The 45 Questions - One by One (#11)
Ben Holmes
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Bigdog
Bill
Brokedad
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
Chu...@amcmn.com
Curious
David Von Pein
Ed Dolan *
Grizzlie Antagonist
Justme1952
Martybaugh...@gmail.com
Miss Rita
much...@hotmail.com
much...@gmail.com
Sam Brown
Spiffy_one
Timst...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
* Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but he's
amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, claiming to
be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Watch for his comments on these
questions.
**********************************************************************
11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker�s time of arrival back so far,
and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
this needed?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
>Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker�s time of arrival back so far,
>and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
>this needed?
>
>
You are just making stuff up.
The WC recreated both Baker's dismounting from the bike and running
into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's descent from
the 6th floor.
Trivial differences about whether Oswald had a coke in his hand don't
change any of that.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored
group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
last word, and that I won't respond.
However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
support his claims.
And, of course, the post was snipped again with no notice. (I wonder if our
resident government shill will have any problem with this blatant editing?)
In article <4b425a68....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>On 3 Jan 2010 10:46:07 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
>>Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker�s time of arrival back so far,
>>and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
>>this needed?
>>
>
>You are just making stuff up.
You've already told your first lie... amazing! The very first sentence!!
You know, for example, that there were many different versions that Baker came
up with... you aren't ignorant of that historical fact. You also know that in
the recreation of the "meeting", the person acting as "Oswald" did not stay at
the window for 15 seconds, as eyewitnesses reported, nor did he hide the rifle
as it was known to have been hidden.
You *KNOW* these historical facts.
And are willing to lie about it.
>The WC recreated both Baker's dismounting from the bike and running
>into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's descent from
>the 6th floor.
>
>Trivial differences about whether Oswald had a coke in his hand don't
>change any of that.
Actually, the time involved in purchasing the coke makes the WC scenario
impossible... even as they twisted the timing to their best advantage.
>.John
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored
>group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
>disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
>last word, and that I won't respond.
>
>However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
>past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
>support his claims.
>
>And, of course, the post was snipped again with no notice. (I wonder if our
>resident government shill will have any problem with this blatant editing?)
>
>
See?
Ben is too cowardly to simply debate the issues.
He has to pile on the abuse, hoping that he can drive away any
critics.
You don't want an honest debate, Ben.
>
>In article <4b425a68....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 3 Jan 2010 10:46:07 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
>>>Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker�s time of arrival back so far,
>>>and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
>>>this needed?
>>>
>>
>>You are just making stuff up.
>
>
>You've already told your first lie... amazing! The very first sentence!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You know, for example, that there were many different versions that Baker came
>up with... you aren't ignorant of that historical fact. You also know that in
>the recreation of the "meeting", the person acting as "Oswald" did not stay at
>the window for 15 seconds, as eyewitnesses reported, nor did he hide the rifle
>as it was known to have been hidden.
>
>You *KNOW* these historical facts.
>
>And are willing to lie about it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>>The WC recreated both Baker's dismounting from the bike and running
>>into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's descent from
>>the 6th floor.
>>
>>Trivial differences about whether Oswald had a coke in his hand don't
>>change any of that.
>
>
>Actually, the time involved in purchasing the coke makes the WC scenario
>impossible... even as they twisted the timing to their best advantage.
>
--
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>In article <4b425a68....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 3 Jan 2010 10:46:07 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
>>>Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker�s time of arrival back so far,
>>>and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
>>>this needed?
>>>
>>
>>You are just making stuff up.
>
>
>
>You know, for example, that there were many different versions that Baker came
>up with... you aren't ignorant of that historical fact. You also know that in
>the recreation of the "meeting", the person acting as "Oswald" did not stay at
>the window for 15 seconds, as eyewitnesses reported,
I'm not sure where you got that "15 seconds" business, but even if you
have a citation, no witness estimate of time in a case like this is
reliable.
>nor did he hide the rifle
>as it was known to have been hidden.
>
And you know this how?
>You *KNOW* these historical facts.
>
>
>
>>The WC recreated both Baker's dismounting from the bike and running
>>into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's descent from
>>the 6th floor.
>>
>>Trivial differences about whether Oswald had a coke in his hand don't
>>change any of that.
>
>
>Actually, the time involved in purchasing the coke makes the WC scenario
>impossible... even as they twisted the timing to their best advantage.
>
But Baker saw Oswald *entering* the second floor lunchroom. If Oswald
had a coke, he purchased it quickly before Baker himself got into the
lunchroom.
You are assuming that "different versions" means "lies."
No responsible historian would assume that. In fact, Baker crossed
out the "coke" business in one of his statements, apparently because
it had been recorded in error.
Ben Holmes
>
>On 4 Jan 2010 18:26:19 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored
>>group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
>>disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
>>last word, and that I won't respond.
>>
>>However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
>>past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
>>support his claims.
>>
>>And, of course, the post was snipped again with no notice. (I wonder if our
>>resident government shill will have any problem with this blatant editing?)
>
>See?
See what? That reminder to lurkers was in each response to you... if you have
something to hide, it won't be on *this* forum.
>Ben is too cowardly to simply debate the issues.
As predicted in the portion that you snipped on each post... here it is again:
The important section is this: "there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks."
I'm responding to your attempts to debate the evidence, and you're shifting as
quickly as possible into denying the evidence, and personal insults and attacks.
Just as predicted.
And, as I further predicted, you'll soon disappear again. Back to the censored
group where no-one can label your lies.
>He has to pile on the abuse, hoping that he can drive away any
>critics.
Actually, they tend to run from the evidence all the time. When I point out that
they are cowards, it's simply labeling their behavior.
When they lie about the facts and evidence in this case, I label them liars.
When you have a censored group, you can get away with that sort of behavior
without being called on it.
Here, you will be.
>You don't want an honest debate, Ben.
Run John... run. I predicted you would, BASED ON YOUR HISTORIC RECORD HERE IN
THIS FORUM, and undoubtedly, you're setting yourself up to run away again.
But don't worry, the questions on the evidence in this case will keep on coming.
Indeed, after I digest Douglas Horne's new set of volumes, I may add a few more
questions to the current list of 45.
And LNT'ers such as yourself will prove yet again, that they have no
non-conspiratorial and reasonable answer for the evidence.
>>In article <4b425a68....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 3 Jan 2010 10:46:07 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
>>>>Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker�s time of arrival back so far,
>>>>and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
>>>>this needed?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are just making stuff up.
>>
>>
>>You've already told your first lie... amazing! The very first sentence!!
And, I note for the record, that you have no response to make.
How quickly the LNT'er faction slithers away!!
>>You know, for example, that there were many different versions that Baker came
>>up with... you aren't ignorant of that historical fact. You also know that in
>>the recreation of the "meeting", the person acting as "Oswald" did not stay at
>>the window for 15 seconds, as eyewitnesses reported, nor did he hide the rifle
>>as it was known to have been hidden.
>>
>>You *KNOW* these historical facts.
>>
>>And are willing to lie about it.
Don't worry John, if you were ever able to cite and show that I'm incorrect on
the evidence I raise, I'd be happy to offer you an apology.
But I really don't think that it will ever prove to be necessary. If I'd ever
taken the time to go through your website, for all I know, the evidence that you
*KNOW* of Baker's multitude of stories might already be documented there.
>>>The WC recreated both Baker's dismounting from the bike and running
>>>into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's descent from
>>>the 6th floor.
>>>
>>>Trivial differences about whether Oswald had a coke in his hand don't
>>>change any of that.
>>
>>
>>Actually, the time involved in purchasing the coke makes the WC scenario
>>impossible... even as they twisted the timing to their best advantage.
Dead silence...
Ben Holmes
Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored
group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
last word, and that I won't respond.
However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
support his claims.
John can keep snipping, and I'll just keep adding back in the above material.
In article <4b42b38e....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>On 4 Jan 2010 18:26:19 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>In article <4b425a68....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 3 Jan 2010 10:46:07 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
>>>>Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker�s time of arrival back so far,
>>>>and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
>>>>this needed?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are just making stuff up.
>>
>>
>>You know, for example, that there were many different versions that Baker came
>>up with... you aren't ignorant of that historical fact. You also know that in
>>the recreation of the "meeting", the person acting as "Oswald" did not stay at
>>the window for 15 seconds, as eyewitnesses reported,
>
>I'm not sure where you got that "15 seconds" business, but even if you
>have a citation, no witness estimate of time in a case like this is
>reliable.
Oh come now! Don't try to play ignorant, John! It hardly becomes a "Professor"
to show ignorance of the evidence in this case.
And the "eyewitness unreliability" gag has lost it's edge.
>>nor did he hide the rifle
>>as it was known to have been hidden.
>
>And you know this how?
By actually reading the WCR. You should try it sometime. Try page 152. Be sure
to read the section that states: "Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret
Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the
east aisle to the north east corner. HE PLACED THE RIFLE ON THE FLOOR near the
site where Oswald's rifle was actually found after the shoooting.
Even you, John, know that the rifle was buried under some boxes... tell us,
would it have taken longer to place the rifle AS IT WAS HISTORICALLY FOUND, or
as the WC had SS Howlett place it?
Now, we know that liars lie, we know that trolls lie, and clearly, it's quite
apparent that even College Professors aren't above lying as well.
Of course, I'll be happy to retract labeling you a liar for this lie if you're
willing to assert for the record that you simply had never read this in the WCR
before.
>>You *KNOW* these historical facts.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The WC recreated both Baker's dismounting from the bike and running
>>>into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's descent from
>>>the 6th floor.
>>>
>>>Trivial differences about whether Oswald had a coke in his hand don't
>>>change any of that.
>>
>>
>>Actually, the time involved in purchasing the coke makes the WC scenario
>>impossible... even as they twisted the timing to their best advantage.
>
>But Baker saw Oswald *entering* the second floor lunchroom. If Oswald
>had a coke, he purchased it quickly before Baker himself got into the
>lunchroom.
The problem is far worse than that. Truly was nearly a flight ahead of Baker.
You'll have to chop off even *more* time.
>You are assuming that "different versions" means "lies."
I was quite accurate in what I stated.
It's important to note that the versions are contradictory to each other, and
CANNOT all be correct.
>No responsible historian would assume that.
No responsible "professor" would be unwilling to admit that the versions
contradict each other.
>In fact, Baker crossed
>out the "coke" business in one of his statements, apparently because
>it had been recorded in error.
This, of course, is an unexplainable factoid of the LNT'er camp.
>.John
The truth, of course, is that the WC did everything in their power to speed SS
Howlett, and to slow down Baker in recreations. They got the 'meet' that they
needed, but didn't account for the REAL facts that day.
And when the timing was so incredibly tight, EVEN WITH THE 'SHADING' GOING ON BY
THE WCR, it leads reasonable people to understand that Oswald simply wasn't
where the WCR tried to place him.
John Blubaugh
> On 4 Jan 2010 18:26:19 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, no, we wouldn't want eyewitnesses to get in the way of defending
the WR would we, John?
JB
John McAdams
wrote:
You'll call every eyewitness who gives testimony you find inconvenient
a liar.
Bud
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No, no, we wouldn't want eyewitnesses to get in the way of defending
> the WR would we, John?
You don`t seem to let them interfere with your conspiracy belief.
All the witnesses who identified either shooters or people with a gun
in the murders connected to this case said it was Oswald they saw.
> JB
Ben Holmes
Top Post: Just as predicted, John has run away. (Wasn't really hard to predict,
he does this *EVERY TIME*)
In article <hhuhv...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
John Blubaugh
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > No, no, we wouldn't want eyewitnesses to get in the way of defending
> > the WR would we, John?
>
> You don`t seem to let them interfere with your conspiracy belief.
> All the witnesses who identified either shooters or people with a gun
> in the murders connected to this case said it was Oswald they saw.
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, I do pay attention to them until it becomes evident they are
mistaken. I try to look at everything if I can.
JB
John Blubaugh
> On 5 Jan 2010 13:51:23 -0500, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
I don't recall every calling an eyewitness a liar. I have called lots
of LNs charlatons and liars but I don't remember saying that about an
eyewitness. Probably just another of your broad sweeping statements
that does not reflect on the real facts.
Jb
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 5, 2:16=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 5 Jan 2010 13:51:23 -0500, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> You'll call every eyewitness who gives testimony you find inconvenient
>> a liar.
>>
>
>I don't recall every calling an eyewitness a liar. I have called lots
>of LNs charlatons and liars but I don't remember saying that about an
>eyewitness. Probably just another of your broad sweeping statements
>that does not reflect on the real facts.
>
>
You never called Ruth Paine a liar?
You never called Marina a liar?
You never called Howard Brennan a liar?
Then tell us what you think of each of them.
Ben Holmes
I wonder if John would be willing to go on record, and state that he believes
all statements made by these eyewitnesses in 1963-64 related to the
assassination?
For anyone interested, this was the original post, which John so poorly
responded to:
11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker�s time of arrival back so far,
and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
this needed?
John ran rather quickly from that 'debate'...
Bud
You`d have to ask Baker.. A lot of people will tell a story
different when the retell it.
>and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker’s time of arrival back so far,
> and the alleged assassin up so much?
Baker arrived when he arrived, and Oswald arrived when he arrived.
The WC had no powers over these things.
> They did so by false statements,
Such as?
Bud
>
> >>>On 3 Jan 2010 10:46:07 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
> >>>>Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker’s time of arrival back so far,
> >>>>and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
> >>>>this needed?
>
> >>>You are just making stuff up.
>
> >>You know, for example, that there were many different versions that Baker came
> >>up with... you aren't ignorant of that historical fact. You also know that in
> >>the recreation of the "meeting", the person acting as "Oswald" did not stay at
> >>the window for 15 seconds, as eyewitnesses reported,
>
> >I'm not sure where you got that "15 seconds" business, but even if you
> >have a citation, no witness estimate of time in a case like this is
> >reliable.
>
> Oh come now! Don't try to play ignorant, John! It hardly becomes a "Professor"
> to show ignorance of the evidence in this case.
Notice Ben doesn`t say who these witnesses are, or quote what they
said. He pluralizes them, so he is claiming multiple witnesses to the
15 second pause in the window.
Brennan said the shooter (who he later identified as Oswald)
lingered "a moment". Had a gunman stayed 15 seconds in the window, he
would likely have been seen by dozens of people (you wouldn`t think
Brennan would be pointing him out to people around him?), and the
gunman would likely have been photographed.
> And the "eyewitness unreliability" gag has lost it's edge.
You think a witness would have a stopwatch and time how long the
person lingered? That would be the only way to get an accurate time.
> >>nor did he hide the rifle
> >>as it was known to have been hidden.
>
> >And you know this how?
>
> By actually reading the WCR. You should try it sometime. Try page 152. Be sure
> to read the section that states: "Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret
> Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the
> east aisle to the north east corner. HE PLACED THE RIFLE ON THE FLOOR near the
> site where Oswald's rifle was actually found after the shoooting.
>
> Even you, John, know that the rifle was buried under some boxes...
Could have been placed under the boxes. Nobody saw how it was done,
it is all conjecture how much effort was involved.
> tell us,
> would it have taken longer to place the rifle AS IT WAS HISTORICALLY FOUND, or
> as the WC had SS Howlett place it?
You tell us Ben, show us the difference between the two.
> Now, we know that liars lie, we know that trolls lie, and clearly, it's quite
> apparent that even College Professors aren't above lying as well.
.John challenged Ben to show that the rifle was not placed. Did
anyone see Ben do this? No, as usual.he resorts to ad hominem when
called upon to support his claims.
> Of course, I'll be happy to retract labeling you a liar for this lie if you're
> willing to assert for the record that you simply had never read this in the WCR
> before.
Retard, you have no video of how the rifle was put there. You have
no witness to it being put there. You surmise how much effort was
needed to put the rifle where it was found, but you can`t show your
conjecture is correct.
> >>You *KNOW* these historical facts.
>
> >>>The WC recreated both Baker's dismounting from the bike and running
> >>>into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's descent from
> >>>the 6th floor.
>
> >>>Trivial differences about whether Oswald had a coke in his hand don't
> >>>change any of that.
>
> >>Actually, the time involved in purchasing the coke makes the WC scenario
> >>impossible... even as they twisted the timing to their best advantage.
>
> >But Baker saw Oswald *entering* the second floor lunchroom. If Oswald
> >had a coke, he purchased it quickly before Baker himself got into the
> >lunchroom.
>
> The problem is far worse than that. Truly was nearly a flight ahead of Baker.
> You'll have to chop off even *more* time.
Why pretend we know how much time there was.
Ben`s position is shown false because he cannot answer the most
basic question regarding the times. That is "What is the fastest
Oswald could have descended to the first floor?"
> >You are assuming that "different versions" means "lies."
>
> I was quite accurate in what I stated.
>
> It's important to note that the versions are contradictory to each other, and
> CANNOT all be correct.
You won`t find many LNers who will claim witnesses are always
correct. That`s a CTer myth.
> >No responsible historian would assume that.
>
> No responsible "professor" would be unwilling to admit that the versions
> contradict each other.
In some "versions", he mistook what floor some things occurred. He
didn`t know the building.
> >In fact, Baker crossed
> >out the "coke" business in one of his statements, apparently because
> >it had been recorded in error.
>
> This, of course, is an unexplainable factoid of the LNT'er camp.
>
> >.John
>
> The truth, of course, is that the WC did everything in their power to speed SS
> Howlett, and to slow down Baker in recreations.
A lie, of course. Howlett did not move quickly in the recreations.
And the recreation times are worthless, since no attempt was made to
determine the fastest Oswald could descend. That is what is required
in order to say what could or could not occur in time.
> They got the 'meet' that they
> needed, but didn't account for the REAL facts that day.
They couldn`t determine many of the real facts, retard, nobody saw
Oswald descend, nobody saw him place the weapon.
> And when the timing was so incredibly tight, EVEN WITH THE 'SHADING' GOING ON BY
> THE WCR, it leads reasonable people to understand that Oswald simply wasn't
> where the WCR tried to place him.
Hell, I could have put the rifle where it was found and met Baker at
the front door when I was 23.
timstter
Let's examine this response by Holmes. McAdams posted a short, three
para response, to which Holmes has responded with a bewildering array
of verbiage. I'll make my comments in CAPITALS for Benny The Blowhard.
He simply LOVES the sound of his own nonsense! No wonder he is
enjoying a LONGWINDED read like that provided by Doug Horne, LOL!
On Jan 5, 1:26 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored
> group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
> disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
> last word, and that I won't respond.
>
MCADAMS HAS SIMPLY CUT TO THE CHASE, SNIPPING THE VERBIAGE OF HOLMES
THAT COCOONED HIS PATHETIC LITTLE QUESTION & PROVIDING A SUCCINCT
RESPONSE. THE RESPONSE OF HOLMES? ADD BACK IN THREE PARAS OF INTRO,
PRESUMABLY SO *THE LURKERS* CAN SEE WHAT A BLOWHARD HE IS!
> However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
> past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
> support his claims.
>
MORE VERBIAGE. HOLMES HASN'T EVEN BOTHERED TO TURN UP AT THE CENSORED
FORUM TO DEFEND HIS NONSENSE!
> And, of course, the post was snipped again with no notice. (I wonder if our
> resident government shill will have any problem with this blatant editing?)
>
LOL! THREE PARAS NOW OF SELF SERVING NONSENSE AND *BENNY THE BLOWHARD*
STILL HASN'T EVEN BEGUN RESPONDING TO THE SPECIFICS OF MCADAMS'S SHORT
REPLY! AMAZING!
> In article <4b425a68.596355...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
> >On 3 Jan 2010 10:46:07 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
> >>Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker s time of arrival back so far,
> >>and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
> >>this needed?
>
> >You are just making stuff up.
>
> You've already told your first lie... amazing! The very first sentence!!
>
LOL! NEVER A TRUER WORD HAS BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT HOLMES! THE FELLOW IS
SIMPLY A LIAR, AS WITNESS HIS LATEST DENIALS ABOUT THE *YELLOW PANTS*
MATTER. KEEP IN MIND THAT HOLMES HAS ONLY RESPONDED SO FAR TO THE
FIRST SIX WORDS THAT MCADAMS WROTE!
> You know, for example, that there were many different versions that Baker came
> up with... you aren't ignorant of that historical fact. You also know that in
> the recreation of the "meeting", the person acting as "Oswald" did not stay at
> the window for 15 seconds, as eyewitnesses reported, nor did he hide the rifle
> as it was known to have been hidden.
>
LOL! HOLMES IS STILL BLATHERING TO THE FIRST SIX WORDS OF MCADAMS'S
RESPONSE! NOT TO FORGET HIS THREE PARAS OF INTRODUCTORY NONSENSE!
> You *KNOW* these historical facts.
>
STILL ON THE FIRST SIX WORDS! THIS IS NOW THE THIRD COMMENT *BLOWHARD
BENNY* HAS HAD TO MAKE ON THESE FIRST SIX WORDS!
> And are willing to lie about it.
>
STILL BLABBERING ON THESE FIRST SIX WORDS! FOUR RESPONSES ALL UP AND
NOW HE'S DECIDED TO BOUNCE IN WITH SOME AD HOMINEN TO BOOT!
> >The WC recreated both Baker's dismounting from the bike and running
> >into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's descent from
> >the 6th floor.
>
> >Trivial differences about whether Oswald had a coke in his hand don't
> >change any of that.
>
> Actually, the time involved in purchasing the coke makes the WC scenario
> impossible... even as they twisted the timing to their best advantage.
>
LOL! LOOKS LIKE EVEN *BLOWHARD BENNY* FINALLY RAN OUT OF STEAM. STILL,
HE'S JUST GETTING WARMED UP! CHECK OUT HIS NEXT BLOWHARD RESPONSE TO
MCADAMS IN THIS THREAD!
> >.John
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
HEY HOLMES, IT WOULD BE TRUE TO SAY THAT YOU LIKE TO PAD OUT EVERY
RESPONSE SO YOU CAN HIDE BEHIND THE VERBIAGE WHEN IT ALL GOES PEAR
SHAPED; WOULD THAT BE THE CASE, YOU UNPLEASANT BLOWHARD?
SURE AS HELL LOOKS THAT WAY TO ME...
LMFAO Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > No, no, we wouldn't want eyewitnesses to get in the way of defending
> > > the WR would we, John?
>
> > You don`t seem to let them interfere with your conspiracy belief.
> > All the witnesses who identified either shooters or people with a gun
> > in the murders connected to this case said it was Oswald they saw.
>
> > > JB- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Oh, I do pay attention to them until it becomes evident they are
> mistaken.
When witnesses can`t be trusted to say who they saw with a gun, what
good are they at all?
David Von Pein
>>> "[Secret Service Agent John J.] Howlett did not move quickly in the recreations. And the recreation times are worthless, since no attempt was made to determine the fastest Oswald could descend. That is what is required in order to say what could or could not occur in time." <<<
I agree that it would have been nice if the Warren Commission had done
a re-creation with Agent Howlett moving much faster than the two tests
that were performed at "normal walking pace" and "fast walk" speeds
[WR; p.152].
But even without a "really fast walk" or a "running" re-creation,
Howlett's two re-creations are still certainly worthwhile and
meaningful, because those re-creations establish as rock-solid FACT
that a person could definitely descend from the sixth-floor Sniper's
Nest to the second-floor lunchroom in 74 to 78 seconds WITHOUT EVEN
MOVING VERY QUICKLY.
And since we can reasonably assume that Lee Harvey Oswald (after
killing the President) was moving a wee bit faster down those
Depository stairs than John Howlett was moving, it becomes glaringly
obvious that Oswald could certainly have made it from the sixth floor
to the second floor in well under 74 seconds, which was Howlett's
fastest time [WR; p.152].
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0088b.htm
John Blubaugh
> On 6 Jan 2010 15:47:40 -0500, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
No, I have not. I think Marina was under the threat of deportation and
would have said just about anything to stay here. I believe in later
years, she has corrected some of her statements.
I don't have any opinion about Ruth Paine but I will not that CIA
connections ran in her family.
Howard Brennan's testimony doesn't make any sense. There was not enough
room and the angle would have been terrible for the sniper to be standing.
That is just my opinion.
JB
timstter
Let's examine Blowhard Benny's next response to McAdams in this
thread. Here is the sum total of what McAdams wrote:
QUOTE ON:
See?
Ben is too cowardly to simply debate the issues.
He has to pile on the abuse, hoping that he can drive away any
critics.
You don't want an honest debate, Ben.
QUOTE OFF
Four simple lines, right? Now let's see how Blowhard Benny responds.
Once again I'll put my comments in CAPITALS for the benefit of The
Blowhard:
On Jan 5, 3:58 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <4b42b325.619072...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 4 Jan 2010 18:26:19 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Just a note for lurkers - John McAdams will hijack this thread to his censored
> >>group, and knowing that I will not respond where *he* can decide to allow, or
> >>disallow my post, will dishonestly allow people to believe that he's had the
> >>last word, and that I won't respond.
>
> >>However, all responses will be in *THIS* forum, where the post began, and if
> >>past history is any judge, John McAdams will quickly disappear, and refuse to
> >>support his claims.
>
> >>And, of course, the post was snipped again with no notice. (I wonder if our
> >>resident government shill will have any problem with this blatant editing?)
>
> >See?
>
> See what? That reminder to lurkers was in each response to you... if you have
> something to hide, it won't be on *this* forum.
>
THIS TIME BENNY HAS OUTDONE HIMSELF! HE'S ALREADY WRITTEN ONE PARA IN
RESPONSE TO THE VERY FIRST WORD OF MCADAMS'S RESPONSE! THE FIRST WORD!
THE BLOWHARD IS ON FIRE!
> >Ben is too cowardly to simply debate the issues.
>
AS PREDICTED, IT'S NOW TIME FOR THE BLOWHARD TO GO INTO VERBIAGE
OVERLOAD! MCADAMS IS TRYING TO KEEP THE DEBATE SHORT AND SWEET, YET
*SOMEONE* IS TRYING TO SANDBAG IT. I WONDER WHO ACTUALLY WANTS THE
DEBATE, LOL! NOT BLOWHARD BENNY, THAT''S FOR SURE.
> As predicted in the portion that you snipped on each post... here it is again:
>
TIME TO PLONK THE PREVIOUSLY SNIPPED JUNK BACK IN. SO FAR THE BLOWHARD
HAS RESPONDED ONLY TO THE FIRST WORD AND THEN THE FOLLOWING NINE WORD
LINE BY MCADAMS.
> **********************************************************************
> Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
> threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
>
IT'S AMAZING THAT THE BLOWHARD CHIDES OTHERS FOR PERSONAL INSULTS WHEN
HE KICKS OFF BY INSULTING A GROUP OF PEOLE AS TROLLS.
> These trolls include (but are not limited to):
>
> Baldoni
> Bigdog
> Bill
> Brokedad
> Bud
> Burlyguard
> Cdddraftsman
> Chuck Schuyler
> Chu...@amcmn.com
> Curious
> David Von Pein
> Ed Dolan *
> Grizzlie Antagonist
> Justme1952
> Martybaugh...@gmail.com
> Miss Rita
> much...@hotmail.com
> much...@gmail.com
> Sam Brown
> Spiffy_one
> Timst...@Gmail.com
> Todd W. Vaughan
> YoHarvey
>
LOL! HALF THESE PEOPLE DON'T EVEN POST HERE ANYMORE. BENNY HAS STILL
ONLY RESPONDED TO THE FIRST WORD AND THE FIRST LINE OF WHAT MCADAMS
WROTE. GREAT WORK, BLOWHARD BENNY!
> Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
> the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
> with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files.
>
MUST BE WHY YOU HAVEN'T REALISED THAT HALF OF 'EM HAVE LEFT,
BLOWHARD! :-)
> * Eddie 'Disgrace' Dolan is an exception - he *should* be killfiled, but he's
> amusing! And being a former Marine, even a disgraced one, is a plus.
>
DOLAN HAS REPEATEDLY CALLED YOUR LYING BUFF, BLOWHARD! STILL ON THE
FIRST WORD AND FIRST SENTENCE, ONLY! KUTGW, BLOWHARD!
> The newest troll is "Rob Caprio" - who is sort of a reverse troll, claiming to
> be a CT'er - but only going after other CT'ers. Watch for his comments on these
> questions.
> **********************************************************************
>
LOOKS LIKE HE HASN'T BOTHERED, BLOWHARD.
> The important section is this: "there are many trolls on this forum who's only
> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
> threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks."
>
STILL ON THE FIRST WORD AND FIRST LINE! DOES THE BLOWHARD LIKE THE
SOUND OF HIS OWN NONSENSE OR WHAT?!!
> I'm responding to your attempts to debate the evidence, and you're shifting as
> quickly as possible into denying the evidence, and personal insults and attacks.
>
LOL! NAW, ANYONE WITH TWO EYES CAN SEE THAT YOU ALREADY CALLED MCADAMS
A *LIAR* IN YOUR PREVIOUS RESPONSE ON THIS THREAD, BLOWHARD. YOUR MO
IS TO ACCUSE OTHERS OF THE EXACTLY THE SAME TACTICS YOU YOURSELF FIRST
EMPLOYED. A BIT LIKE OSWALD, REALLY...
> Just as predicted.
>
YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO BORE PEOPLE TO DEATH ARE YOU BENNY? I THINK
YOU'RE SUCCEEDING... KEEP IN MIND THAT THE SUM TOTAL OF WHAT MCADAMS
WROTE, THAT BEEN HAS RESPONDED TO THUS FAR BY BLOWHARD BENNY, CONSISTS
OF: *SEE? BEN IS TOO COWARDLY TO SIMPLY DEBATE THE ISSUES.* THAT'S IT!
THE SUM TOTAL! WAY TO GO, BLOWHARD!
> And, as I further predicted, you'll soon disappear again. Back to the censored
> group where no-one can label your lies.
>
THE CENSORED GROUP WHERE YOU NEVER TURNED UP IN THE FIRST PLACE? THAT
CENSORED GROUP?
> >He has to pile on the abuse, hoping that he can drive away any
> >critics.
>
WE'VE MADE IT TO THE THIRD LINE. UH OH, I FEEL ANOTHER LONGWINDED
RESPONSE COMING UP TO THIS SIMPLE OBSERVATION BY MCADAMS...
> Actually, they tend to run from the evidence all the time. When I point out that
> they are cowards, it's simply labeling their behavior.
>
PART ONE. BTW, THE IDEA THAT THIS BLOKE WOULD CALL ANOTHER POSTER A
COWARD IS LAUGHABLE!
> When they lie about the facts and evidence in this case, I label them liars.
>
PART TWO. WHY NOT STATE THE SAME THING IN A DIFFERENT WAY! HELPS PAD
OUT AN OTHERWISE MEDIOCRE RESPONSE! BRILLIANT!
> When you have a censored group, you can get away with that sort of behavior
> without being called on it.
>
PART THREE...
> Here, you will be.
>
PART FOUR. EL YAWNO...
> >You don't want an honest debate, Ben.
>
FINALLY THE BLOWHARD HAS MADE IT TO THE LAST SENTENCE OF MCADAMS'S
SIMPLE RESPONSE. LAST CHANCE, BENNY! IT MUST BE TIME TO GO INTO
BLOWHARD OVERDRIVE!
> Run John... run. I predicted you would, BASED ON YOUR HISTORIC RECORD HERE IN
> THIS FORUM, and undoubtedly, you're setting yourself up to run away again.
>
PART ONE. BTW, ACCUSES OTHERS OF RUNNING GIVEN HIS OWN HISTORIC RECORD
HERE IN THIS FORUM; *LADY IN YELLOW PANTS* THEORY ANYBODY? LOL! :-)
> But don't worry, the questions on the evidence in this case will keep on coming.
>
PART TWO. THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT BENNY! IT WOULD BE TERRIBLE IF THEY
DRIED UP. NOT MUCH CHANCE OF ANYTHING DRYING UP AROUND HERE BY THE
LOOK OF THINGS; YOU LEAST OF ALL...
> Indeed, after I digest Douglas Horne's new set of volumes, I may add a few more
> questions to the current list of 45.
>
PART THREE. HOLMES HAS FOUND A WORK BY SOMEONE EVEN MORE LONGWINDED
THAN HE! HE'S IN BLOWHARD 7TH HEAVEN!
> And LNT'ers such as yourself will prove yet again, that they have no
> non-conspiratorial and reasonable answer for the evidence.
>
PART FOUR. ER, BENNY, ALL HE WROTE WAS *YOU DON'T WANT AN HONEST
DEBATE, BEN*; THAT'S HARDLY WAR & PEACE, ME OL' BLOWHARD MATE...
>
>
> >>In article <4b425a68.596355...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
> >>>On 3 Jan 2010 10:46:07 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
> >>>>Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker’s time of arrival back so far,
> >>>>and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
> >>>>this needed?
>
> >>>You are just making stuff up.
>
> >>You've already told your first lie... amazing! The very first sentence!!
>
> And, I note for the record, that you have no response to make.
>
HAVING FINALLY EXHAUSTED MCADAMS'S SHORT RESPONSE, BENNY HAS NOW TAKEN
TO RESPONDING TO HIS OWN COMMENTS! IS THERE NO END TO HIS VERBOSITY?
BRILLIANT!
> How quickly the LNT'er faction slithers away!!
>
MAY AS WELL WAX LYRICAL HERE, AS HE CONTINUES TALKING TO HIMSELF...
> >>You know, for example, that there were many different versions that Baker came
> >>up with... you aren't ignorant of that historical fact. You also know that in
> >>the recreation of the "meeting", the person acting as "Oswald" did not stay at
> >>the window for 15 seconds, as eyewitnesses reported, nor did he hide the rifle
> >>as it was known to have been hidden.
>
> >>You *KNOW* these historical facts.
>
> >>And are willing to lie about it.
>
> Don't worry John, if you were ever able to cite and show that I'm incorrect on
> the evidence I raise, I'd be happy to offer you an apology.
>
PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT A LONGWINDED APOLOGY, BENNY! A NOVELLA LENGTH ONE
WILL DO NICELY! BTW, STILL TALKING TO YOURSELF HERE. MCADAMS'S
RESPONSE IS LONG OVER.
> But I really don't think that it will ever prove to be necessary. If I'd ever
> taken the time to go through your website, for all I know, the evidence that you
> *KNOW* of Baker's multitude of stories might already be documented there.
>
SUGGESTION: STOP BLOWHARDING AND MAYBE YOU'D HAVE A BIT MORE TIME TO
READ STUFF? GUESS YOU'LL BE BUSY WITH HORNE FOR A FEW YEARS THOUGH,
LOL! STILL TALKING TO YOURSELF HERE...
> >>>The WC recreated both Baker's dismounting from the bike and running
> >>>into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's descent from
> >>>the 6th floor.
>
> >>>Trivial differences about whether Oswald had a coke in his hand don't
> >>>change any of that.
>
> >>Actually, the time involved in purchasing the coke makes the WC scenario
> >>impossible... even as they twisted the timing to their best advantage.
>
> Dead silence...
>
YOU PROBABLY BORED HIM TO DEATH, BEN. DID YOU EVER THINK OF THAT?
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
LOL! YOUR TACTIC OF HIDING BEHIND VERBOSITY TO THE MOST SIMPLE
RESPONSE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AS EVEN WORSE THAN FIRST THOUGHT, HOLMES!
WHEN YOU RUN OUT OF MATERIAL YOU APPEAR TO SIMPLY START DEBATING
YOURSELF!
Amazed Regards,
yeuhd
> No, I have not. I think Marina was under the threat of deportation and
> would have said just about anything to stay here. I believe in later
> years, she has corrected some of her statements.
From the WC testimony of Marina Oswald in 1964:
Mr. RANKIN. Did you see anyone from the Immigration Service during
this period of time?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who that was?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember the name. I think he is the chairman of
that office. At least he was a representative of that office.
Mr. RANKIN. By "that office" you mean the one at Dallas?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was told that he had especially come from New York, it
seems to me.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to you?
Mrs. OSWALD. That if I was not guilty of anything, if I had not
committed any crime against this Government, then I had every right to
live in this country. This was a type of introduction before the
questioning by the FBI. He even said that it would be better for me if
I were to help them.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you what he meant by being better for
you?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the sense that I would have more rights in this
country. I understood it that way.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you understand that you were being threatened with
deportation if you didn't answer these questions?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I did not understand it that way.
You see, it was presented in such a delicate form, but there was a
clear implication that it would be better if I were to help.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you —
Mrs. OSWALD. This was only felt. It wasn't said in actual words.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you feel that it was a threat?
Mrs. OSWALD. This was not quite a threat — it was not a threat. But it
was their great desire that I be in contact, in touch with the FBI. I
sensed that.
Mr. RANKIN. But you did not consider it to be a threat to you?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Did anyone indicate that it would affect your ability to
work in this country if you cooperated?
Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me. No.
From the testimony of Marina Oswald Porter to the HSCA in 1978:
Mr. DEVINE. Has anyone during the course of these past 15 years
threatened to deport you if you did not answer in a manner that they
thought you should?
Mrs. PORTER. No; they have not.
Mr. DEVINE. They have not, you have had no such threats?
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Can you name any substantive differences in Marina's statements of
*facts* — differences that go toward *weakening* the case against
Oswald — between what she told the Warren Commission and what she said
in later years?
Gil Jesus
> On Jan 6, 10:12�pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No, I have not. I think Marina was under the threat of deportation and
> > would have said just about anything to stay here. I believe in later
> > years, she has corrected some of her statements.
> Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to you?
> Mrs. OSWALD. That if I was not guilty of anything, if I had not
> committed any crime against this Government, then I had every right to
> live in this country. This was a type of introduction before the
> questioning by the FBI. He even said that it would be better for me if
> I were to help them.
> Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you what he meant by being better for
> you?
> Mrs. OSWALD. In the sense that I would have more rights in this
> country. I understood it that way.
Tell us how cooperating in a murder investigation gives you "more
rights in this country" .
?????????????
ROBERT OSWALD: ". .......the tone of the reply between this gentleman
and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a
harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at
that time. And she was refusing to. And they were insisting, sir. And
they implied in so many words........that they were implying that if
she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would
perhaps--I say, again, I am implying--in so many words, that they
would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia."
( 1 H 410 )
Bud
> >>> "[Secret Service Agent John J.] Howlett did not move quickly in the recreations. And the recreation times are worthless, since no attempt was made to determine the fastest Oswald could descend. That is what is required in order to say what could or could not occur in time." <<<
>
> I agree that it would have been nice if the Warren Commission had done
> a re-creation with Agent Howlett moving much faster than the two tests
> that were performed at "normal walking pace" and "fast walk" speeds
> [WR; p.152].
For the purpose of determining whether it was possible for Oswald to
reach the lunchroom in time to be confronted by Baker, the estimates
developed by the WC might be adequate.
But for CTer purposes, if they wish to RULE OUT that Oswald could
have done so, they would need the fastest possible time Oswald could
achieve to do this.
That was the point I was trying to make, that the information needed
to show that Oswald could not have made it is not in evidence.
David Von Pein
>>> "But for CTer purposes, if they wish to RULE OUT that Oswald could have done so, they would need the fastest possible time Oswald could achieve to do this." <<<
The kooks who belong in the "OSWALD COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE MADE IT
FROM THE 6TH FLOOR TO THE 2ND FLOOR IN TIME TO SEE BAKER" club are
actually proven dead-wrong by Howlett's 2 test runs all by
themselves....since we know that Howlett DID make it to the 2nd floor
within as little as 74 seconds, which is a time that beats either one
of Marrion Baker's test runs (which were 90 seconds and 75 seconds).
So we really don't need a "running" test performed by Howlett and the
WC at all in order to positively disprove the persistent conspiracy
myth about Oswald not having enough time to get to the second floor.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 7, 12:21?am, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
What you are overlooking is that:
1.) Marina was concealing information. And of course investigators
get harsh and insistent when they know a witness is doing that.
2.) The things the eventually admitted to (the Mexico City trip, for
example) are supported by plenty of other evidence.
3.) Later to the HSCA, to Priscilla McMillan and even to Oprah, she
repeated the same things she *eventually* admitted to the FBI.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
David, we don`t need to reply to conspiracy kooks at all, so what we
"need" doesn`t apply. The conspiracy contingent has been arbitrarily
adding time to Oswald`s trip for tasks they see him needing to
perform, and likewise subtracting time from the estimates for Baker`s
time to get to the second floor lunchroom. My point is that no matter
how much adjusting they do, they can`t rule out Oswald getting there
in time unless they can establish the fastest time Oswald could have
gotten there.
Keep in mind that the estimates require memory, and a lot of factors
come into play, but a fairly accurate fastest time could have been
arrived at, but this was never attempted. To get this information,
you`d need to get a young skinny guy, have him perform the tasks as
Oswald would have had to do, run down the steps as fast as he could,
and clock this time. No such test was ever performed, so no such
approximate "fastest time" exists in evidence. Such a "fastest time"
is necessary to support CTer absolute claims about what Oswald could
or could not have done.
John Blubaugh
Especially when they get in the way of what the WR had to say. Yes, those
should certainly all be discounted. Yet, when it suits your purpose, you
will use one like Brennan who you believe supports your view. It is very
hard to have a communication with some who can't see, can't hear and worst
of all cannot think for themselves. Do you sleep with the WR at night?
JB
aeffects
lmao right next to Tom Lowry aka cdddraftsman ...
> JB
John Blubaugh
Just one, she said that she believed her husband killed JFK. Now she
claims that she does not believe that. But, perhaps that isn't to the
point enough for you.
JB
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 7, 12:21=A0am, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mr. RANKIN. Did you =97
>> Mrs. OSWALD. This was only felt. It wasn't said in actual words.
>> Mr. RANKIN. Did you feel that it was a threat?
>> Mrs. OSWALD. This was not quite a threat =97 it was not a threat. But it
>> was their great desire that I be in contact, in touch with the FBI. I
>> sensed that.
>> Mr. RANKIN. But you did not consider it to be a threat to you?
>> Mrs. OSWALD. No.
>> Mr. RANKIN. Did anyone indicate that it would affect your ability to
>> work in this country if you cooperated?
>> Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me. No.
>>
>> From the testimony of Marina Oswald Porter to the HSCA in 1978:
>>
>> Mr. DEVINE. Has anyone during the course of these past 15 years
>> threatened to deport you if you did not answer in a manner that they
>> thought you should?
>> Mrs. PORTER. No; they have not.
>> Mr. DEVINE. They have not, you have had no such threats?
>> Mrs. PORTER. No.
>>
>> Can you name any substantive differences in Marina's statements of
>> *facts* =97 differences that go toward *weakening* the case against
>> Oswald =97 between what she told the Warren Commission and what she said
>> in later years?
>
>Just one, she said that she believed her husband killed JFK. Now she
>claims that she does not believe that. But, perhaps that isn't to the
>point enough for you.
>
No, it's not to the point. It's based on what she's been told.
She told Gerald Posner that, "There are just too many things, like how
he could have fired the shots that fast."
What she was told by buffs, and what she concluded from what she was
told, isn't evidence.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 7 Jan 2010 14:12:26 -0500, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
Neither are her claims against her husband without corroboration, but
that does NOT stop LNers from accepting them like they are the gospel.
The vast majority of her claims would have been prevented in a real
court due to lack of corroboration, hearsay, spousal privledge,
leading the witness, and perjury. Also, a FULL cross would have
occured and many things could have been rebutted.
yeuhd
> On Jan 7, 12:21 am, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 10:12 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, I have not. I think Marina was under the threat of deportation and
> > > would have said just about anything to stay here. I believe in later
> > > years, she has corrected some of her statements.
> > Can you name any substantive differences in Marina's statements of
> > *facts* — differences that go toward *weakening* the case against
> > Oswald — between what she told the Warren Commission and what she said
> > in later years?
>
> Just one, she said that she believed her husband killed JFK. Now she
> claims that she does not believe that. But, perhaps that isn't to the
> point enough for you.
>
> JB
That is a statement of opinion, not of fact. So you agree that Marina
has NOT made any substantive differences in statements of *facts*
between her Warren Commission testimony and now.
tomnln
Oswald.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/deport_marina.htm
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1935c38c-a02b-4e77...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Mr. RANKIN. Did you �
Mrs. OSWALD. This was only felt. It wasn't said in actual words.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you feel that it was a threat?
Mrs. OSWALD. This was not quite a threat � it was not a threat. But it
was their great desire that I be in contact, in touch with the FBI. I
sensed that.
Mr. RANKIN. But you did not consider it to be a threat to you?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Did anyone indicate that it would affect your ability to
work in this country if you cooperated?
Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me. No.
From the testimony of Marina Oswald Porter to the HSCA in 1978:
Mr. DEVINE. Has anyone during the course of these past 15 years
threatened to deport you if you did not answer in a manner that they
thought you should?
Mrs. PORTER. No; they have not.
Mr. DEVINE. They have not, you have had no such threats?
Mrs. PORTER. No.
Can you name any substantive differences in Marina's statements of
*facts* � differences that go toward *weakening* the case against
Oswald � between what she told the Warren Commission and what she said
in later years?
Bud
Most witnesses didn`t see anything of much evidential value. Had more
people in Dealy said they saw the shooter, then more witnesses would have
substantial information to supply.
>Yes, those
> should certainly all be discounted.
Anything any witness supplies should be treated skeptically.
> Yet, when it suits your purpose, you
> will use one like Brennan who you believe supports your view.
Of course he supports my view, he saw the shooter, the only person in
Dealy who did see the shooter well enough to make an identification.
> It is very
> hard to have a communication with some who can't see, can't hear and worst
> of all cannot think for themselves.
I hold out hope you can overcome those obstacles.
>Do you sleep with the WR at night?
I didn`t need the WC at all, I could figured out who was resonsible for
this crime if it never existed. Oswald`s guilt is an obvious thing, any
one of dozens of strong indicators says it is so. Once he attacked the
arresting officers he needed a strong alibi, one that has never been
produced.
> JB
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Jan 7, 12:21=EF=BF=BDam, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's fascinating to see how far this thread evolved (and how quickly!!) The
LNT'er camp doesn't want to deal with the facts.
Here's the *original* question again:
11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker�s time of arrival back so far,
and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
this needed?
Ben Holmes
You mean like "FBI intimidation"? That sort of thing?
>2.) The things the eventually admitted to (the Mexico City trip, for
>example) are supported by plenty of other evidence.
>
>3.) Later to the HSCA, to Priscilla McMillan and even to Oprah, she
>repeated the same things she *eventually* admitted to the FBI.
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ben Holmes
John Blubaugh says...
>
>On Jan 6, 10:27=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 9:01 am, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jan 5, 5:15 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 5, 1:51 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
> says...
>>
>> > > > > >>On 3 Jan 2010 10:46:07 -0800, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.co=
>m>
>> > > > > >>wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >>>11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of m=
>eeting up with
>> > > > > >>>Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker=92s time of =
>arrival back so far,
>> > > > > >>>and the alleged assassin up so much? =A0They did so by false s=
>tatements, why was
>> > > > > >>>this needed?
>>
>> > > > > >>You are just making stuff up.
>>
>hat Baker came
>> > > > > >up with... you aren't ignorant of that historical fact. You also=
> know that in
>> > > > > >the recreation of the "meeting", the person acting as "Oswald" d=
>id not stay at
>> > > > > >the window for 15 seconds, as eyewitnesses reported,
>>
>f you
>> > > > > have a citation, no witness estimate of time in a case like this =
>is
>> > > > > reliable.
>>
>> > > > > >nor did he hide the rifle
>> > > > > >as it was known to have been hidden.
>>
>> > > > > And you know this how?
>>
>> > > > > >You *KNOW* these historical facts.
>>
>ning
>> > > > > >>into the Depository and up to the 2nd floor, and Oswald's desce=
>nt from
>> > > > > >>the 6th floor.
>>
> don't
>> > > > > >>change any of that.
>>
>scenario
>> > > > > >impossible... even as they twisted the timing to their best adva=
>ntage.
>>
>> > > > > But Baker saw Oswald *entering* the second floor lunchroom. =A0If=
> Oswald
>> > > > > had a coke, he purchased it quickly before Baker himself got into=
> the
>> > > > > lunchroom.
>>
>> > > > > You are assuming that "different versions" means "lies."
>>
>ssed
>> > > > > out the "coke" business in one of his statements, apparently beca=
>use
>> > > > > it had been recorded in error.
>>
>> > > > > .John
>>
>>
>g
>> > > > the WR would we, John?
>>
>> > > All the witnesses who identified either shooters or people with a gun
>> > > in the murders connected to this case said it was Oswald they saw.
>>
>> > > > JB
>>
>> > mistaken.
>>
>> When witnesses can`t be trusted to say who they saw with a gun, what
>> good are they at all?
>>
>>
>>
>> > I try to look at everything if I can.
>>
>> > JB
>
>
>Especially when they get in the way of what the WR had to say. Yes, those
>should certainly all be discounted. Yet, when it suits your purpose, you
>will use one like Brennan who you believe supports your view.
The problem, of course, is that Brennan *DOESN'T*.
Can anyone quote Brennan on the description of the clothing that the assassin
wore?
Or more importantly, can any LNT'er *believe* Brennan on that point?
>It is very
>hard to have a communication with some who can't see, can't hear and worst
>of all cannot think for themselves. Do you sleep with the WR at night?
>
>JB
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jan 7, 2:20=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 7 Jan 2010 14:12:26 -0500, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Jan 6, 10:12=3DA0pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > No, I have not. I think Marina was under the threat of deportation a=
>> >> Mrs. OSWALD. This was only felt. It wasn't said in actual words.
>> >> Mr. RANKIN. Did you feel that it was a threat?
>t it
>> >> was their great desire that I be in contact, in touch with the FBI. I
>> >> sensed that.
>> >> Mr. RANKIN. But you did not consider it to be a threat to you?
>> >> Mrs. OSWALD. No.
>> >> Mr. RANKIN. Did anyone indicate that it would affect your ability to
>> >> work in this country if you cooperated?
>> >> Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me. No.
>>
>> >> From the testimony of Marina Oswald Porter to the HSCA in 1978:
>>
>> >> Mr. DEVINE. Has anyone during the course of these past 15 years
>> >> threatened to deport you if you did not answer in a manner that they
>> >> thought you should?
>> >> Mrs. PORTER. No; they have not.
>> >> Mr. DEVINE. They have not, you have had no such threats?
>> >> Mrs. PORTER. No.
>>
>> >> Can you name any substantive differences in Marina's statements of
>> >> Oswald =3D97 between what she told the Warren Commission and what she =
>said
>> >> in later years?
>>
>> >Just one, she said that she believed her husband killed JFK. Now she
>> >claims that she does not believe that. But, perhaps that isn't to the
>> >point enough for you.
>>
>>
>> She told Gerald Posner that, "There are just too many things, like how
>> he could have fired the shots that fast."
>>
>> What she was told by buffs, and what she concluded from what she was
>> told, isn't evidence.
>
>Neither are her claims against her husband without corroboration, but
>that does NOT stop LNers from accepting them like they are the gospel.
>
>The vast majority of her claims would have been prevented in a real
>court due to lack of corroboration, hearsay, spousal privledge,
It doesn't matter how many times a kook is told that there's no such thing as
"spousal privlege" with a DEAD spouse, it still gets repeated.
>leading the witness, and perjury. Also, a FULL cross would have
>occured and many things could have been rebutted.
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:hi644...@drn.newsguy.com...
tomnln
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec3c776f-8532-4a64...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "Such a "fastest time" [for Oswald to have gotten from the 6th Floor to the 2nd Floor of the TSBD] is necessary to support CTer absolute claims about what Oswald could or could not have done." <<<
Oh, come now, Bud! You're surely not actually suggesting that the
Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy kooks of Planet Earth would ACCEPT a
"fastest time" re-creation (had such a test been performed by anyone
in "officialdom'), are you? You know better than that, Bud.
Any such "fastest time" test would have been completely ignored or
misrepresented by conspiracy kooks, just as the Warren Commission's
74- and 78-second tests are totally ignored by those kooks (which, as
mentioned, are two tests that prove for all time that Lee Harvey
Oswald could have descended to the second floor before Officer Marrion
L. Baker).
I suppose if Jim Garrison or Mark Lane had been the ones with a
stopwatch in their hands during such a Depository re-creation, and a
skinny 24-year-old lad similar to Oswald had fled down the stairs in
50 or 55 seconds, perhaps then conspiracy retards might (begrudgingly)
have accepted it.
But if such a re-creation test had been engineered by the WARREN
COMMISSION--forget it. If that had occurred, the CTers would merely be
spouting the same worn-out myth they repeat over and over again today:
i.e., The Warren Commission cannot be trusted about anything, and
there's no way Oswald could have beaten Baker to the lunchroom in the
time available to him.
It's a shame that so many conspiracy myths have taken on lives of
their own, and they cannot be killed in the minds of many people who
have convinced themselves that such myths are the absolute truth.
Such as:
1.) The one discussed in this post about Oswald not having nearly
enough time to reach the lunchroom.
2.) And there's the similar myth about Oswald not having enough time
to reach the scene of the Tippit murder.
3.) And the myth about the Mannlicher-Carcano being "the worst rifle
ever made".
4.) And the myth about how Oswald was "a terrible shot", therefore he
couldn't possibly have killed the President.
5.) And the myth about "back and to the left" indicating a shot from
the front hit JFK in the head.
6.) And the myth about how the Warren Commission was boxing itself in
to a timeline of "5.6 seconds" for the three shots fired by Oswald,
even though the following words appear on page 117 of the Warren
Report (which is a Report that has been in print for 45 years for
everybody to see and read, and for conspiracy theorists to totally
ignore and/or dismiss) --- "The three shots were fired in a time
period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm
yeuhd
> Marina has stated publicly that she was "Manipulated".
Has Marina made any substantive differences in statements of *facts*
(repeat: facts) between her Warren Commission testimony and now?
yeuhd
> Ther threat of Deportation of Marina was supported by a witness named Robert
> Oswald.
Can you name any substantive differences in Marina's statements of *facts*
— differences that go toward *weakening* the case against Oswald —
Ben Holmes
yeuhd says...
>
>On Jan 7, 3:14=A0pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Ther threat of Deportation of Marina was supported by a witness named Rob=
>ert
>> Oswald.
>
>
>Can you name any substantive differences in Marina's statements of *facts*
>years?
This implies that her testimony was coherent from the beginning. It wasn't. It
was contradictory from the beginning. She originally did not report that Oswald
owned a rifle, for example.
But the topic has changed rather dramatically from the original. Can you answer
the *ORIGINAL* question in this thread?
Here it is again:
11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with
Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker�s time of arrival back so far,
and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was
this needed?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <e14eccc6-1a45-4490-ae32-0b941b834...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
It doesn't matter how many times you tell a "kook" we DON'T TRY A DEAD
MAN IN THIS COUNTRY, he still believes people can "tesitfy" against
them and have it count with no CROSS-EXAMINATION!
Why don't you call out Walt for claiming Brennan gave the description
to the police Ben when you know he did NOT because he never mentioned
clothing?
Why do you let Walt lie like this with NO challenge?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jan 7, 9:22=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <e14eccc6-1a45-4490-ae32-0b941b834...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 7, 2:20=3DA0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> >> On 7 Jan 2010 14:12:26 -0500, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> On Jan 6, 10:12=3D3DA0pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> >> > No, I have not. I think Marina was under the threat of deportatio=
>n a=3D
>> >nd
>> >> >> > would have said just about anything to stay here. I believe in la=
>ter
>> >> >> > years, she has corrected some of her statements.
>>
>> >> >> From the WC testimony of Marina Oswald in 1964:
>>
>> >> >> Mr. RANKIN. Did you see anyone from the Immigration Service during
>> >> >> this period of time?
>> >> >> Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
>> >> >> Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who that was?
>of
>> >> >> that office. At least he was a representative of that office.
>> >> >> Mr. RANKIN. By "that office" you mean the one at Dallas?
>it
>> >> >> seems to me.
>> >> >> Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to you?
>> >> >> Mrs. OSWALD. That if I was not guilty of anything, if I had not
> to
>> >> >> live in this country. This was a type of introduction before the
> if
>> >> >> I were to help them.
>> >> >> Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you what he meant by being better for
>> >> >> you?
>> >> >> Mrs. OSWALD. In the sense that I would have more rights in this
>> >> >> country. I understood it that way.
>> >> >> Mr. RANKIN. Did you understand that you were being threatened with
>> >> >> deportation if you didn't answer these questions?
>> >> >> Mrs. OSWALD. No, I did not understand it that way.
>> >> >> You see, it was presented in such a delicate form, but there was a
>> >> >> clear implication that it would be better if I were to help.
>> >> >> Mrs. OSWALD. This was only felt. It wasn't said in actual words.
>> >> >> Mr. RANKIN. Did you feel that it was a threat?
>t. Bu=3D
>> >t it
>> >> >> was their great desire that I be in contact, in touch with the FBI.=
> I
>> >> >> sensed that.
>> >> >> Mr. RANKIN. But you did not consider it to be a threat to you?
>> >> >> Mrs. OSWALD. No.
>o
>> >> >> work in this country if you cooperated?
>> >> >> Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me. No.
>>
>> >> >> From the testimony of Marina Oswald Porter to the HSCA in 1978:
>>
>> >> >> Mr. DEVINE. Has anyone during the course of these past 15 years
>y
>> >> >> thought you should?
>> >> >> Mrs. PORTER. No; they have not.
>> >> >> Mr. DEVINE. They have not, you have had no such threats?
>> >> >> Mrs. PORTER. No.
>>
>> >> >> Can you name any substantive differences in Marina's statements of
>inst
>> >> >> Oswald =3D3D97 between what she told the Warren Commission and what=
> she =3D
>> >said
>> >> >> in later years?
>>
>> >> >Just one, she said that she believed her husband killed JFK. Now she
>> >> >claims that she does not believe that. But, perhaps that isn't to the
>> >> >point enough for you.
>>
>>
>> >> She told Gerald Posner that, "There are just too many things, like how
>> >> he could have fired the shots that fast."
>>
>> >> What she was told by buffs, and what she concluded from what she was
>> >> told, isn't evidence.
>>
>> >Neither are her claims against her husband without corroboration, but
>> >that does NOT stop LNers from accepting them like they are the gospel.
>>
>> >The vast majority of her claims would have been prevented in a real
>> >court due to lack of corroboration, hearsay, spousal privledge,
>>
>> It doesn't matter how many times a kook is told that there's no such
>> thing as "spousal privlege" with a DEAD spouse, it still gets repeated.
>
>It doesn't matter how many times you tell a "kook" we DON'T TRY A DEAD
>MAN IN THIS COUNTRY, he still believes people can "tesitfy" against
>them and have it count with no CROSS-EXAMINATION!
Sadly for your honesty, it's merely historical fact that Marina gave testimony.
<Yet more Walt paranoia snipped.>
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Jan 3, 1:46 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> 11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up w=
>ith
>> Oswald,
>
> You`d have to ask Baker.. A lot of people will tell a story
>different when the retell it.
>
I'm afraid conspiracists interpret any inconsistencies as absolute
proof of conspiracy.
Which is what happens when you pay little attention to how the real
world works.
>>and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker=92s time of arrival back so far,
>> and the alleged assassin up so much?
>
> Baker arrived when he arrived, and Oswald arrived when he arrived.
>The WC had no powers over these things.
>
>> They did so by false statements,
>
> Such as?
>
It seems that Holmes has run away, and wasn't willing to respond to
your post.
Ben Holmes
Sorry John, Buddy is already listed as one of the trolls in my killfile...
surely you've read the initial header that you keep dishonestly snipping?
And, as predicted, Buddy does exactly what I predict the trolls to do.
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
> Sorry John, Buddy is already listed as one of the trolls in my killfile...
> surely you've read the initial header that you keep dishonestly snipping?
>
> And, as predicted, Buddy does exactly what I predict the trolls to do.
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Get Ripped Off by my Cheap-Ass Website -http://www.burningknifegetrichquickscheme.com
And as I predicted a few days ago, Punxsutawney Phil Holmes saw his
shadow and retreated back behind the protective bosom of his
killfilter.
Big Baby.
Bud
> In article <4b47ebca.961257...@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:07:00 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Jan 3, 1:46 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
> >>> 11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up w=
> >>ith
> >>> Oswald,
>
> >> You`d have to ask Baker.. A lot of people will tell a story
> >>different when the retell it.
>
> >I'm afraid conspiracists interpret any inconsistencies as absolute
> >proof of conspiracy.
>
> >Which is what happens when you pay little attention to how the real
> >world works.
>
> >>>and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker=92s time of arrival back so far,
> >>> and the alleged assassin up so much?
>
> >> Baker arrived when he arrived, and Oswald arrived when he arrived.
> >>The WC had no powers over these things.
>
> >>> They did so by false statements,
>
> >> Such as?
>
> >It seems that Holmes has run away, and wasn't willing to respond to
> >your post.
>
> >.John
>
> Sorry John, Buddy is already listed as one of the trolls in my killfile...
> surely you've read the initial header that you keep dishonestly snipping?
That long list of people Ben is afraid of. Note he doesn`t killfile
robcap, because he has finally found an opponent he can look good
against.
> And, as predicted, Buddy does exactly what I predict the trolls to do.
Pointed out the flaws in the idea you presented?