The "Lady in Yellow Pants" Theory - An Annotated Timeline

[Mark Ulrik]

The "Lady in Yellow Pants" Theory

- An Annotated Timeline

Mark Ulrik, June 2018.

Disclaimer: A lot has been written about this theory since it was introduced by Ben Holmes in March of 2008, so I'm sure this is just scratching the surface. It's difficult to do justice to each and every contributor, but Tim Brennan has done a particularly fine job of dismantling Ben's theory in a clear and concise manner. Other early debunkers include Robert Harris, Steve Barber, and yours truly.

Ironically, this obscure theory, which was dead in the water from day one, would have been long forgotten, had it not been for Ben's stubborn refusal over the years to admit he was wrong.

============================================================
[2000-05-15] Jack White (JW) notes a (perceived) discrepancy between the Zapruder film (Z) and the Nix film (N), not realizing that the Franzen group (FG) is obscured in the latter by the presence of a second group of people (an unidentified couple, UC) standing in the grass between Nix and the Franzens.
============================================================
"5-year old Jeff Franzen (1) was taken to see the motorcade by his father (2) and his mother (3), just as Z-369 portrays them (top left). Next to the Franzen family stands an unidentified man (4), all by himself. No one else is seen in this frame. Notice that Mrs. Franzen is holding her husband's left hand, while he has his right hand atop Jeffs head. The blond Mrs. Franzen has a purse at her left elbow and wears a tight-fitting skirt. The unidentified man has on dark pants and a light sweater. I located a good Nix frame taken at almost the same instant (bottom). The positions of Jackie and of Clint Hill are very similar. In the enlarged inset (top right), Mr. Franzen still has his right hand on Jeffs head, but Mrs. Franzen has completely disappeared. The unidentified man is still in position. Now a woman companion (5) has materialized and is embracing his left shoulder. She seems to be wearing an orange headscarf and a black topcoat, which flares at the bottom. Nobody like this woman is seen anywhere in Zapruder. And what has happened to Mrs. Franzen? Nix is wrong or Zapruder is wrong: they can't both be right."
============================================================
Source: Jack White, Murder in Dealey Plaza, Insert, p. 16.
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Murder_In_Dealey_Plaza.pdf#page=494

============================================================
[2003-03-04] Steve Barber (SB) points out that UC is also visible in a number of Z frames (or their legs are) and that the entire FG can be seen in N.
============================================================
The two people standing "behind" the couple with the little boy (the Franzens) ARE seen in the Zapruder film. They are at the extreme top of the unenhanced frames. Of this couple, the girl dressed in a white top and black pants is reacting to the shooting, the girl standing in place and "jogging" so to speak.

The Franzens all can be seen in the Nix film. You can see Mr. Franzen's legs, the little boy, Mrs. Franzen, and then the guy who some thought to be holding a sign that read "JFK SOB" all are right where they show up in the Z film.

No one is "missing" from the films. All are there in both Nix and Zapruder films.

Jack White is in total error.
============================================================
Source: Steve Barber, a.a.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/yQrqjBTC6_Y/WdPv4QtqgK4J

============================================================
[2003-03-05] SB points out that the people seen in the N frame picked by JW have had time to move a bit after disappearing from Zapruder's view and that JW's mystery woman is in fact Mrs. Franzen.
============================================================
>But where is the woman that is with the man in the Nix film in Zapruder?
>In Zapruder the guy is standing alone. I'm just not seeing it.

She is right there. Nix's angle makes it look like they are standing VERY close together. As you can see in the Z film they were not that far apart. The man is a little in front of Mrs. Franzen. Also, she must have moved to her left after she disappeared from Zapruder's camera. You can see the man moving, and her as well in the Nix film, and by this time they are both out of Zapruder's view.
============================================================
Source: Steve Barber, a.a.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/yQrqjBTC6_Y/KPqIifbCtaAJ

============================================================
[2008-03-05] Ben Holmes (BH) doubles down on White's mistake, apparently unaware of SB's discovery of the UC in Z. He adds a twist of his own by insisting that a certain female figure in N should also have appeared in Z. This is the first mention of the "Lady in Yellow Pants" (LYP). The thread title, "Z-369 and Proof that Zapruder & Nix Have Been Altered," shows how significant BH considers his observations to be.
============================================================
As anyone who's viewed Z-369 knows, there's four people standing on the grass.

Bob has admitted as much when he said: "You have to look at the positions of Nix and Zapruder. Nix shows the limo passing those same four people [seen in Z-369] a bit later than Zapruder does, but only because of the angle he was filming from."

So Bob is well aware that there's *FOUR* people there.

Bob also knows that the Nix film shows *MORE* than four people, since he's stated: "The two people behind that group (in Nix) are taller than the four near the road, because they were well back from the road and out of Zapruder's view."

But Bob certainly knows THAT THERE IS NO PORTION OF THE GRASS THAT IS *NOT* IN VIEW OF ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA!

We know this with great certainty - because at the top of Z-369, you can see Main street. There can't be any grass that is *NOT* visible to Zapruder. So Bob just lied. "The two people behind that group (in Nix)" can't possibly be on the grass - since Zapruder doesn't show them on the grass - AND *ALL* OF THE GRASS UP TO MAIN STREET IS IN VIEW - yet they are clearly on the grass in the Nix film.

This is only half the problem, of course... because there are a further *two* people to the right of this 'group of four' seen standing in the grass in the extant Z-film... yet Nix shows *THREE* people. (Looks like a woman wearing yellow pants, dark coat, tan purse on left side... my opinion, of course)

Bob can't explain these facts - indeed, he resorts to lies in order to make his case - he pretends that there's a part of the grass in back of the Franzen family that is not in view of the Zapruder camera - yet it's clear that Bob simply lied.

He accepts that Mrs Franzen has "moved", yet can [sic] show this movement in the video...

Why do you have to lie, Bob?

Of course, Bob isn't the only liar around here... Martin & Tony come to mind,
and *ALL* LNT'ers... since I'm unaware of any LNT'er who admits photographic
fraud in this case yet still maintains that the WCR was correct.
============================================================
Source: Ben Holmes, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/n5udK4xqa2U/13BanrEHNu0J

============================================================
[2008-03-06] BH abandons the part of his inquery that involves UC. As already pointed out by SB in 2003, their legs can be seen in a number of Z frames (most clearly in the Z-342 to Z-349 range).
============================================================
Just an update... looks like David has found the two men [sic] behind the Franzen family in Z-348. I believe that he's right. That makes me wrong about the two additional men behind the Franzen family.

Sadly, there's still no explanation for Mrs. Franzen's position, or the lady wearing yellow pants. Nor has Bob addressed this problem.

And sadly, Bob's lie about the area visible to the Zapruder film still stands.
============================================================
Source: Ben Holmes, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/n5udK4xqa2U/RcTETCRQkN4J

============================================================
[2008-03-07] The LYP theory assumes its final form when BH shifts the focus to the unidentified couple in Z-377 (UC2) and challenges other posters to tell him how many people they can see "in the same location" in N. The expected answer is obviously "3" as BH wants to include LYP in the count. What he fails to realize is that, at Z-377, Zapruder had already panned past LYP's location (which was too close to Main St. for her to have been captured on his film anyway). The statement that "THERE IS NO PORTION OF THE GRASS THAT IS *NOT* IN VIEW OF ZAPRUDER'S CAMERA" (BH) is true for Z-377, but not for the frames (from about Z-345 through the Z-350s) where the camera was pointing in LYP's direction. Main St. only comes into view after Z-367.
============================================================
>> Maybe Holmes is color blind. Why doesn't he post a link showing the
>> frame where this ficticious woman in yellow pants is standing,
>> walking, running...whatever? Instead he keeps claiming she's there
>> with no proof and none of us seem to be able to find her. What a
>> surprise, Holmes just enjoys calling others liars...even though he
>> knows he is the one doing all the lying.

This isn't difficult at all to see... it's apparently only impossible to answer.

The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?

How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?

This is really simple. Even trolls can tell the difference between "2" and "3".
============================================================
Source: Ben Holmes, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VKwO6FELruQ/BHlWBha-dUMJ

============================================================
[2008-03-08] Early responses by SB and Mark Ulrik (MU). BH would later claim that other posters were either deceitful or unresponsive.
============================================================
> > The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
>
> Two (outside of the intersprocket area).
>
> > How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?
>
> Two.

Agreed. The 3rd person Mr. Holmes believes should be in the frame(s) of the Z film, which I presume is the person referred to by some as "bag lady", is just out of the frame, at the top. All it would take is for Mr. Holmes to get a the same make and model camera Zapruder used, go to Dealey Plaza, stand in Z's position, and duplicate the filming by Mr. Zapruder.
============================================================
Steve Barber, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VKwO6FELruQ/e7IsdDYjWDIJ

============================================================
[2008-03-09] Response from MU to (fawning BH acolyte) David Healy (DH).
============================================================
I suppose you would've counted the lady in yellow pants in the Nix film? But exactly where in the Zapruder film would you expect to see her? Hint: Ben's Z-377 suggestion above is ridiculous. It would have to have been before the lamppost comes into view in Z-365, and she is a few yards farther away from Zapruder than the couple whose legs you can see between Z-342 and Z-348, so she is simply out of view.
============================================================
Mark Ulrik, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VKwO6FELruQ/fnnftJ140AEJ

============================================================
[2008-03-09] Response from Tim Brennan (TB) to MU.
============================================================
> > Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix frame
> > published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>
> > Is that the person who is being discussed?
>
> I don't have my books handy, but it's the person closest to Main St.
> in the frames that are reproduced here:
>
> [WC18H83]
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0049a.htm
>
> Some useful on-line tools:
>
> [Nix frames]
> http://jfk.fotopic.net/c1178748.html
>
> [Zapruder frames]
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
>
> [Don Roberdeau's DP map]
> http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg

Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days* book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in the *Four Days* book.

I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*, facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a crock.
============================================================
Tim Brennan, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VKwO6FELruQ/W7CzgdCNfvAJ

============================================================
[2008-03-09] Response from TB to MU.
============================================================
Yes, Z377 is too late for the lady to appear. In fact, she is much too far back to appear in Zapruder.

The couple behind the Franzen group are only partially visible in Zapruder. She is standing farther back than them.

Jack White compares Z369 with what appears to be Nix 103 to make his bogus comparison.

Clint Hill still appears to have one foot on the road in Z369. In N103 he has both feet on the bumper.

It's bogus research, and his conclusions defy logic.
============================================================
Tim Brennan, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VKwO6FELruQ/QNg3Awm6iEQJ

============================================================
[2008-03-11] Response from TB to BH.
============================================================
> You've already admitted that only two people can be seen in the extant Z-film,
> and yet three people can be seen in Nix.

So? That's your conclusion, too, Ben.

But old *Yellow Legs* is too far back in Nix to be seen in Zapruder, isn't she Ben?

People like Robert Harris and Mark and Burly and any other convenient *troll* are simply right and you're wrong. Isn't that the case, Ben?

You've simply got it wrong Benny!
============================================================
Tim Brennan, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VKwO6FELruQ/81-skHHABXQJ

============================================================
[2008-03-11] Response from BH, apparently oblivious to the fact that his "points" had already been refuted by several posters. It was after this exchange that he "killfiled" TB, purportedly for using the sobriquet "Benny".
============================================================
>> You've already admitted that only two people can be seen in the extant
>> Z-film, and yet three people can be seen in Nix.
>
>So? That's your conclusion, too, Ben.
>
>But old *Yellow Legs* is too far back in Nix to be seen in Zapruder,
>isn't she Ben?

Nope.

>People like Robert Harris and Mark and Burly and any other convenient
>*troll* are simply right and you're wrong. Isn't that the case, Ben?

When they all have to lie to make a point, all they've proven is that they're liars.

>You've simply got it wrong Benny!

And yet, you can't refute the points I make... indeed, you need to lie about them. What question did I ask that the trolls lied about???
============================================================
Ben Holmes, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VKwO6FELruQ/f6fwxMPsvwAJ

============================================================
[2008-05-01] One of many fine summaries by TB.
============================================================
I think, if you wish to discuss this topic, you might find the following link to Nix film frames useful. It was provided by Mark during the course of the debate in question and is useful to compare with the Z frames link you posted earlier, particularly around Z369, for this topic:

http://jfk.fotopic.net/c1178748_97.html

What it shows is that, beginning at around Nix 104, a figure comes into view on the extreme left of the screen and moves progressively more into view as the camera continues to pan left, following the limo.

This figure is the one Ben claims proves that the Nix and Z films are incompatible, a lady apparently wearing yellow slacks under a long black coat, AKA *Yellow Legs*.

If you click on Z369 you can see why Ben is making this claim. Behind the Franzen group in Z369 Main Street is clearly visible and the foot of a street light, the shadow of which points approximately at Mrs Franzen's head, is also visible. There is, however, no *Yellow Slacks/Legs* lady visible in Z369.

This, in Ben's estimation, is proof of incompatibility between the Zapruder and Nix films, thus equalling forgery. If we can see as far as Main Street in Zapruder, why don't we see this *Yellow Slacks* lady? Her absence from one film and presence in another proves forgery, right? That's his view and that of David *aeffects* Healy, published Z film alterationist author, from what I understand.

The problem with their logic is that there are four street lights that run down Main at Dealey, and the one in the background of Z369 is the third one. You can check this easily by continuing to click through from Z369 as the limo heads towards the underpass and the fourth and final street light will come into view, at the edge of the concrete apron.

If you click back to the Nix frames you will notice that there is a street light in the foreground, as the camera pans right to left, following the limo. This street light disappears as the camera pans left and *Yellow Slacks/Legs* appears. However, this is NOT the same street light as seen in Z369. This is street light number two. Nix's film never pans left enough to pick up street light number three, the one shown in Z369.

You can tell this by checking any map of Dealey Plaza that shows where Nix was standing when he made his film. His field of vision is always going to include street light number two, not street light number three. The lady Ben thinks should be seen in Zapruder is standing way too far back to ever appear in Zapruder.

This is confirmed by the presence of a couple who appear behind the Franzen group in Nix, but whose feet only are visible in Zapruder. *Yellow Legs* is standing much farther back than this couple, so is completely unseen in Zapruder. Even Ben now acknowledges that this couple ARE visible in Zapruder, despite his initial claims to Robert Harris that they were not.

The next time, Curt, that you see Ben refer to other posters as *cowards* or *trolls* or *liars* or questions their character in this particular debate you might remember that it was Mark who originally posted links to the Nix and Zapruder frames and the relevant WC pages, not Ben or David, the supposed experts interested in open discussion.

When they were asked, the best Healy could do was come up with some lame claim that his copy of the UPI book *Four Days* was a black and white galley proof copy and thus useless for identifying *Yellow Slacks/Legs*. Ben backed him up in this claim by stating that he believed him, despite the improbability of David *aeffects* Healy's copy, out of millions sold around the world, being fully in black and white. For the rest of us, *Yellow Legs* is in full colour on page 21 of *Four Days*, bottom photo.

I hope this information will be of use to you, Curt, as you weigh the pros and cons of Z film alteration as it relates to *Yellow Legs* and Z369, Ben's theory. It should hardly be up to me to spell out his theory for you, but I think you'll find he's not very interested in discussing it anymore, apart from a bit of bluster when he thinks nobody is looking.
============================================================
Tim Brennan, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/n5udK4xqa2U/x4Yyc6jmuHEJ

============================================================
[2012-05-05] Response (with summary) from MU to BH.
============================================================
Anyone who bothers to wade through those old threads will find two sets of questions: about Z-369 and about Z-377, respectively. In both cases, the question was answered, the idea behind the question has shot down, and you ran from further discussion. Here's a quick recap:

Question A: How many people can be seen standing in the grass in Z-369? Underlying idea: a couple obscuring the view of the Franzes family in the Nix film should also have appeared in the Z-film. However: the legs/feet/shadows of the couple are visible from Z-334 to 355.

Question B: How many people can be seen standing in the grass in Z-377? Underlying idea: a "lady in yellow pants" seen in the Nix film should also have appeared in the Z film. However: it turned out that you had severely misjudged the location of the "lady in yellow pants" because you mistakenly assumed the lamp post in Z-377 was the same as the one seen in the Nix film just before she entered the picture.

The first idea was, as I understand it, borrowed from Jack "Photogramm...what?" White, and the second has become known as your very own "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory. Also for the record: the fact that you ran away from defending it (or admitting your failure) is what earned you the "Yellow Pants" nickname.

How can you claim, with a straight face, that people ran from answering your questions, when they not only answered them, but also refuted the underlying ideas?
============================================================
Mark Ulrik, a.c.jfk newsgroup post.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/n2l81g_TKFA/1M6Ss2OpPz0J

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Good work, Mark.


The whole incident speaks to Ben's lack of character and dishonesty. All he needed to do was acknowledge what is obvious and move on, yet he finds himself constitutionally unable to ever admit he's wrong, or another conspiracy author/researcher that Ben admires or whatever, is wrong.

Watch Ben demand that the "relevant" portions of the exchange be posted which will, apparently, exonerate him.

Boris the Truther, are you paying attention?

This is why "your side" has absolutely zero credibility with historians and unbiased researchers. This is a religion for guys like you and Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 04:42:47 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

Amusingly, Mark is still TERRIFIED of actually posting answers to what
I actually said in the original thread.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:


>Good work, Mark.

Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.

Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...

Why doesn't Z-133 have 'first frame flash?'

Mark & Chuckly will now tap-dance away...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

It's another Fringe Reset/Harris Award moment. Ben deftly resets the argument to be about something others are supposed to endlessly supply.

Ben will never ever ever perform any tests, nor can he point to any tests, that show Zapruder's 8mm could've been altered to edit out a limo stop, extra shots to JFK, a wide turn, etc.


On your assertion that your original "post" is being misrepresented, try this, Ben:

Post it. Put up or shut up.

Give it a try. Just ONE TIME.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:18:29 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:06:05 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Good work, Mark.
>>
>> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
>> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
>>
>> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...
>>
>> Why doesn't Z-133 have 'first frame flash?'
>>
>> Mark & Chuckly will now tap-dance away...
>
>It's another Fringe Reset/Harris Award moment.

You're lying again, Chuckly.

And *TERRIFIED* to actually answer that original thread.

Carry your burden!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

No, it is a Fringe Reset/Harris Award moment. Again.

I guess we can all understand why you wish the Yellow Pants fiasco would disappear. It's easily the most humiliating, embarrassing thing I've ever seen here at acj.

And to think you could make the whole thing fade away by simply saying, "Gee, I was was wrong. Sorry."

You've got some sort of deep-seated problem. Man up and say you were wrong about the Lady in Yellow Pants You'll feel better once you've finally cleansed yourself. Let's hope the citizens of Encino, California don't pay for your mental illness someday when you're tempted to grab an AR-15 and get even with the world by shooting up a country music concert or school or something.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:57:01 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:41:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:18:29 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:06:05 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Good work, Mark.
>> >>
>> >> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
>> >> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
>> >>
>> >> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...
>> >>
>> >> Why doesn't Z-133 have 'first frame flash?'
>> >>
>> >> Mark & Chuckly will now tap-dance away...
>> >
>> >It's another Fringe Reset/Harris Award moment.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckly.
>>
>> And *TERRIFIED* to actually answer that original thread.
>>
>> Carry your burden!
>
>No, it is a Fringe Reset/Harris Award moment. Again.

You're lying again, Chuckly.

You can't cite any answer EVER given to that question. How can it be a
"reset" when the question WAS NEVER ANSWERED???

You're a coward.

> I guess we can all understand why you wish the Yellow Pants fiasco
> would disappear. It's easily the most humiliating, embarrassing thing
> I've ever seen here at acj.

Not embarrassing to me. **CLEARLY** embarrassing to you - since you
completely refuse to post your answer in that thread.

YOU'RE SIMPLY TERRIFIED OF THE Z-FILM ALTERATION EVIDENCE.

> And to think you could make the whole thing fade away by simply
> saying, "Gee, I was was wrong. Sorry."

Molesting the neigborhood children again, eh teacher?

> You've got some sort of deep-seated problem.

Whine whine whine...

The only "problem" I have is that I know the evidence well enough to
spot your lying and cowardice.

> Man up and say you were wrong about the Lady in Yellow Pants

Man up and ANSWER my posts on the topic.

> You'll feel better once you've finally cleansed yourself. Let's
> hope the citizens of Encino, California don't pay for your mental
> illness someday when you're tempted to grab an AR-15 and get even with
> the world by shooting up a country music concert or school or
> something.

This is simply another example of how poorly believers research
things. Encino is an hour's drive from here... I've never lived there.

You can feel safe visiting Encino... I won't be around to spank you.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 9:08:38 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:57:01 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:41:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:18:29 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:06:05 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Good work, Mark.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
> >> >> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
> >> >>
> >> >> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...
> >> >>
> >> >> Why doesn't Z-133 have 'first frame flash?'
> >> >>
> >> >> Mark & Chuckly will now tap-dance away...
> >> >
> >> >It's another Fringe Reset/Harris Award moment.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Chuckly.
> >>
> >> And *TERRIFIED* to actually answer that original thread.
> >>
> >> Carry your burden!
> >
> >No, it is a Fringe Reset/Harris Award moment. Again.
>
> You're lying again, Chuckly.
>
> You can't cite any answer EVER given to that question. How can it be a
> "reset" when the question WAS NEVER ANSWERED???
>
> You're a coward.

Answered with tens of thousands of research in donated man-hours and taxpayer money in the 1970s. The Zapruder film is authentic. I don't need to re-answer it. If you think the Zapruder film is fake, you can run tests and show what you allege (the limo stop and other things you believe in) by tinkering with 8mm film from the early 1960s and proving it can be done.

That's your burden, not mine. Man up.

>
>
> > I guess we can all understand why you wish the Yellow Pants fiasco
> > would disappear. It's easily the most humiliating, embarrassing thing
> > I've ever seen here at acj.
>
>
> Not embarrassing to me. **CLEARLY** embarrassing to you - since you
> completely refuse to post your answer in that thread.
>
> YOU'RE SIMPLY TERRIFIED OF THE Z-FILM ALTERATION EVIDENCE.

I'm not terrified by it. I'm amused this is even a topic of debate. Post your research and show it's feasible to edit out a limo stop, etc. Carry your burden.

>
>
> > And to think you could make the whole thing fade away by simply
> > saying, "Gee, I was was wrong. Sorry."
>
>
> Molesting the neigborhood children again, eh teacher?

Translation: Ben's thinking about the neighborhood children again. Fire up the windowless van and pick up some candy at the corner store, Ben!

>
>
> > You've got some sort of deep-seated problem.
>
> Whine whine whine...
>
> The only "problem" I have is that I know the evidence well enough to
> spot your lying and cowardice.
>
>
> > Man up and say you were wrong about the Lady in Yellow Pants
>
> Man up and ANSWER my posts on the topic.
>
> > You'll feel better once you've finally cleansed yourself. Let's
> > hope the citizens of Encino, California don't pay for your mental
> > illness someday when you're tempted to grab an AR-15 and get even with
> > the world by shooting up a country music concert or school or
> > something.
>
> This is simply another example of how poorly believers research
> things. Encino is an hour's drive from here... I've never lived there.

See your claim that I'm a schoolteacher. Anyways, you've probably scouted shooting locations there.

>
> You can feel safe visiting Encino... I won't be around to spank you.

You'd need a step ladder.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:11:04 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Then all you have to do is copy & paste that answer.

But you can't... you're lying.

> The Zapruder film is authentic. I don't need to re-answer it.

Yes moron, you do. If the answers have NEVER been given, then it's
your burden to give them.

> If you think the Zapruder film is fake,

No stupid, no-one is saying that the Zapruder film is "fake."

This is the logical fallacy that morons like you use to trash
something they refuse to defend.

The film was *ALTERED* - and this isn't the impossibility you pretend
that it is.

Films are **ROUTINELY** altered every day in Hollywood.

> you can run tests and show
> what you allege (the limo stop and other things you believe in) by
> tinkering with 8mm film from the early 1960s and proving it can be
> done.

How can I "run a test" to show that dozens of eyewitnesses who
reported a limo slowdown/stop are wrong?

That's *YOUR* burden... not mine.

>That's your burden, not mine. Man up.

You keep making claims you refuse to support. Why is that, liar?

>> > I guess we can all understand why you wish the Yellow Pants fiasco
>> > would disappear. It's easily the most humiliating, embarrassing thing
>> > I've ever seen here at acj.
>>
>>
>> Not embarrassing to me. **CLEARLY** embarrassing to you - since you
>> completely refuse to post your answer in that thread.
>>
>> YOU'RE SIMPLY TERRIFIED OF THE Z-FILM ALTERATION EVIDENCE.
>
> I'm not terrified by it. I'm amused this is even a topic of debate.

And yet, you keep running like a coward.

Why doesn't Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'

Don't whine and say that this has been answered IF YOU CANNOT COPY &
PASTE THE ANSWER... or at *least* cite it.

> Post your research and show it's feasible to edit out a limo stop,
> etc. Carry your burden.

E.T. really didn't get on a bicycle and fly away, stupid!

>> > And to think you could make the whole thing fade away by simply
>> > saying, "Gee, I was was wrong. Sorry."
>>
>> Molesting the neigborhood children again, eh teacher?
>
>Translation: Ben's thinking about the neighborhood children again.
> Fire up the windowless van and pick up some candy at the corner
> store, Ben!

Is that how you do it?

The *correct* translation is that you've been caught again making
false claims about what I've said.

Why do you have to flagrantly lie to make your point?

>> > You've got some sort of deep-seated problem.
>>
>> Whine whine whine...
>>
>> The only "problem" I have is that I know the evidence well enough to
>> spot your lying and cowardice.
>>
>> > Man up and say you were wrong about the Lady in Yellow Pants
>>
>> Man up and ANSWER my posts on the topic.
>>
>> > You'll feel better once you've finally cleansed yourself. Let's
>> > hope the citizens of Encino, California don't pay for your mental
>> > illness someday when you're tempted to grab an AR-15 and get even with
>> > the world by shooting up a country music concert or school or
>> > something.
>>
>> This is simply another example of how poorly believers research
>> things. Encino is an hour's drive from here... I've never lived there.
>
> See your claim that I'm a schoolteacher. Anyways, you've probably
> scouted shooting locations there.

Well, I must confess that I *really* figured you for the school
janitor, but didn't want to paint all janitors with your cowardice.

>> You can feel safe visiting Encino... I won't be around to spank you.
>
>You'd need a step ladder.

Morons like you still haven't quite figured out that insults with no
basis in fact are simply silly.

Last time I was "short" - I was in elementary school - yet *YOU* are
provably a moron. (as I demonstrate time and time again...)

[Mark Ulrik]

onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 16.06.05 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Good work, Mark.
>
> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.

But I *did* quote your exact words above. Are you claiming that I didn't? Or that I left out something important? Be specific.

> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...

Poor Ben. Hmmm, if you really think I'm misrepresenting what you said, then why are you so cagey about it? Don't you want to set the record straight? Don't you want to show the world how deceptive I am? Well, here is your big chance, Ben. Post some examples. Don't pull your punches.

NB! A few weeks ago, I gave you an opportunity to explain your "Lady in Lady Pants" theory. In your own words, 2008 or 2018 version, your choice.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UpiRuPFqFwE/kMEoK-H1AAAJ

Your response: "Been there, done that, you ran."

Well, I was the first to answer your "how many people in the grass in Z-377" question back in 2008. Is that what you consider "running"? Look at the timeline. Read the posts (links are provided). The first part of your response is interesting, though. It's unusual for you to even admit that there is such a thing as a "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.

> Why doesn't Z-133 have 'first frame flash?'
>
> Mark & Chuckly will now tap-dance away...

Read the thread title, Ben. We all know that you desperately want to change the subject, but this is about your "Lady in Lady Pants" theory. Let's try to keep it that way, mkay?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

>onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 16.06.05 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Good work, Mark.
>>
>> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
>> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
>
> But I *did* quote your exact words above. Are you claiming that I
> didn't? Or that I left out something important? Be specific.

You're lying again, Mark.

>> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...
>
> Poor Ben. Hmmm, if you really think I'm misrepresenting what you
> said, then why are you so cagey about it? Don't you want to set the
> record straight? Don't you want to show the world how deceptive I am?
> Well, here is your big chance, Ben. Post some examples. Don't pull
> your punches.

Keep bringing it up!!!

I'll keep pointing out that you're TERRIFIED of posting an answer in
the original thread - where *EVERYONE* can actually read what I wrote.

Not the ravings of liars who *pretend* I wrote something.

Now, why doesn't Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'

Are you another science denier?

Do you understand what inertia is?

[Bud]

What does this strawman have to do with Ben`s theory about the Lady in the Yellow Pants theory, lurkers?

> Are you another science denier?
>
> Do you understand what inertia is?

Ben desperately wants to make it about something else, lurkers. He offered the Lady in the Yellow Pants as evidence of film alteration. Has he retreated from this position?

[Mark Ulrik]

torsdag den 21. juni 2018 kl. 18.58.53 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 16.06.05 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Good work, Mark.
> >>
> >> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
> >> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
> >
> > But I *did* quote your exact words above. Are you claiming that I
> > didn't? Or that I left out something important? Be specific.
>
> You're lying again, Mark.

About what? I asked you to be specific.

> >> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...
> >
> > Poor Ben. Hmmm, if you really think I'm misrepresenting what you
> > said, then why are you so cagey about it? Don't you want to set the
> > record straight? Don't you want to show the world how deceptive I am?
> > Well, here is your big chance, Ben. Post some examples. Don't pull
> > your punches.
>
> Keep bringing it up!!!
>
> I'll keep pointing out that you're TERRIFIED of posting an answer in
> the original thread - where *EVERYONE* can actually read what I wrote.

Or they could read the quotes in my timeline. Or they could click on the links and read the original posts. Or you could tell us right here what you "actually" wrote. Why do you refuse to set the record straight?

> Not the ravings of liars who *pretend* I wrote something.

Oh, you did write *something* all right. Something that has caused you a lot of embarrassment over the years. Something that you'd dearly wish you could take back or that everyone would just forget. Something that makes you spout childish insults whenever you are reminded of your fiasco.

> Now, why doesn't Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
>
> Are you another science denier?
>
> Do you understand what inertia is?

Explain your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory in your own words. What is it, specifically, that people have said about your theory that you think is so misleading and unfair?

Do you still consider your theory definite proof of Z film and/or N film alteration?

Explain why you're constantly trying to change the subject.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>

wrote:

>torsdag den 21. juni 2018 kl. 18.58.53 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 16.06.05 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Good work, Mark.
>> >>
>> >> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
>> >> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
>> >
>> > But I *did* quote your exact words above. Are you claiming that I
>> > didn't? Or that I left out something important? Be specific.
>>
>> You're lying again, Mark.
>
>About what? I asked you to be specific.

The fact that you're not quoting me accurately is proven by your
refusal to simply cite the post.

That way, EVERYONE could read what I wrote, and not your
misrepresentation of what I said.

>> >> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...
>> >
>> > Poor Ben. Hmmm, if you really think I'm misrepresenting what you
>> > said, then why are you so cagey about it? Don't you want to set the
>> > record straight? Don't you want to show the world how deceptive I am?
>> > Well, here is your big chance, Ben. Post some examples. Don't pull
>> > your punches.
>>
>> Keep bringing it up!!!
>>
>> I'll keep pointing out that you're TERRIFIED of posting an answer in
>> the original thread - where *EVERYONE* can actually read what I wrote.
>
> Or they could read the quotes in my timeline.

A "timeline" of lies...

> Or they could click on the links and read the original posts. Or
> you could tell us right here what you "actually" wrote. Why do you
> refuse to set the record straight?

The record is still there. Anyone can read... anyone can see that
believers ran.

As you're currently doing.

>> Not the ravings of liars who *pretend* I wrote something.
>
> Oh, you did write *something* all right. Something that has caused
> you a lot of embarrassment over the years. Something that you'd dearly
> wish you could take back or that everyone would just forget. Something
> that makes you spout childish insults whenever you are reminded of
> your fiasco.

It's not a "childish insult" to point out your cowardice as you
continue to refuse to address scientific fact.

Inertia is a fact.

You're a science denier - because you believe inertia didn't exist on
11/22/63.

Z-133 will forever confound you.

>> Now, why doesn't Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
>>
>> Are you another science denier?
>>
>> Do you understand what inertia is?
>
> Explain your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory in your own words. What
> is it, specifically, that people have said about your theory that you
> think is so misleading and unfair?

Been there, done that, you ran.

>Do you still consider your theory definite proof of Z film and/or N film alteration?
>
>Explain why you're constantly trying to change the subject.

The topic is Z-film alteration.

**YOU** admit that.

Now, why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?

And do you believe in inertia?

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi Mark,

Excellent summary of what happened re the *Lady In Yellow Pants* saga.

Amusing that even TEN YEARS later Holmes is still avoiding direct discussion of the issues.

What a GUTLESS COWARD he is!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Benny's hero Mark Lane lied!

[Jason Burke]

More likely he'll get pulled in for something he did while rasslin' with
little girls.


The boy does seem to know a lot about child molestation...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

>onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 16.06.05 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Good work, Mark.
>>
>> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
>> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
>
>But I *did* quote your exact words above.

Do you give me permission to quote your EXACT words - and say nothing
other than that I quoted you exactly?

>> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...
>
> Poor Ben. Hmmm, if you really think I'm misrepresenting what you
> said, then why are you so cagey about it?

It's "cagey" to demand you cite the original thread? How silly of you!

Believers were terrified back then, and they'll be just as terrified
now.

> Don't you want to set the record straight? Don't you want to show
> the world how deceptive I am? Well, here is your big chance, Ben.
> Post some examples. Don't pull your punches.

Of course.

Acknowledge that dufus told a whopper about my ability to produce the
evidence.

You won't.

Thus proving that nothing I say or do can force you to tell the truth.

> NB! A few weeks ago, I gave you an opportunity to explain your "Lady
> in Lady Pants" theory. In your own words, 2008 or 2018 version, your
> choice.

Been there, done that, you ran.

You're *STILL* running.

[Ben Holmes]

>On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 8:57:46 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:47:23 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 8:31:30 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 05:20:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:58:04 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You're right. Explain why his defense team didn't bring this up.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Probably because they figured such an argument wouldn't make their client somehow *less* guilty. So they opted for the insanity plea, aka the pussiest plea in the legal justice system.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You're the one making claims, you should be the one offering explanations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I did. You're the one saying I didn't do it correctly. Now you want *me* to explain away *your* judgement. Just how insane are you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You haven't established Sirhan didn't shoot RFK in the head.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The physical impossibility does a good job of that for me. Unless Sirhan is also Mr. Tickle from the Roger Hargreaves book.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Sirhan says he did it, and a jury agreed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Your vote of confidence in Sirhan is touching, honestly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Then if you have NO idea, ONE idea is that Sirhan fired the shot in question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not possible, unfortunately.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > How about this: Sirhan was a few inches closer than what SOME of the eyewitnesses remembered or reported, and RFK did twist his body when Sirhan yelled, "Kennedy! You SOB!" and started firing, his arm outstretched, utter chaos and mayhem resulting, with people trying to grab Sirhan, people falling, pushing into one another, etc. After all, Sirhan's own investigator said Sirhan told him he tried to shoot RFK right between the eyes, "but that SOB turned at the last second."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sounds like an empty claim to me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Why did Oswald run to the theater after the assassination?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What an odd question to ask in the middle of my observation about whom the suspects must be for a second shooter. You obviously don't want to go there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just a question I wanted to throw out there. Surely you don't think I'm crazy enough to believe YOU would answer it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Okay, I'm going to "pivot" and keep the thread about Benny and his
>> >> > Yellow Pants fiasco. If you want to take up Sirhan and RFK, let's
>> >> > post at one of the RFK threads already started.
>> >>
>> >> Having lost the Sirhan debate with his admission - Chuckly now turns
>> >> to another way of looking stupid.
>> >>
>> >> Why isn't 'first frame flash' seen in Z-133?
>> >
>> >Fringe Reset/Harris Award.
>>
>> Since this has **NEVER** been answered, you're simply lying again,
>> Chuckly.
>>
>> Amusingly, you are denying science... you believe that inertia isn't
>> scientific.
>>
>> You're a science denier.
>>
>>
>> > Where's the "original" post you keep complaining is being
>> > misrepresented about your Yellow Pants fiasco?
>>
>> No "complaining" needed. The fact that none of you morons will cite it
>> shows that *YOU* are afraid of the topic.
>>
>> Not me.
>>
>> I've challenged you REPEATEDLY to bring up that thread... post an
>> answer to what I stated.
>>
>>
>> > I'm happy to post about Sirhan on one of the other threads about
>> > RFK. Let's keep this one about you and your Yellow Pants disaster.
>>
>> No you aren't.
>>
>> You're TERRIFIED of even publicly acknowledging where the fatal bullet
>> struck, and what it's trajectory was.
>>
>> You lost the moment you admitted that Sirhan Sirhan's guilt doesn't
>> preclude other shooters.
>
> I've posted at the Sirhan threads. Let's keep this one about your
> Yellow Pants fiasco. Care to discuss Z 369?

This thread is about how terrified you are.

And the lies you're telling...

Carry your burden, coward!

[Mark Ulrik]

torsdag den 21. juni 2018 kl. 20.29.03 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >torsdag den 21. juni 2018 kl. 18.58.53 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 16.06.05 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Good work, Mark.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
> >> >> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
> >> >
> >> > But I *did* quote your exact words above. Are you claiming that I
> >> > didn't? Or that I left out something important? Be specific.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Mark.
> >
> >About what? I asked you to be specific.
>
> The fact that you're not quoting me accurately is proven by your
> refusal to simply cite the post.
>
> That way, EVERYONE could read what I wrote, and not your
> misrepresentation of what I said.

Tsk tsk. Why don't you take the quotes from my timeline and your actual words and post them here, side by side? That way, everyone can see who's lying.

> >> >> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...
> >> >
> >> > Poor Ben. Hmmm, if you really think I'm misrepresenting what you
> >> > said, then why are you so cagey about it? Don't you want to set the
> >> > record straight? Don't you want to show the world how deceptive I am?
> >> > Well, here is your big chance, Ben. Post some examples. Don't pull
> >> > your punches.
> >>
> >> Keep bringing it up!!!
> >>
> >> I'll keep pointing out that you're TERRIFIED of posting an answer in
> >> the original thread - where *EVERYONE* can actually read what I wrote.
> >
> > Or they could read the quotes in my timeline.
>
> A "timeline" of lies...

It contains verbatim Ben Holmes quotes, so it would be foolish to expect otherwise.

> > Or they could click on the links and read the original posts. Or
> > you could tell us right here what you "actually" wrote. Why do you
> > refuse to set the record straight?
>
> The record is still there. Anyone can read... anyone can see that
> believers ran.

No one ran. Check the timeline.

> As you're currently doing.

What I'm currently doing is trying to discuss your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory with you.

> >> Not the ravings of liars who *pretend* I wrote something.
> >
> > Oh, you did write *something* all right. Something that has caused
> > you a lot of embarrassment over the years. Something that you'd dearly
> > wish you could take back or that everyone would just forget. Something
> > that makes you spout childish insults whenever you are reminded of
> > your fiasco.
>
> It's not a "childish insult" to point out your cowardice as you
> continue to refuse to address scientific fact.

There is nothing scientific about your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.

> Inertia is a fact.
>
> You're a science denier - because you believe inertia didn't exist on
> 11/22/63.
>
> Z-133 will forever confound you.

Kindly explain what Z-133 has to do with your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory?

> >> Now, why doesn't Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
> >>
> >> Are you another science denier?
> >>
> >> Do you understand what inertia is?
> >
> > Explain your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory in your own words. What
> > is it, specifically, that people have said about your theory that you
> > think is so misleading and unfair?
>
> Been there, done that, you ran.

I never expected an honest answer, of course, but it's still breathtaking how effortlessly you keep lying about this.

> >Do you still consider your theory definite proof of Z film and/or N film alteration?
> >
> >Explain why you're constantly trying to change the subject.
>
> The topic is Z-film alteration.
>
> **YOU** admit that.

Hint: Read the thread title again.

> Now, why is there no 'first frame flash' at Z-133?
>
> And do you believe in inertia?

Oh, intertia is real. Just look at the amount of traction your precious "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory has been getting since 2008.

Why did you give up on it without a fight, Ben? Didn't you want to become the hero who blew the lid off the Conspiracy? Didn't it appeal to you to become an instant celebrity and date supermodels? Or did it finally dawn on you how ill thought out your theory was?

[Mark Ulrik]

Thanks, Tim. I hope it was reasonably fair, although I did leave out a lot of Ben's bragging about how no one would ever dare answer his questions.

> Amusing that even TEN YEARS later Holmes is still avoiding direct discussion of the issues.
>
> What a GUTLESS COWARD he is!

It's kind of sad and amusing at the same time. He was so invigorated by his brilliant theory. Wish I could have seen his face when he finally realized what a complete and utter load of bollocks it was.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>

wrote:

>torsdag den 21. juni 2018 kl. 20.29.03 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >torsdag den 21. juni 2018 kl. 18.58.53 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 16.06.05 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Good work, Mark.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
>> >> >> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
>> >> >
>> >> > But I *did* quote your exact words above. Are you claiming that I
>> >> > didn't? Or that I left out something important? Be specific.
>> >>
>> >> You're lying again, Mark.
>> >
>> >About what? I asked you to be specific.
>>
>> The fact that you're not quoting me accurately is proven by your
>> refusal to simply cite the post.
>>
>> That way, EVERYONE could read what I wrote, and not your
>> misrepresentation of what I said.
>
> Tsk tsk. Why don't you take the quotes from my timeline and your
> actual words and post them here, side by side? That way, everyone can
> see who's lying.

Actually, other believers have already stated that you're lying.

The argument is often made that Mark Lane "lied" by omission.

You're omitting my post.

Therefore, you're omitting the context of my statements.

That makes you a liar.

Why are you so terrified of simply posting in that thread?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:52:49 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

>fredag den 22. juni 2018 kl. 00.35.51 UTC+2 skrev tims...@gmail.com:
>> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 21:42:48 UTC+10, Mark Ulrik wrote:

...

>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Excellent summary of what happened re the *Lady In Yellow Pants* saga.
>
> Thanks, Tim. I hope it was reasonably fair, although I did leave out
> a lot of Ben's bragging about how no one would ever dare answer his
> questions.

Amusingly, no-one ever did.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

One of Ben's favorite swamp post tactics. Just claim the other side is "lying" about his initial intent or whatever. Unfortunately or Ben, others can see who's really lying.


Why are you so terrified of posting the post you say shows everyone is "lying" about your intent? Just think of the sweet satisfaction you'd have by offering your proof.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> Just think of the sweet satisfaction you'd have by offering your proof.

Remember folks, this is coming from someone who NEVER supports his position and whines about shifting the burden, now asking Ben to shift the burden and disprove someone else.

[Jason Burke]

On 6/22/2018 6:34 AM, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> torsdag den 21. juni 2018 kl. 20.29.03 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:12:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> torsdag den 21. juni 2018 kl. 18.58.53 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 16.06.05 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good work, Mark.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
>>>>>> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I *did* quote your exact words above. Are you claiming that I
>>>>> didn't? Or that I left out something important? Be specific.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, Mark.
>>>
>>> About what? I asked you to be specific.
>>
>> The fact that you're not quoting me accurately is proven by your
>> refusal to simply cite the post.
>>
>> That way, EVERYONE could read what I wrote, and not your
>> misrepresentation of what I said.
>

> Tsk tsk. Why don't you take the quotes from my timeline and your actual words and post them here, side by side? That way, everyone can see who's lying..

Bennie-boy is blowing something...

[Bud]

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:07:19 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just think of the sweet satisfaction you'd have by offering your proof.
>
> Remember folks, this is coming from someone who NEVER supports his position and whines about shifting the burden, now asking Ben to shift the burden and disprove someone else.

You don`t seem to have the slightest idea what is going on here. Ben put forth an idea. That idea was challenged in several different ways, almost all of which Ben simply ignored.

[Bud]

Gotta start giving these things names, they are easier to counter when they are identifiable. We all ready have the "Harris Fringe Reset Award". Perhaps this one could be the "Ben Holmes Lady in the Yellow Pants Diversion Gambit".

On the bright side, whenever Ben starts posts about the "Oswald reading the newspaper in the domino room" issue I can now respond that since Ben hasn`t included every word I had to say on the subject that he is lying.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 11:07:19 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just think of the sweet satisfaction you'd have by offering your proof.
>
> Remember folks, this is coming from someone who NEVER supports his position and whines about shifting the burden, now asking Ben to shift the burden and disprove someone else.

I think the new President of the Ben Holmes Fan Club, Boris the Truther, misunderstands what shifting the burden is. Mark has posted the exchanges, Ben claims he hasn't. That's hardly shifting the burden!

Most likely, your hero Ben is engaging in his own logical fallacy called Distinction without a Difference. Perhaps something is worded slightly different or whatever from the original post or thread, allowing Ben to feign "outrage" over not someone posting the "original" Holmes post that got this rolling. You're new here, but that's an old Holmes tactic.

Concerning my "never" supporting my positions, keep in mind that I do not have a position different than the prevailing, historically accepted conclusion that Oswald fired all the shots that killed or wounded anyone. You can find the WCR, HSCA conclusions, etc. all online. Once "your side" puts up something for consideration, we can take a look at it. The choice isn't Oswald Alone or conspiracy. The choice is Oswald Alone or a specific theory.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
>
> I think the new President of the Ben Holmes Fan Club, Boris the Truther, misunderstands what shifting the burden is.

I know exactly what it is. I even had to school your little retarded friend here yesterday:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/su-Ujkn_htk/heMz8_y0AwAJ

By the way, I noticed you remained silent after he vomited out that post. I suppose you are content to let your little jackass Bud-dy make a total idiot of himself. He *could* have used your help, but instead you offered him your cowardice, which is SO much more. Or maybe you gave up on him too, like the rest of us. At least that I could understand.

>
> Mark has posted the exchanges, Ben claims he hasn't. That's hardly shifting the burden!

More than anything I was highlighting the other part, the stuff about the sweet satisfaction of offering proof. I know you've never had that satisfaction yourself. But don't worry, you'll pop your cherry one day.

[Bud]

This guy never has anything to say.

[Mark Ulrik]

Only one (conspiracy) believer that I can think of. But he's just an abusive buff whose pet theory got busted, so who cares?

> The argument is often made that Mark Lane "lied" by omission.
>
> You're omitting my post.
>
> Therefore, you're omitting the context of my statements.
>
> That makes you a liar.

Lane omitted the WCR. What does that make him?

> Why are you so terrified of simply posting in that thread?

Ironically, some of us did post in that thread 10 years ago, and you've been running as if your pants were on fire ever since.

[Mark Ulrik]

Wrong. Check the timeline.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:44:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

No... they can't. Because they are only capable of reading *ONE*
side's assertions.

That's why I make such a simple request... don't lie about what I've
said... respond IN THE THREAD WHERE I MADE MY POINTS.

That way, everyone *CAN* see both sides of the 'debate'.

What you're doing right now is evading the points I made.

> Why are you so terrified of posting the post you say shows everyone
> is "lying" about your intent? Just think of the sweet satisfaction
> you'd have by offering your proof.

That's the question *YOU* need to address.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:24:31 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Concerning my "never" supporting my positions, keep in mind that I
> do not have a position different than the prevailing, historically
> accepted conclusion that Oswald fired all the shots that killed or
> wounded anyone. You can find the WCR, HSCA conclusions, etc. all
> online.

So you accept that the WC made many mistakes, and that there *IS* a
"probable conspiracy" in this case.

But... of course... you're lying.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:34:09 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>

Name *ONE* believer who will *PUBLICLY* reject the idea that Mark Lane
lied by omission.

But you won't... you're simply lying again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:36:22 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>

wrote:

>fredag den 22. juni 2018 kl. 16.42.54 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:52:49 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >fredag den 22. juni 2018 kl. 00.35.51 UTC+2 skrev tims...@gmail.com:
>> >> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 21:42:48 UTC+10, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>> ...
>> >> Hi Mark,
>> >>
>> >> Excellent summary of what happened re the *Lady In Yellow Pants* saga.
>> >
>> > Thanks, Tim. I hope it was reasonably fair, although I did leave out
>> > a lot of Ben's bragging about how no one would ever dare answer his
>> > questions.
>>
>> Amusingly, no-one ever did.
>
>Wrong. Check the timeline.

[Mark Ulrik]

Go peddle your Mark Lane drivel somewhere else, Ben. This thread is about your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.

[tims...@gmail.com]

He's lying again?! No, the person who is lying again is YOU, Holmes.

This is from the timeline, Holmes:

QUOTE ON:

> > The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
>
> Two (outside of the intersprocket area).
>
> > How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?
>
> Two.

QUOTE OFF

> > Represents YOU, Holmes and > represents Mark Ulrik.

He has QUITE CLEARLY answered questions in the original threads, Holmes.

Where do you get off with such blatant LYING, Holmes?!

You dig a bigger hole for yourself with EVERY lying post you make, Holmes.

JFK research credibility is a thing of the past for you now, Holmes.

Case CLOSED!

Informative Regards,

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:50:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 12:58:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 16.06.05 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Good work, Mark.
>> >>
>> >> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
>> >> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
>> >
>> > But I *did* quote your exact words above. Are you claiming that I
>> > didn't? Or that I left out something important? Be specific.
>>
>>

>> You're lying again, Mark.
>>
>>

>> >> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...
>> >
>> > Poor Ben. Hmmm, if you really think I'm misrepresenting what you
>> > said, then why are you so cagey about it? Don't you want to set the
>> > record straight? Don't you want to show the world how deceptive I am?
>> > Well, here is your big chance, Ben. Post some examples. Don't pull
>> > your punches.
>>
>> Keep bringing it up!!!
>>
>> I'll keep pointing out that you're TERRIFIED of posting an answer in
>> the original thread - where *EVERYONE* can actually read what I wrote.
>>

>> Not the ravings of liars who *pretend* I wrote something.
>>

>> Now, why doesn't Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
>

> What does this strawman have to do with Ben`s theory about the Lady in the Yellow Pants theory, lurkers?


Even **YOU** acknowledge that the topic is film alteration...

So you're lying here, aren't you?

>> Are you another science denier?
>>
>> Do you understand what inertia is?
>

> Ben desperately wants to make it about something else, lurkers.

Z-film alteration.

Which was, and always has been, the topic.

> He offered the Lady in the Yellow Pants as evidence of film
> alteration. Has he retreated from this position?

Amusingly, you *STILL* refuse to cite what I actually said.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 12:12:43 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>

Your inability to support your claim shows that even *YOU* know you've
been caught lying again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 19:15:29 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, 23 June 2018 23:45:09 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:36:22 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >fredag den 22. juni 2018 kl. 16.42.54 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:52:49 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >fredag den 22. juni 2018 kl. 00.35.51 UTC+2 skrev tims...@gmail.com:
>> >> >> On Wednesday, 20 June 2018 21:42:48 UTC+10, Mark Ulrik wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >> >> Hi Mark,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Excellent summary of what happened re the *Lady In Yellow Pants* saga.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks, Tim. I hope it was reasonably fair, although I did leave out
>> >> > a lot of Ben's bragging about how no one would ever dare answer his
>> >> > questions.
>> >>
>> >> Amusingly, no-one ever did.
>> >
>> >Wrong. Check the timeline.
>>
>> You're lying again, Mark.
>
>He's lying again?

Of course.

It's practically axiomatic that believers will run from questions
about the evidence in this case.

Take, for example, did the Warren Commission argue that Oswald used
the scope?

You can't answer this...

Because the *correct* answer proves you a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> On the bright side, whenever Ben starts posts about the "Oswald
> reading the newspaper in the domino room" issue I can now respond that
> since Ben hasn`t included every word I had to say on the subject that
> he is lying.

What statement did you make that turns your lie into something other
than a lie?

Post and cite it here:

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:50:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 12:58:53 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 16.06.05 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:41:06 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Good work, Mark.
>> >>
>> >> Nah... "good work" would be posting the answers to my questions in the
>> >> original thread... so people could see what I *actually* said.
>> >
>> > But I *did* quote your exact words above. Are you claiming that I
>> > didn't? Or that I left out something important? Be specific.
>>
>>

>> You're lying again, Mark.
>>
>>

>> >> Rather than the constant lies & misrepresentation...
>> >
>> > Poor Ben. Hmmm, if you really think I'm misrepresenting what you
>> > said, then why are you so cagey about it? Don't you want to set the
>> > record straight? Don't you want to show the world how deceptive I am?
>> > Well, here is your big chance, Ben. Post some examples. Don't pull
>> > your punches.
>>
>> Keep bringing it up!!!
>>
>> I'll keep pointing out that you're TERRIFIED of posting an answer in
>> the original thread - where *EVERYONE* can actually read what I wrote.
>>
>> Not the ravings of liars who *pretend* I wrote something.
>>
>> Now, why doesn't Z-133 show 'first frame flash?'
>
> What does this strawman have to do with Ben`s theory about the
> Lady in the Yellow Pants theory, lurkers?

Simple moron - it's the same issue.

The authenticity of the extant Z-film.

I understand why you're TERRIFIED of answering, as is Mark and
Chuckly... but it only illustrates that you know you've lost.

>> Are you another science denier?
>>
>> Do you understand what inertia is?
>

> Ben desperately wants to make it about something else, lurkers. He

> offered the Lady in the Yellow Pants as evidence of film alteration.
> Has he retreated from this position?

Have you EVER had the courage to respond in that thread?

[tims...@gmail.com]

LOL! Benny accusing someone else of lying! It is to laugh, as they say, Yellow Pants!

Chortlin' Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Ben Holmes]

>LOL! Benny accusing someone else of ...

Cowardice... Absolutely!

Can *YOU* name any fellow believer who thinks that the statement "Mark
Lane lied by omiission" is not true?

You'll not answer, of course... you're a provable coward.

[tims...@gmail.com]

What does the rifle scope have to do with a thread about your failed *Lady In Yellow Pants* drivel Holmes?

Absolutely NOTHING, Yellow Pants! You are simply demonstrating your COWARDICE by trying to change the subject away from your TLIYP gaffe me ol' Yellow Pants mate!

Lurkers aren't stupid, Benny.

[tims...@gmail.com]

LOL! Can I name any fellow believer who thinks that the statement "Mark Lane lied by omission" is not true?

Why TF would any "believers" think that Mark Lane DIDN'T lie by omission, Benny? He is a proven and documented liar!

He lied by OMISSION, he lied OVERTLY. The man, in the matter of the JFK assassination, is a proven LIAR, Holmes.

No wonder he is YOUR hero, Yellow Pants!

Now stop trying to change the subject from your Lady In Yellow Pants creation, Benny. She awaits you on MULTIPLE threads!

Nad up and admit that you are WRONG!

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[Ben Holmes]

I wonder if Mark was too smart to answer, or you were too dumb.

In any case, you've just proven Mark a liar... He did EXACTLY what you
accuse Mark Lane of.

And, of course, you do the same...

So by your own words, you've proven yourself a liar.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Ben Holmes]

Answer the question, and you'll find out.

Keep running like the coward you are, and you'll never know.

[Bud]

That is what Ben desperately wants to make it about, lurkers. this thread is exploring Ben ideas about the lady in the yellow pants.

> So you're lying here, aren't you?
>
>
> >> Are you another science denier?
> >>
> >> Do you understand what inertia is?
> >
> > Ben desperately wants to make it about something else, lurkers.
>
> Z-film alteration.

That is what Ben desperately wants to make it about, lurkers. this thread is exploring Ben ideas about the lady in the yellow pants.

> Which was, and always has been, the topic.
>
> > He offered the Lady in the Yellow Pants as evidence of film
> > alteration. Has he retreated from this position?
>
> Amusingly, you *STILL* refuse to cite what I actually said.

Does Ben dispute that this the idea he was putting forth, lurkers?

[Bud]

Shifting the burden, lurkers. Using the standard Ben is employing he has to produce every word I said on a subject before he can challenge it, or call it a lie.

[Bud]

Ben is lying, lurkers. The lady in the yellow pants was offered by Ben as a specific example of film alteration. It is a completely different issue than first frame flash.

[tims...@gmail.com]

LOL! You're the one who has been running from further discussion of The Lady In Yellow Pants for TEN YEARS now Holmes!

Your endless attempts to change the subject are simply LAUGHABLE!

How could you make such a NEWB mistake of believing a Jack White Z369 theory in the first place, Benny! He was too HOPELESS to even use the right Nix frame in his MIDP rubbish!

KUTGW Yellow Pants!

Chortlin' Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane, the hero of YELLOW PANTS, lied!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Bump.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:14:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Calling yourself a liar now, dufus?

Stump isn't going to like that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:18:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Stump is whining that film alteration and 'first frame flash' are
different issues.

WHAT AN IDIOTIC ASSERTION!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:16:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 12:32:38 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On the bright side, whenever Ben starts posts about the "Oswald
>> > reading the newspaper in the domino room" issue I can now respond that
>> > since Ben hasn`t included every word I had to say on the subject that
>> > he is lying.
>>
>> What statement did you make that turns your lie into something other
>> than a lie?
>

> Shifting the burden...

If **YOU** claim it's not a lie in the face of the proof I offered,
then it's YOUR burden to carry.

CARRY YOUR BURDEN!