you think anyone will *believe* you?



> I did not say Horne was absurd or his article. I said the website
> was absurd since it's not a site where people can obtain accurate,
> fair information that is screened for accuracy and objectivity. That's
> my view. You can disagree.


A sly implication can't be faulted, right Steve?

But since you have no problem at all with retardation, you won't mind
if I label you a retard for thinking that your intentional slights
were meant, right?


> Once again: you are critical of ad hominem attacks but remain
> absolutely silent when a conspiracy believer here posts dozens and
> dozens of posts calling people liars and cowards and child molesters.
> Yes, child molesters.

Yep... John McAdams is certainly to be despised. Why didn't you
mention his name?

> If you're against ad hom attacks - as you stated here - then why the
> silence over these far more egregious examples?

Yep... you'd have to be "retarded" to avoid commenting on those who
label everyone a "retard."

Right Steve?

> Second, I quoted Robert Frazier's testimony about his examination of
> the windshield crack. He examined it quite closely. He stated what he
> found.


What windshield was he examining?


> You cite eyewitnesses - or more accurately cite Horne who cites them
> - who did NOT examine the windshield. They saw the windshield at some
> distance and thought it was a bullet hole.


You're lying again, Steve.



> I believe Frazier's close examination over these eyewitness accounts
> made at a distant. You can disagree.


Disagreeing with a lie is an easy thing to do for an honest man.


> I also asked you about where any bullet striking the windshield
> went. I asked where the shooter would have fired from. You responded
> that I wouldn't believe your response and declined to answer.

I've responded more than once to this question... I even created a
graphic showing the line leading from JFK's throat to the hole in the
glass, and where it went.

And as soon as stump asserts that I've never posted it, I'll be happy
to cite where I posted it in this forum.

But don't dare think that your question hasn't been answered.


> That's ducking my questions. I reserve the right in any discussion
> not to agree with what the other person says. I think you reserve that
> right too.

I find it amusing that the man who ducks questions related to *HIS*
assertions is now claiming that someone is ducking his questions, even
as he runs from everything I say...

Does "hypocrite" ring a bell?


>As to 9/11: Yes, it was a conspiracy pulled off by radical Islamists who belonged to Al Qaeda.

I agree.

But it's too bad that you have to frequently lie about the evidence to
avoid saying the same about the JFK case.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 12:04:13 PM4/5/18
to
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 17:44:32 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>> I did not say Horne was absurd or his article. I said the website
>> was absurd since it's not a site where people can obtain accurate,
>> fair information that is screened for accuracy and objectivity. That's
>> my view. You can disagree.
>
>>Yes, Steve, and that is why I gave you an open forum and ALL THE
>> OPPORTUNITY IN THE WORLD to rebut what you felt was bias information.
>> Remember, George Whitaker? I asked you twice to comment on him. Or was
>> it three times? I don't know. At least twice. And each time, you
>> squandered the opportunity. Instead, you give me Frazier, someone with
>> NO expertise on...glass. Yet I am to take his word over the
>> corroborating accounts of six to eight witnesses, including someone
>> who spent 40 years handling windshields.

Let's recall that it's believers who frequently argue that Mark Lane
was a "liar" by "omission."

Is it omission not to explain George Whitaker?

I'll let the lurkers judge...


> I'm not sure you remember either, but the thing about the windshield
> was only ONE point I made in my original post. You don't even attempt
> to touch my other refutations. Instead you remain content to just
> cherry pick one thing...and waste time.


David Von Pein does the same trick.



>> I also asked you about where any bullet striking the windshield
>> went. I asked where the shooter would have fired from. You responded
>> that I wouldn't believe your response and declined to answer. That's
>> ducking my questions.
>
>Really? Let's see.....
>
> YOU: Where did the bullet go? Where was it fired from? When did it
> hit the windshield? These questions need to be addressed before we
> uncritically accept an eyewitness account.
>
> ME: Why? You would not accept those answers anyway. The first two
> questions were answered by Ben. The answer to the third question is
> November 22, 1963. Hope that helps.
>
>[earlier]
>
>YOU: Where did the bullet go?
>
>BEN: Into JFK's throat, most likely.
>
>YOU: Where was it fired from?
>
>BEN: The area forward and to the left of the limo. The *other* grassy knoll
>with a parking lot behind it and plenty of sheltering trees &
>greenery.
>
>YOU: When did it hit the windshield?
>
>BEN: Just microseconds before striking JFK's throat.
>
>Congratulations, Steve, you are now a liar. And that’s no ad-hominem. That’s a fact.

ROTFLMAO!!!

*ANOTHER* honest person who doesn't think pointing out a liar who has
told provable lies is an "ad hominem" attack!

What is the world coming to?

And why is Steve ducking the answers?

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 12:26:24 PM4/5/18
to
Nowhere can Boris cite a lie by me.

I asked him several questions about the alleged bullet through the windshield claim - e.g., where did the bullet go, where would the shooter have been located - which he didn't respond to. He specifically said that he wouldn't answer them because I wouldn't accept his answers anyway.

So he admits he didn't answer them.

Then he tries to cover his tracks by saying he responded to Bud's questions even though he said, again, he wouldn't answer MY questions since I wouldn't accept them.

Fine, don't answer them but don't pretend you did.

Then when he tries to answer them later he evades. As in when did the bullet hit the windshield? e.g., where on the Z film is this strike? He says it hit "microseconds before striking JFK's throat."

This is the same Boris who says ad homs are out of bounds. But refuses to condemn his fellow CTer - in fact he supports him - who regularly calls people liar, cowards and child molesters. And then calls me a liar. Nowhere of course citing my lie.

And to top things off - not surprisingly - Boris says he's a 9/11 truther.

There are some decent, smart conspiracy believers. But they are a minority that are drowned out by the likes of the people who post here.









stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 12:29:50 PM4/5/18
to
David: Of course any eyewitnesses who saw the crack or alleged "hole" in the windshield would have no idea whatsoever what caused it. How could they? Was it a bullet? A fragment? Did it hit inside or outside?

They don't know.

It would have be examined to determine how it occurred. Which was done.

So one can accept the accounts by eyewitnesses who saw it at a distance or accept the account of a person who examined it closely.

You'd have to be thinking quite poorly and illogically to accept the former.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 12:39:16 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:26:22 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>Nowhere can Boris cite a lie by me.

He did better than cite... he QUOTED IT.

And you snipped it entirely, and refused to even *try* to refute it.

Lied, didn't you?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 12:45:36 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:29:48 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 9:29:34 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 6:56:50 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > Ad homs are personal attacks on a person's character or name. Ad hominem - to the body or person.
>> > > >
>> > > > Calling a website absurd is not calling a person anything since it's not a person.
>> > >
>> > > Everything on the mcadams website is absurd. My position is now fact. I don't have to defend it.
>> > >
>> > > > As I said, if you're against personal attacks then you need to address your conspiracy friends here who regularly engage in them. It's your standard not mine. It's not "whataboutism" it's asking a person to stand by the standard they say they believe in.
>> > >
>> > > You've *again* addressed nothing--nothing--in my post relating to the assassination. You're kicking your feet and pointing at the guy in the corner and whining "But-but-but Teacherrrr!!!" You started out civil; it took me less than a day to reduce you to what you really are.
>> > >
>> > > Have a good night.
>> >
>> > I posted Robert Frazier's testimony on his examination of the windshield.
>> >
>> > You deflected, hemmed, hawed and went off on some other tangents.
>> >
>> > Indeed, have a good day.
>>
>> The FACT that there is definitive proof (via photos and Bob Frazier's testimony) that there was never a HOLE in the windshield of the SS-100-X limousine will never sway a dedicated CTer from insisting year after year that there was a hole in the windshield. It's become a religion amongst CTers to pretend that such a "hole" was there, even though the photos and testimony prove that it was just a crack and not a "hole".
>>
>> Funny thing is, even if there WAS a hole in the glass, how would that fact PROVE that the bullet that caused such a hole came from the FRONT instead of from Oswald's gun? Seems to me that if such a hole existed, it could just as easily have come from a bullet (or fragment) from Oswald's C2766 rifle. Why is that an impossibility in the CT world? After all, we know that a fragment from the head shot (fired by LHO, of course) DID, in fact, damage the windshield to the point that it left a lead smear on the INSIDE of the glass and caused a small crack. So with just a tiny bit more velocity, that fragment probably would have gone through the glass. But in the CT world, a "hole" MUST equal "Second Shooter". But that's silly, IMO.
>>
>> It'd be nice if the CTers could produce a picture of the "hole". But they can't, of course, since no hole ever existed in the first place.
>
> David: Of course any eyewitnesses who saw the crack or alleged
> "hole" in the windshield would have no idea whatsoever what caused it.
> How could they? Was it a bullet? A fragment? Did it hit inside or
> outside?


This is merely stupidity on David's part. I doubt if he *really*
believes such nonsense.



>They don't know.


And yet, a number of people ACCURATELY stated what they saw, and what
caused it. Do you suppose they were all psychics?


>It would have be examined to determine how it occurred. Which was done.

What, exactly, can a detailed examination determine than a 5 second
look cannot?

Be specific.


> So one can accept the accounts by eyewitnesses who saw it at a
> distance or accept the account of a person who examined it closely.


Another lie on your part.

And one you'll refuse to document or cite for.


>You'd have to be thinking quite poorly and illogically to accept the former.

You have to be a moron to think that the average intelligent person
can't figure out what caused a bullet sized hole in glass...

And what direction is was going by looking at it.

But that's the state of believers today - they think everyone's a
moron, not realizing that they're painting themselves as morons.

Anyone care to lay money on whether or not a believer can ACCURATELY
state that a hole was caused by a bullet, and which direction is was
traveling, if I provided an example piece of glass with a bullet hole
in it?

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 1:33:28 PM4/5/18
to
> Fine, don't answer them but don't pretend you did.

Steve, if I did not answer your question directly, it's because the questions had been answered already. And I quoted those answers for you again. Verbatim. Why do the same answers need to be repeated over and over? By definition, answering a question means providing answers to the question. I did that. I quoted someone who answered your charges. Do you want reruns? Like I said originally, why? You would not accept those answers anyway. And you don't. You don't even acknowledge SEEING them. Prescient, wasn't I?

> And to top things off - not surprisingly - Boris says he's a 9/11 truther.

It's ironic when Steve starts a post denying he's a liar, and then ends the same post with a lie. When did I say I was a 9/11 truther? Don't paraphrase me, quote it directly. I predict this will be an impossible task for you for a few different reasons, one of which being LNers are incapable of citing anything.

> There are some decent, smart conspiracy believers.

How can they be smart if they're all wrong?

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 1:38:29 PM4/5/18
to
Me: Lew Rockwell's website regularly publishes articles that claim the 9/11 attacks were done by the government, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that vaccines cause autism, that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag operation and other assorted demonstrably false conspiracy theories.

You: The JFK assassination and 9/11 WERE conspiracies. Absolutely, I believe it. No doubt "Bud" will mock me for those beliefs. Will you?

You didn't say 9/11 wasn't done by the government; you said it WAS a conspiracy.

Do you believe the 9/11 attacks were conspiracies done by members of Al Qaeda?

If so then I withdraw the statement and apologize.

If not then who did it?

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 1:43:49 PM4/5/18
to
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 1:33:28 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
Boris, you specifically and explicitly told me you weren't going to answer MY questions because I wouldn't believe them.

Saying you answer Bud's other questions and not mine is not answering my questions.

And you didn't answer them later when you gave those, frankly, silly responses.

Someone can believe that Oswald had help, was supported by another person. That is, they can believe in a small "C" conspiracy involving two or three people. They can make an intelligent argument for this.

But these claims that are promoted in parts of the CT world about two caskets and altered Z film an wounds and 50+ years of coverups are simply poor and illogical thinking.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 1:48:58 PM4/5/18
to

> You: The JFK assassination and 9/11 WERE conspiracies. Absolutely, I believe it. No doubt "Bud" will mock me for those beliefs. Will you?
>
> You didn't say 9/11 wasn't done by the government; you said it WAS a conspiracy.

9/11 was a conspiracy, Steve...unless you believe one person flew all four airplanes. Acknowledging it was a conspiracy is a long way from being a truther, however. And therein lies your problem--and the problem of all LNers--you assimilate your ideas of reality and turn them into fact in your mind...jumping to conclusions, misinterpreting information. You believe what you NEED to, not what is true.

> Do you believe the 9/11 attacks were conspiracies done by members of Al Qaeda?
>
> If so then I withdraw the statement and apologize.
>
> If not then who did it?

Open a 9/11 forum and discuss it there. This is not the place for that topic.

But...

Did you know when Arlen Specter devised the Magic Bullshit Theory, it was only meant as a placeholder at the time? It was strictly a "what-if" hypothesis. The WC then snatched it up as fast as they could, and turned that scenario into fact by cramming all their findings into it. Are you aware of this? The Magic Bullet Theory was not originally based on science. It started as hypothetical guesswork. Considering how much detail this theory goes on to "explain", that was some lucky guess on Specter's part...wasn't it?

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 1:54:15 PM4/5/18
to

> Someone can believe that Oswald had help, was supported by another person. That is, they can believe in a small "C" conspiracy involving two or three people. They can make an intelligent argument for this.

The behaviors and actions of the WC, the FBI, the CIA, Nicholas Katzenbach, Operation Mockingbird, etc. after the fact negate any possibility of this.

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 1:54:33 PM4/5/18
to
It's a very simple question. You said I was wrong when I said you were a 9/11 truther. Prove me wrong.

It's a simple question: Do you believe that members of Al Qaeda committed the attacks that day?

Yes or no?

If you say Yes then I apologize. And that ends the discussion.

It won't turn this into a 9/11 forum.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 1:55:49 PM4/5/18
to
> >Nowhere can Boris cite a lie by me.
>
> He did better than cite... he QUOTED IT.
>
> And you snipped it entirely, and refused to even *try* to refute it.
>
> Lied, didn't you?

Steve is employing the R. Anderson approach: quibble semantics, avoid the topic. Trying to throw the conversation off course, because the main topic is too powerful a charge for his belief system to handle.

Here's something for believers to think about...

The burden of the LNer is they are forced to agree with every dumbass thing the WC came up with. They're stuck defending all of it. They're stuck having to believe that in the course of a hurried and complicated "*investigation" [*prosecution], seven men were never, ever wrong. Not once. Even when three of those men expressed doubts in their own report!! Whereas CTers are free to think critically, and dismiss things that don't make sense.

The other burden of a LNer is they MUST discredit every witness, every expert, every piece of evidence which even vaguely alludes to a second shooter. They can't leave a single piece unaccounted for. Whereas a CTer can have 100 witnesses who absolve Oswald, and if as many as 99 of them are wrong, there is still argument to be made for a conspiracy.

The other burden of a LNer, of course, is having to live with themselves.


Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:03:08 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:33:27 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> Fine, don't answer them but don't pretend you did.
>
> Steve, if I did not answer your question directly, it's because the
> questions had been answered already. And I quoted those answers for
> you again. Verbatim. Why do the same answers need to be repeated over
> and over?

It's amusing that Steve can't admit that the answers were IMMEDIATELY
provided by one person, and referred to IMMEDIATELY by the next
person...

Then lies and says that he wasn't answered.

Nor can Steve directly refute my answers to his questions... he thinks
that the questions don't allow for conspiracy related answers.

Now that they've been provided, he refuses to address them.


> By definition, answering a question means providing answers
> to the question. I did that. I quoted someone who answered your
> charges. Do you want reruns? Like I said originally, why? You would
> not accept those answers anyway. And you don't. You don't even
> acknowledge SEEING them. Prescient, wasn't I?


Nor will he dare respond to them.

Or admit that he lied in claiming that they were never provided.


Its *never* been a problem for critics to answer questions posed by
believers, it has **ALWAYS** been a problem for believers to answer
questions on the evidence posed by critics.

And that fact tells the tale.

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:04:10 PM4/5/18
to
This is an absurd argument. It's as if the WC was the only thing done.

There have been multiple investigations since the WC report was issued. Investigations that looked directly and indirectly into the assassination. The Clark Panel, the Rockefeller investigation, the Church Committee Hearings and the HSCA. Additionally ABC, CBS and PBS conducted detailed investigations into the shooting. So did the Washington Post (read George Lardner's work) and NY Times.

Historians like Robert Caro and Robert Dallek have studied the lives of the major figures at that time. LBJ and Hoover. Other reporters like Tim Weiner investigated the CIA. There were investigations by independent reporters and so-called think tanks, e.g,. the National Security Archive as well.

The JFK assassination is the single most investigated event in American history.

And all of it, in my view, shows there was no conspiracy and that Lee Oswald alone killed JFK.

One doesn't have to believe a single word of the Warren Commission Report. Not a word. Just read these other investigations to understand what happened.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:10:23 PM4/5/18
to

> It's amusing that Steve can't admit that the answers were IMMEDIATELY
> provided by one person, and referred to IMMEDIATELY by the next
> person...
>
> Then lies and says that he wasn't answered.

I still can't believe I had to write the words, "By definition, answering a question means providing answers to the question." I swear, I can't talk slower than this!

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:11:38 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:55:48 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> >Nowhere can Boris cite a lie by me.
>>
>> He did better than cite... he QUOTED IT.
>>
>> And you snipped it entirely, and refused to even *try* to refute it.
>>
>> Lied, didn't you?
>
> Steve is employing the R. Anderson approach: quibble semantics,
> avoid the topic. Trying to throw the conversation off course, because
> the main topic is too powerful a charge for his belief system to
> handle.

He stopped directly replying to me long ago... he found out that I can
point out his every evasion and every lie. I simply know the evidence
too well to let garbage be posted without comment.

>Here's something for believers to think about...
>
> The burden of the LNer is they are forced to agree with every
> dumbass thing the WC came up with. They're stuck defending all of it.
> They're stuck having to believe that in the course of a hurried and
> complicated "*investigation" [*prosecution], seven men were never,
> ever wrong. Not once. Even when three of those men expressed doubts in
> their own report!! Whereas CTers are free to think critically, and
> dismiss things that don't make sense.


I've posted a dozen or more examples of outright lies by the Warren
Commission - and not *ONCE* has a believer either publicly
acknowledged the lie, or explained it away in a credible manner.

As soon as I finish refuting all of David Von Pein's lies, perhaps
it's time to revisit that series...


> The other burden of a LNer is they MUST discredit every witness,
> every expert, every piece of evidence which even vaguely alludes to a
> second shooter.

You don't go far enough.

I've invited believers for quite some time now to list the witnesses
WHOM THEY BELIEVE COMPLETELY in their 1963-64 statements & testimony.

stump demanded that I do so, and I immediately listed the very first
witness (in alphabetical order) and stated that **I** believe him
completely in what he stated in 1963-64. stump agreed to that name,
but then admitted he couldn't be held to the standard I requested...
to wit, that he believe *EVERYTHING* that witness said about what he
saw and heard about the JFK assassination in 1963-64.

No other believer to my recall has offered to name names.

They *CAN'T*... they literally don't believe *ANYONE*!!! It's the
Warren Commission narrative that they believe, not the evidence.

Watch as Steve *also* refuses to name names...

> They can't leave a single piece unaccounted for.
> Whereas a CTer can have 100 witnesses who absolve Oswald, and if as
> many as 99 of them are wrong, there is still argument to be made for a
> conspiracy.
>
>The other burden of a LNer, of course, is having to live with themselves.

True.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:13:34 PM4/5/18
to
On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:13:25 -0700, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 08:00:06 -0700, Ben Holmes
><Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
>
>>> 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
>>> his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination. .... But, of
>>> course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in linking LHO
>>> to the weapon. Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
>>> the weapon was Oswald's.
>>
>>> It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
>>> himself; and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
>>> the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
>>> handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
>>> him.
>>
>>> Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
>>> trigger. But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
>>> (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
>>> of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
>>> 22?
>>
>>> The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
>>> handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
>>> Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
>>> what might be the implications of doing so?
>>
>>> As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
>>> rifle topic, some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
>>> stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
>>> Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
>>> conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
>>> have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.
>>
>>Once again, David has COMPLETELY FAILED in his quest to prove the
>>"sole guilt" of anyone at all.
>>
>>Indeed, David admits that this item *DOESN'T EVEN PROVE OSWALD GUILTY
>>OF ANYTHING AT ALL* - so how can it prove "sole guilt" when he's not
>>even proving guilt???
>>
>>stump wants to claim that you can add up all these non-proofs, and get
>>a proof - but he also failed math. 0+0+0+0+0... will never equal 1.
>>
>>But, this garbage of David is worth refuting statement by statement,
>>so here's a repeat of his item 8, with commentary:
>>
>>> 8.) Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on
>>> his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination.
>>
>>
>>*EXTREMELY* debatable, and David knows it. Both the FBI and Warren
>>Commission had grave doubts of this "fact," and attempted to pin it
>>down unsuccessfully. The simple fact that Lt. Day photographed ALL
>>OTHER PRINTS shows far more than "reasonable doubt" - and it rather
>>teilling that David even bothers with this claim.
>>
>>
>>> .... But, of course, this print is really just a "bonus" for the DPD in
>>> linking LHO to the weapon.
>>
>>David knows full well the problems of the "palmprint" - so he very
>>carefully backtracks in advance. He's clearly aware of just how weak
>>this claim is - and shows it.
>>
>>
>>> Because even without it, it's glaringly obvious that
>>> the weapon was Oswald's.
>>
>>
>>No David, it's not. The problems with the ownership of the Mannlicher
>>Carcano are lengthy, and you've done your best to try to resurrect the
>>Warren Commission's claim - but it's *FAR* from certain that Oswald
>>owned this rifle. There's problems with **ALL** of the evidence
>>linking him to the rifle, as you well know.
>>
>>
>>> It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" was actually Oswald
>>> himself;
>>
>>No, it wasn't. It was a presumption of the Warren Commission, who
>>ignored their own evidence in order to come to this "conclusion."
>>
>>There's no evidence that David will cite that proves this claim.
>>
>>Nor will David *DARE* to refer to the evidence of a real "Hidell" in
>>this case...
>>
>>> and the order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase
>>> the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's
>>> handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by
>>> him.
>>
>>No on both counts. (And David already knows this!)
>>
>>It was *NOT* "positively proven" to have been his handwriting.
>>Handwriting experts routinely state that *originals* are needed to
>>make a judgement, not copies.
>>
>>Nor was the rifle shown to have been delivered to the P.O. box that
>>Oswald had.
>>
>>
>>> Obviously, just LHO's owning the rifle doesn't prove he pulled the
>>> trigger.
>>
>>
>>This is, of course... a presumption. It's never been proven that
>>Oswald owned a rifle.
>>
>>The major difficulties with his assumed ownership have always been
>>glossed over. Indeed, we merely need to look at the most recent
>>attempts by David to show that the money order went through the normal
>>banking system... a complete failure on his part.
>>
>>Not that he will admit it... but fail he did.
>>
>>
>>> But doesn't just plain ordinary garden-variety logic dictate
>>> (with a pretty good percentage of probability) that it was the owner
>>> of said weapon, a Mr. Lee H. Oswald, that fired the shots on November
>>> 22?
>>
>>This is a frequent "go-to" bit of logic on the part of believers...
>>the "common sense" argument.
>>
>>It's frequently used because there's a *LACK OF EVIDENCE* for their
>>claims. If evidence existed, wouldn't believers like David produce the
>>evidence instead of their reliance on "garden-variety logic" or
>>"common sense?"
>>
>>"Ownership" of a weapon has never been used in a court of law, to my
>>knowledge... **POSSESSION* is the critical idea here. And possession
>>would be a certainty if we had fingerprint (or palmprint) evidence
>>that was credible.
>>
>>But David knows that we don't. He's TERRIFIED of debating a more
>>knowledgeable critic - he's been schooled on more than one occasion on
>>evidence he *should* have been familiar with.
>>
>>> The alternative is to believe that Oswald, for some unknown reason,
>>> handed over his Carcano to someone else for the purpose of using it.
>>> Why would he knowingly have done this idiotic act, knowing full well
>>> what might be the implications of doing so?
>>
>>This is not the alternative.
>>
>>David pretends that if an owner of a weapon isn't guilty of a crime
>>with that weapon, that the only other possibility is that the owner
>>handed over his weapon to another.
>>
>>This is **PROVABLY** stupid and wrong. (Simply Google "Stolen Guns
>>Used In Crime" - I included this to prevent stump from whining about
>>an "empty claim.")
>>
>>Nor is the claim that if one loans a weapon to someone else, they
>>"know full well" what's going to occur...
>>
>>David is guilty of rather stupid speculation based on his
>>preconceptions of what happened.
>>
>>And if *this* is the best that David can do...
>>
>>
>>> As another "alternative" to the obvious Occam's Razor solution to the
>>> rifle topic,
>>
>>The idea that Occam's Razor shows that the owner of a gun is the prime
>>suspect in any crime *committed* with the gun is a fallacy and an
>>outright lie on David's part.
>>
>>This is the sort of slick glossing over of facts that believers are
>>frequently guilty of.
>>
>>The fact that the David & dufus duo keep making these sorts of claims
>>tells the true tale, doesn't it?
>>
>>
>>> some theorists like to pretend that Oswald's rifle was
>>> stolen by evil conspirators while the weapon was being stored in Ruth
>>> Paine's garage during the autumn of 1963. Of course, as with all
>>> conspiracy theories surrounding the JFK case, this one too doesn't
>>> have anything of a concrete nature to hold it up.
>>
>>How silly! I'm often amused at how frequently believers like to argue
>>against theories they **presume** a critic would proffer, rather than
>>the **REAL** ones...
>>
>>Why can't David demonstrate how Oswald was *NOT* framed with a weapon?
>>This **IS** a supportable theory proposed by a critic. There was *NO*
>>rifle in a blanket - seen by no-one, and not shown to be owned by
>>Oswald, so no-one needed to "steal" it.
>>
>>As usual - David being the coward that he is, will not dare to defend
>>his lies in an open forum not controlled by friendly believers...
>>
>>It will be left to dufus to dance, whine & lie... but yet again we see
>>the central claim of David - completely unsupported.
>
>Interestingly, although Steve, David, and stump have all answered
>here, not a *SINGLE* one of them has been honest enough to agree that
>this item goes *nowhere* in proving the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
>
>The truth is like kryptonite to these believers... absolutely deadly.

Despite numerous answers to this post, we *STILL* don't have a single
person that agrees that this point fails to support the "sole guilt"
of anyone at all.

Or *defend* David's post in a credible way...

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:19:20 PM4/5/18
to
Nonsense.

Here is the exact exchange:

Me: "Where did the bullet go? Where was it fired from? When did it hit the windshield? These questions need to be addressed before we uncritically accept an eyewitness account."

You: "Why? You would not accept those answers anyway. The first two questions were answered by Ben. The answer to the third question is November 22, 1963. Hope that helps."

None of those are your answers especially the third where you say "the answer to the third question is November 22, 1963."

Again, I asked when did the bullet hit the windshield and you say "November 22, 1963."

That's a dodge and anyone over the age of three can see it.






Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:21:34 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 1:55:49 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >Nowhere can Boris cite a lie by me.
>> >
>> > He did better than cite... he QUOTED IT.
>> >
>> > And you snipped it entirely, and refused to even *try* to refute it.
>> >
>> > Lied, didn't you?
>>
>> Steve is employing the R. Anderson approach: quibble semantics, avoid the topic. Trying to throw the conversation off course, because the main topic is too powerful a charge for his belief system to handle.
>>
>> Here's something for believers to think about...
>>
>> The burden of the LNer is they are forced to agree with every dumbass thing the WC came up with. They're stuck defending all of it. They're stuck having to believe that in the course of a hurried and complicated "*investigation" [*prosecution], seven men were never, ever wrong. Not once. Even when three of those men expressed doubts in their own report!! Whereas CTers are free to think critically, and dismiss things that don't make sense.
>>
>> The other burden of a LNer is they MUST discredit every witness, every expert, every piece of evidence which even vaguely alludes to a second shooter. They can't leave a single piece unaccounted for. Whereas a CTer can have 100 witnesses who absolve Oswald, and if as many as 99 of them are wrong, there is still argument to be made for a conspiracy.
>>
>> The other burden of a LNer, of course, is having to live with themselves.
>
> This is an absurd argument. It's as if the WC was the only thing
> done.


Believers rarely cite the HSCA, or discuss it. Ditto with the Clark
Panel, Rockefeller, Church Committee, or the ARRB.

It's perfectly *reasonable* to point out that believers live as if no
other investigation were ever done.


> There have been multiple investigations since the WC report was
> issued. Investigations that looked directly and indirectly into the
> assassination. The Clark Panel, the Rockefeller investigation, the
> Church Committee Hearings and the HSCA. Additionally ABC, CBS and PBS
> conducted detailed investigations into the shooting. So did the
> Washington Post (read George Lardner's work) and NY Times.


Critics know this, and frequently cite evidence coming from other than
the Warren Commission.

Claiming that believers frequently do, however, is an outrageous lie.


> Historians like Robert Caro and Robert Dallek have studied the lives
> of the major figures at that time. LBJ and Hoover. Other reporters
> like Tim Weiner investigated the CIA. There were investigations by
> independent reporters and so-called think tanks, e.g,. the National
> Security Archive as well.
>
>The JFK assassination is the single most investigated event in American history.


And for believers, the Warren Commission is 99.9% of the answer.


> And all of it, in my view, shows there was no conspiracy and that
> Lee Oswald alone killed JFK.

Sadly for your mistaken "view" - the HSCA held to a different
conclusion. And it's that conclusion that probably accounts for the
fear of believers to cite from the HSCA except in the most dire of
circumstances.


> One doesn't have to believe a single word of the Warren Commission
> Report. Not a word. Just read these other investigations to understand
> what happened.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge PROVABLE LIES on the part of the Warren
Commission.

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'hypocrite?'

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:21:56 PM4/5/18
to
For those three people reading this (I hope I'm overestimating that number by three), here is one of the questions I asked about the bullet through the windshield claim.

Me: "When did the bullet hit the windshield?"

Here is Boris's answer: "November 22, 1963."

I know I know, it's a silly internet fight but the sheer level of dishonesty amazes me.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:22:29 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:54:33 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 1:48:58 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > You: The JFK assassination and 9/11 WERE conspiracies. Absolutely, I believe it. No doubt "Bud" will mock me for those beliefs. Will you?
>> >
>> > You didn't say 9/11 wasn't done by the government; you said it WAS a conspiracy.
>>
>> 9/11 was a conspiracy, Steve...unless you believe one person flew all four airplanes. Acknowledging it was a conspiracy is a long way from being a truther, however. And therein lies your problem--and the problem of all LNers--you assimilate your ideas of reality and turn them into fact in your mind...jumping to conclusions, misinterpreting information. You believe what you NEED to, not what is true.
>>
>> > Do you believe the 9/11 attacks were conspiracies done by members of Al Qaeda?
>> >
>> > If so then I withdraw the statement and apologize.
>> >
>> > If not then who did it?
>>
>> Open a 9/11 forum and discuss it there. This is not the place for that topic.
>>
>> But...
>>
>> Did you know when Arlen Specter devised the Magic Bullshit Theory, it was only meant as a placeholder at the time? It was strictly a "what-if" hypothesis. The WC then snatched it up as fast as they could, and turned that scenario into fact by cramming all their findings into it. Are you aware of this? The Magic Bullet Theory was not originally based on science. It started as hypothetical guesswork. Considering how much detail this theory goes on to "explain", that was some lucky guess on Specter's part...wasn't it?
>
>It's a very simple question.

Indeed it is.

It's a VERY simple question...

Were you lying when you claimed your questions had not been answered?

Yes or no?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:25:22 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:54:14 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well stated.

As soon as just minutes after the assassination, the coverup began.
JFK had *NOT YET BEEN WHEELED INTO THE TREATMENT ROOM* when a S.S.
Agent requested the materials to wipe up the blood from the crime
scene.

Believers howled to the moon when this was first brought up - they now
don't have much to say about it.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:26:53 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:10:22 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steve *STILL* hasn't retracted what has been proven to be untrue.

That means that it's a lie, and he *KNOWS* it's a lie.

An honest man would have retracted a misunderstanding...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:32:57 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:21:55 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You may not *like* the answer, but to assert THAT NO ANSWER WAS
PROVIDED is a lie.

You're a liar, Steve.

You can't even come clean.

And when your "debate" style is primarily lying about your opponent
and what he's said, you simply show the world that *YOU* understand
the weakness of your case.

A *strong* case would be primarily about the evidence, not lying that
your opponents haven't provided the answers they clearly did.

borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:33:42 PM4/5/18
to
LOL! It's Mad's "snappy answers to stupid questions," Steve. How else am I supposed to answer it? There was a period of anywhere between 5 and 8 seconds when every bullet in DP was fired. The bullet hit the windshield somewhere in that window of time. It was a hole "you could slide a pencil through" according to witnesses. It was bullet-sized, and appeared very soon after bullets were fired. Therefore, I conclude it was a bullet hole, caused by a bullet. What the fuck else, Steve?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:49:05 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:19:19 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:10:23 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > It's amusing that Steve can't admit that the answers were IMMEDIATELY
>> > provided by one person, and referred to IMMEDIATELY by the next
>> > person...
>> >
>> > Then lies and says that he wasn't answered.
>>
>> I still can't believe I had to write the words, "By definition,
>> answering a question means providing answers to the question." I
>> swear, I can't talk slower than this!
>
>Nonsense.


And you're a liar. The answers *WERE* given. You just didn't like
them.


>Here is the exact exchange:
>
>Me: "Where did the bullet go? Where was it fired from? When did it
> hit the windshield? These questions need to be addressed before we
> uncritically accept an eyewitness account."
>
> You: "Why? You would not accept those answers anyway. The first two
> questions were answered by Ben. The answer to the third question is
> November 22, 1963. Hope that helps."

Actually all three answers were provided by me. Boris refers you to
them.

IT'S A LIE ON YOUR PART TO CLAIM THAT BORIS DIDN'T ANSWER YOUR
QUESTIONS.


> None of those are your answers especially the third where you say
> "the answer to the third question is November 22, 1963."


ROTFLMAO!!!

Now you're playing semantic games.


>Again, I asked when did the bullet hit the windshield and you say "November 22, 1963."
>
>That's a dodge and anyone over the age of three can see it.

So? Argue *that* all you want.

But claiming that no answers were given is a lie, and you *KNOW* it's
a lie.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:51:30 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:33:41 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steve believes that no answer that isn't in the form of "12:30:27.3
pm" is legitimate.

Watch as he ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to answer his own questions.

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 2:52:06 PM4/5/18
to
Swell, you say you answered it and now you admit you can't answer it. Why not say the first time, "It's not clear" or "I don't know."

That's an answer. Saying "November 22, 1963" is not an answer and you know it. Then you say I lied when I said you didn't give answers. But now admit you didn't give one because you can't.

We have the Z-film as a timeline. You can say around Z-300 or Z-something or other.

The Z film shows JFK grabbing near his throat or neck around Z-223 or Z-224. If the bullet hit him in the neck at that time - and it went through the windshield - then your problem is that the Altgens photo which was taken shortly after Z-223 and 224 shows no hole in the windshield.

There is nothing that I see in the Z film showing a bullet hitting JFK in the neck after roughly 223. Where in the Z film could it have happened?

Using your language, saying someone saw a hole in the windshield tells us nothing about how the fuck it was created. You think because someone saw a hole that the only explanation was that it was caused by a bullet hitting from the outside.

Frazier studied the crack. His examination revealed that it came from inside the windshield and not from the outside.

You can reject that and accept the accounts of eyewitnesses who, as far as I can tell, did not examine it closely or from the inside.

I don't. End of story. Or should I say, fucking story.

Bud

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 3:10:01 PM4/5/18
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 11:42:52 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Then perhaps you can explain why Hargis—who was back and to the left of Kennedy—was sprayed with so much effluence he himself believed he was shot.
> >
> > You expect me to explain Hargis`s mistaken impressions?
>
> What?

Ok, I will stick to asking you clear and concise questions.

How does Hargis`s mistaken impression of being shot give insight into this event?

How does Hargis getting sprayed with "effuence" give insight into this event?


> > As far as your shifting the burden, you need to show that Hargis having the much gunk on him can only be explained by Kennedy getting shot from a particular direction. Get to work.
>
> What???

I suppose you offered this information because you felt it gave some sort of insight into this event. My question to you is "How so?"

>
> > > Apparently Bud believes we are still in the 1960s, when the general population was not privy to the Zapruder film.
> >
> > You can see Hargis hit by gunk in the Zapruder film?
>
> What?!?!?

You connected the z-film to Hargis being splattered. What is the connection?

> > > You have only to Google-Image “JFK + lead snowstorm.” It is the first image that appears. Your failure to understand the science of trajectory does not make it a less authentic problem.
> >
> > Another person unable to formulate an argument regarding this evidence. Claiming it is a "problem" isn`t an argument. You have to show that what is seen is inconsistent with Kennedy being struck from behind by a bullet.
>
> WHAT?!?!?

What is your argument concerning the lead particles in Kennedy`s skull?

> > > And if you are going to deny severe occipital damage (assuming you know what “occipital” is, which I doubt), then we’re done here.
> >
> > You are claiming that Finck stated that Kennedy had a bullet entry wound in the occipital region. I expect that what you produce will not be that.
>
> Oh my God!
>
> Whose side are you on anyway? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? DVP, help your boy out. Explain how and why he buried himself multiple times in a single post. Maybe start by telling him what the occipital is, and why he's correct in stating that, no, I cannot produce evidence of a bullet ENTRY wound there.

You said...

"An occipital exit wound."

Support this.


borisba...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 3:12:28 PM4/5/18
to
> The Z film shows JFK grabbing near his throat or neck around Z-223 or Z-224. If the bullet hit him in the neck at that time - and it went through the windshield - then your problem is that the Altgens photo which was taken shortly after Z-223 and 224 shows no hole in the windshield.

There are a lot of discrepancies between the Z film and Altgens, or didn't you happen to notice that the Altgens photo contains an ENTIRE HUMAN BEING who doesn't appear in the Z-film. I am referring to Officer Chaney now.


> There is nothing that I see in the Z film showing a bullet hitting JFK in the neck after roughly 223. Where in the Z film could it have happened?

You wish for me to state where in the Z film I see bullet movement? We are not talking 4K quality here, and I don't have Superman eyes. Officer Hargis describes being splattered with effluence and brain matter, and we don't even see THAT in the Z-film. Unless Hargis is lying too.

> I don't. End of story. Or should I say, fucking story.

If only.

Bud

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 3:13:02 PM4/5/18
to
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:25:22 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:54:14 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Someone can believe that Oswald had help, was supported by another
> >> person. That is, they can believe in a small "C" conspiracy involving
> >> two or three people. They can make an intelligent argument for this.
> >
> >The behaviors and actions of the WC, the FBI, the CIA, Nicholas
> > Katzenbach, Operation Mockingbird, etc. after the fact negate any
> > possibility of this.
>
> Well stated.
>
> As soon as just minutes after the assassination, the coverup began.
> JFK had *NOT YET BEEN WHEELED INTO THE TREATMENT ROOM* when a S.S.
> Agent requested the materials to wipe up the blood from the crime
> scene.

This assumes what Ben can`t establish, that these actions were part of a concerted cover-up. He can make the empty claim that it is, but thats about it.

> Believers howled to the moon when this was first brought up - they now
> don't have much to say about it.

Waiting for Ben to take it somewhere, lurkers.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 3:17:22 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:52:05 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:33:42 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:21:56 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > For those three people reading this (I hope I'm overestimating that number by three), here is one of the questions I asked about the bullet through the windshield claim.
>> >
>> > Me: "When did the bullet hit the windshield?"
>> >
>> > Here is Boris's answer: "November 22, 1963."
>> >
>> > I know I know, it's a silly internet fight but the sheer level of dishonesty amazes me.
>>
>> LOL! It's Mad's "snappy answers to stupid questions," Steve. How else am I supposed to answer it? There was a period of anywhere between 5 and 8 seconds when every bullet in DP was fired. The bullet hit the windshield somewhere in that window of time. It was a hole "you could slide a pencil through" according to witnesses. It was bullet-sized, and appeared very soon after bullets were fired. Therefore, I conclude it was a bullet hole, caused by a bullet. What the fuck else, Steve?
>
> Swell, you say you answered it and now you admit you can't answer
> it. Why not say the first time, "It's not clear" or "I don't know."

Interestingly, neither could you.

Just as I predicted.


> That's an answer. Saying "November 22, 1963" is not an answer and
> you know it. Then you say I lied when I said you didn't give answers.
> But now admit you didn't give one because you can't.

It *IS* an answer, as was mine.

You're stuck denying that the bullet hole was created on 11/22/63.

> We have the Z-film as a timeline. You can say around Z-300 or
> Z-something or other.

Then by all means, specify which frame of the film the hole shows up.

We *KNOW FOR A FACT* that the hole was there before the limo arrived
at Parkland. Witnesses saw it.

Now all YOU have to do is tell us when the hole was created.


> The Z film shows JFK grabbing near his throat or neck around Z-223
> or Z-224. If the bullet hit him in the neck at that time - and it went
> through the windshield - then your problem is that the Altgens photo
> which was taken shortly after Z-223 and 224 shows no hole in the
> windshield.

Nah, I deny your implication that the film & photo is good enough to
show the hole. That's for *YOU* to show.

I don't accept your preconceptions.


> There is nothing that I see in the Z film showing a bullet hitting
> JFK in the neck after roughly 223. Where in the Z film could it have
> happened?


So by *YOUR* standards, it never happened.


I reject that... as does any honest person.


> Using your language, saying someone saw a hole in the windshield
> tells us nothing about how the fuck it was created. You think because
> someone saw a hole that the only explanation was that it was caused by
> a bullet hitting from the outside.

Feel free to offer the "arrow" theory, or the "small hammer" theory,
or whatever else you want to offer.

What you can't refute is that answers were given, and *YOU CAN'T
REFUTE THE ANSWERS*


> Frazier studied the crack. His examination revealed that it came
> from inside the windshield and not from the outside.

I reject your implied preconception that he examined the same
windshield that was on the limo on 11/22/63.


> You can reject that and accept the accounts of eyewitnesses who, as
> far as I can tell, did not examine it closely or from the inside.

You're still lying. And now, your language shows that you're at least
vaguely aware that you're lying...


>I don't. End of story. Or should I say, fucking story.

Were answers provided to your three questions that you haven't, as
yet, refuted?

Did you lie and claim that no answers were given?

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 3:22:44 PM4/5/18
to
I am asking where in the Z film does JFK show any behavior indicating he was shot in the throat/neck after Z-223? I'm not asking about seeing a bullet. If he was struck in the throat, he must have reacted to it? I won't ask where that bullet went.

There are, in my opinion, no discrepancies between Altgens and the Z film. Both are accurate photos/films of the events.

If you believe the Z film was altered then I'll end this here. There's no place to take the discussion since I'm relying on it.


Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 3:26:28 PM4/5/18
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 12:12:27 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> The Z film shows JFK grabbing near his throat or neck around Z-223 or Z-224. If the bullet hit him in the neck at that time - and it went through the windshield - then your problem is that the Altgens photo which was taken shortly after Z-223 and 224 shows no hole in the windshield.
>
> There are a lot of discrepancies between the Z film and Altgens, or
> didn't you happen to notice that the Altgens photo contains an ENTIRE
> HUMAN BEING who doesn't appear in the Z-film. I am referring to
> Officer Chaney now.

Actually, James Chaney does appear in the Altgens print that Steve is
apparently referring to - and in a position that he's never seen in
the extant Z-film.

I suspect that you're thinking of the fact that the extant Z-film
never shows James Chaney doing what he, and several others stated he
did immediately after the shooting.


>> There is nothing that I see in the Z film showing a bullet hitting
>> JFK in the neck after roughly 223. Where in the Z film could it have
>> happened?
>
> You wish for me to state where in the Z film I see bullet movement?
> We are not talking 4K quality here, and I don't have Superman eyes.
> Officer Hargis describes being splattered with effluence and brain
> matter, and we don't even see THAT in the Z-film. Unless Hargis is
> lying too.

This, of course, is the issue. Steve believes that the film would show
the bullet hole, or that the Altgen's print, taken at a moment in
time, would show this hole. (and doesn't)

http://www.jfksouthknollgunman.com/index.php/02-2-first-clue/

stevemg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 3:26:36 PM4/5/18
to
Bud: I think Hargis drove or rode through the blood/brain debris as it came down.

The Connallys said they were hit by the blood and brain matter after hearing the shot hit JFK. JC said a piece of brain landed on him. He said he heard the shot hit JFK's head and then he was immediately covered in blood. Kellerman and Greer said blood and matter landed on them.

Frazier said he found blood and tissue throughout the interior of the limo, on the windshield, on the hood.

This indicates to me that the exit hole was NOT in the back of the head. If it was then how did the matter wind up in front of where JFK was.

Again, I think Hargis was hit by blood and brain matter. But it was because he rode his motorcycle through it as it came down.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 5, 2018, 3:44:22 PM4/5/18
to
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 11:26:38 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:29:32 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 7:07:21 PM UTC-4, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 6:56:50 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > Ad homs are personal attacks on a person's character or name. Ad hominem - to the body or person.
> >> > >
> >> > > Calling a website absurd is not calling a person anything since it's not a person.
> >> >
> >> > Everything on the mcadams website is absurd. My position is now fact. I don't have to defend it.
> >> >
> >> > > As I said, if you're against personal attacks then you need to address your conspiracy friends here who regularly engage in them. It's your standard not mine. It's not "whataboutism" it's asking a person to stand by the standard they say they believe in.
> >> >
> >> > You've *again* addressed nothing--nothing--in my post relating to the assassination. You're kicking your feet and pointing at the guy in the corner and whining "But-but-but Teacherrrr!!!" You started out civil; it took me less than a day to reduce you to what you really are.
> >> >
> >> > Have a good night.
> >>
> >> I posted Robert Frazier's testimony on his examination of the windshield.
> >>
> >> You deflected, hemmed, hawed and went off on some other tangents.
> >>
> >> Indeed, have a good day.
> >
> > The FACT that there is definitive proof
>
> Nope. Your "definitive" proof is merely *contradicting* evidence.
>
>
> > (via photos and Bob
> > Frazier's testimony) that there was never a HOLE in the windshield of
> > the SS-100-X limousine will never sway a dedicated CTer from insisting
> > year after year that there was a hole in the windshield. It's become a
> > religion amongst CTers to pretend that such a "hole" was there, even
> > though the photos and testimony prove that it was just a crack and not
> > a "hole".
>
>
> And as soon as you provide the chain of custody for the windshield,
> then you'll have something acceptable in court.
>
> But you can't... can you?
>
>
> > Funny thing is, even if there WAS a hole in the glass, how would
> > that fact PROVE that the bullet that caused such a hole came from the
> > FRONT instead of from Oswald's gun?
>
> Because of how holes made by bullets in glass look.
>
> You *really* need to brush up on basic facts before looking the fool.
>
> How did the prosectors determine the direction of the bullet hole
> (half hole, that is) that was in JFK's skull?
>
>
> > Seems to me that if such a hole
> > existed, it could just as easily have come from a bullet (or fragment)
> > from Oswald's C2766 rifle.
>
>
> Isn't meaningless speculation fun!
>
> Simply *IGNORE* the evidence... and create your own reality!
>
>
> > Why is that an impossibility in the CT
> > world?
>
>
> Because we look to the evidence.
>

Oh, you mean you've looked to the "evidence" of your MAKE-BELIEVE HOLE in the windshield (aka a hole that was never there in the first place and therefore could never be examined by anybody, at any time)?

Is that the "evidence" you said you've looked at (or looked "to"), Ben?

Please show ME the "evidence" of that hole in the windshield. A picture of it, I mean. Not just what you THINK was there. I want to see that "hole evidence" for myself.




>
> > After all, we know that a fragment from the head shot (fired by
> > LHO, of course) DID, in fact, damage the windshield to the point that
> > it left a lead smear on the INSIDE of the glass and caused a small
> > crack. So with just a tiny bit more velocity, that fragment probably
> > would have gone through the glass. But in the CT world, a "hole" MUST
> > equal "Second Shooter". But that's silly, IMO.
>
> Sorry David, that's not the case made for a second shooter. If you're
> going to be honest, you should at least correctly state the opposing
> opinion.
>
> > It'd be nice if the CTers could produce a picture of the "hole". But
> > they can't, of course, since no hole ever existed in the first place.
>
> Logical fallacy.
>
> I dare you to produce the picture of the knife that O.J. Simpson used
> to murder two people... oh, you can't? Must not have ever been a
> knife.
>
> Rather silly logic, but it's yours.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages