It's Truly Amusing How Easy It Is...

[Ben Holmes]

To run off believers...

All you have to do is keep citing & quoting the evidence... and believers just get frustrated and leave.

The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...

Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.

The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.

Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.

And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.

[Jason Burke]

Yawn. You're still a dumbfuck without a clue, Homie-boy.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> To run off believers...
>
> All you have to do is keep citing & quoting the evidence... and believers just get frustrated and leave.

Who has unlimited time to waste on a retard?

> The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
>
> Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.

What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?

> The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.

> Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.
>
> And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.

If you weren`t simply a blowhard shooting blanks you`d be posting offerings like "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray" and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald". Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > To run off believers...
> >
> > All you have to do is keep citing & quoting the evidence... and believers just get frustrated and leave.
>
> Who has unlimited time to waste on a retard?

Tut tut tut, "Bud"... you're merely demonstrating with your ad hominem that you can't debate the evidence in this case.

This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.

> > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> >
> > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
>
> What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?

Most everything.

But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.

Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.

And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.

And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.

There... see how easy that was?

Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.

And that fact tells the tale.

> > The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.
>
> > Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.
> >
> > And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.
>
> If you weren`t simply a blowhard shooting blanks you`d be posting offerings like "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"

Be happy to do so.

Indeed, that's the next topic.

The problem, of course, is that you refuse to publicly acknowledge what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray *is*.

Until I can get a believer to actually address this evidence, why should I bother to move ahead to more advanced material?

You have to start with the basics.

John McAdams knew this... which is why he lied and then ran away when this topic was introduced.

> and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald".

Ask Guinn. Then tell everyone here what a "control" is ... in scientific terms.

> Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.

You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.

You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...

But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...

[David Von Pein]

You can't even prove it's an actual "OBJECT". Nobody can. And nobody ever has. There's evidence from Jerrol Custer's 1997 ARRB testimony that Dr. Ebersole saw the "object" on the night of 11/22/63 and called it an "artifact". More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut, David.

*FIRST* you answer the question. That way, you can't complain later that you weren't talking about the same object.

Here's the question again in case you forgot it: What is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

When you ANSWER THE QUESTION - then I'll be happy to deal with your false claims you've posted.

Now... describe the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray in terms that everyone knows what you're describing.

Or run like a coward again...

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:27:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > To run off believers...
> > >
> > > All you have to do is keep citing & quoting the evidence... and believers just get frustrated and leave.
> >
> > Who has unlimited time to waste on a retard?
>
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud"... you're merely demonstrating with your ad hominem that you can't debate the evidence in this case.

You are running from the point I made.

> This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.
>
>
> > > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> > >
> > > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
> >
> > What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?
>
>
> Most everything.
>
> But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.

It is neither overwhelming or compelling. I mentioned the things that kick the hell out of the idea that the throat shot came from the front.

> Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.
>
> And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.

Nonsense. Oswald was shooting from right where he was seen shooting from.

> And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.
>
> There... see how easy that was?

> Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.

You decided to look at the wrong things and have decided to look at those things incorrectly. There is nothing compelling about this approach.

> And that fact tells the tale.
>
>
> > > The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.
> >
> > > Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.
> > >
> > > And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.
> >
> > If you weren`t simply a blowhard shooting blanks you`d be posting offerings like "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
>
> Be happy to do so.
>
> Indeed, that's the next topic.
>
> The problem, of course, is that you refuse to publicly acknowledge what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray *is*.

How does that present a problem for you?

> Until I can get a believer to actually address this evidence, why should I bother to move ahead to more advanced material?

<snicker> I hope you don`t, I hate to be proven wrong. As it stands I was shown to be correct, and you are just a blowhard shooting blanks.

> You have to start with the basics.
>
> John McAdams knew this... which is why he lied and then ran away when this topic was introduced.
>
>
> > and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald".
>
>
> Ask Guinn. Then tell everyone here what a "control" is ... in scientific terms.

Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.

Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?

> > Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.
>
>
> You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.

You don`t say anything. You have to carefully construct questions that sort of allude to things, but you don`t come right out and say what your ideas are. This is all anyone needs to know.

> You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...

Just letting the lurkers in on what they are witnessing.

> But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...

Ben says as he runs away.

[Bud]

Your question assumes to be true what DVP is questioning, that it is an object.

> When you ANSWER THE QUESTION - then I'll be happy to deal with your false claims you've posted.

Cart before the horse. Since your question assumes it is an object it must be shown to be one first.

[David Von Pein]

ADDENDUM REGARDING THE "6.5 MM. OBJECT" (in order to give credit where credit is due---to Bud, who, in 2006, made me aware that the "object" was declared an "artifact").....

BEN HOLMES SAID (ON APRIL 15, 2006):

No-one saw it [the "6.5mm. object" on the X-ray] on the night of the autopsy, despite an almost frantic search for bullets or bullet fragments.


BUD SAID:

This is a lie, and Ben knows it, as I've pointed it out to him before. The x-ray tech taking the x-rays said he pointed the object out to the chief radiologist, who declared it an artifact. Presumably he would have told the autopsists the same thing, who would then ignore the object (especially if they looked in that area and saw no such fragment). When asked about the object decades later, what reason would they have to remember it if the chief radiologist told them it wasn't real the day of the autopsy?


BUD ALSO SAID:

Here we see a kook trying to disregard the physical evidence on the grounds of a legal technicality. If you are really trying to approach this case to figure out what happened, you wouldn't be trying to throw out evidence, or find reasons to disregard it. You'd approach each piece of evidence on the grounds of what is likely and rational. This is what the kooks can't do, they leap towards conspiracy every chance they can, concocting far-fetched scenarios that they've convinced themselves are "likely" and "rational". That's why it is useless to argue this case with kooks, they have no ratonality to apply to the case, they can't see what an unlikely proposition they are presenting.

More from that 2006 discussion here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/pwFph7Gah08/aHn3AFkCdAoJ

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:32:58 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:27:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > To run off believers...
> > > >
> > > > All you have to do is keep citing & quoting the evidence... and believers just get frustrated and leave.
> > >
> > > Who has unlimited time to waste on a retard?
> >
> >
> > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... you're merely demonstrating with your ad hominem that you can't debate the evidence in this case.
>
> You are running from the point I made.

You don't "run" from insults, you simply ignore 'em.

Calling me a "retard" doesn't advance your faith at all.

Only the EVIDENCE can do that.

> > This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.
> >
> >
> > > > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> > > >
> > > > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
> > >
> > > What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?
> >
> >
> > Most everything.
> >
> > But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.
>
> It is neither overwhelming or compelling. I mentioned the things that kick the hell out of the idea that the throat shot came from the front.

Your opinion doesn't mean anything...

The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours... this is why the Warren Commission couldn't "find" the Parkland Press Conference...

> > Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.

Dead silence...

> > And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.
>
> Nonsense. Oswald was shooting from right where he was seen shooting from.

You asked "What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?"

And I've provided simply *one* example out of many that I can offer... and instead of dealing with it, you run.

> > And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.
> >
> > There... see how easy that was?
>
> > Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.
>
> You decided to look at the wrong things and have decided to look at those things incorrectly. There is nothing compelling about this approach.

Yep... coward.

I've answered your challenge quite easily, and all you can do is whine...

> > And that fact tells the tale.
> >
> >
> > > > The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.
> > >
> > > > Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.
> > > >
> > > > And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.
> > >
> > > If you weren`t simply a blowhard shooting blanks you`d be posting offerings like "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> >
> > Be happy to do so.
> >
> > Indeed, that's the next topic.
> >
> > The problem, of course, is that you refuse to publicly acknowledge what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray *is*.
>
> How does that present a problem for you?

It doesn't.

It's *YOUR* problem. You'll either answer it, or demonstrate your cowardice.

> > Until I can get a believer to actually address this evidence, why should I bother to move ahead to more advanced material?
>
> <snicker> I hope you don`t, I hate to be proven wrong. As it stands I was shown to be correct, and you are just a blowhard shooting blanks.

Yep... cowardice....

> > You have to start with the basics.
> >
> > John McAdams knew this... which is why he lied and then ran away when this topic was introduced.
> >
> >
> > > and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald".
> >
> >
> > Ask Guinn. Then tell everyone here what a "control" is ... in scientific terms.
>
> Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.

Actually, I can. I simply enjoy forcing believers to state it.

Proving you a coward is just as much fun as proving you wrong.

> Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?

Nah... again, you're desperate to have something to whine about...

I'm more interested in the evidence.

> > > Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.
> >
> >
> > You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.
>
> You don`t say anything. You have to carefully construct questions that sort of allude to things, but you don`t come right out and say what your ideas are. This is all anyone needs to know.

These are simple questions... anyone knowledgeable on case evidence can INSTANTLY answer them.

Even people who don't know the answers can Google the correct answer fairly quickly.

So what we have here, is someone knowledgeable on the case evidence, with the ability to explain it, debating a coward.

> > You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
>
> Just letting the lurkers in on what they are witnessing.

Yep... you're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...

> > But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...
>
> Ben says as he runs away.

Who's running, "Bud?"

Do you seriously think that lying will convince anyone?

[Ben Holmes]

The cowardice being exhibited here is truly AMAZING!!!

I could care less if you thought it was a UFO... if you don't have the courage to demonstrate that you know the topic of debate, then debate isn't possible.

> > When you ANSWER THE QUESTION - then I'll be happy to deal with your false claims you've posted.
>
> Cart before the horse. Since your question assumes it is an object it must be shown to be one first.

Nope.

Call it a horse.

What's the largest HORSE seen in the AP X-ray?

And simply cite for your answer... it can be ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO BE, as long as you can cite an authoritative source for your claim.


That yellow stripe down your back is getting wider and brighter...

[Ben Holmes]

David... what was the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID TO PUBLICLY GIVE AN ANSWER TO AN OBVIOUS QUESTION???

Why the continued cowardice?

[David Von Pein]

Probably an artifact, just as Ebersole told Custer on 11/22/63.

(Happy now?)

[Ben Holmes]

I'm not asking WHAT YOU THINK THE OBJECT *IS*...

I'm asking you to describe what the largest foreign object in the AP X-ray is so that everyone is on the same page. You can either describe it in terms that everyone will understand, or you can cite a graphic online that has an arrow pointing to it... I really don't care, AS LONG AS IT'S UNAMBIGUOUS WHAT THE TOPIC IS.


WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID TO ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION, DAVID???

If you like, I'll even give you the wording to use - you can say: "Ben, it's the 6.5mm virtually round object seen in the AP X-ray that is the largest foreign object". That would be unambiguous, since there's only one such object in the AP X-ray.

So David, will you run again as you've REPEATEDLY done on this issue? Or will you answer the very first question so we can continue?

[David Von Pein]

But I have doubts that it can even be defined as an "object". If it's an artifact (as Ebersole suggested on Nov. 22), then it's not really an "object" at all, is it Ben?

Why don't you just stop playing your silly mind games and spit it out --- i.e., where the heck do you think you can go with the "6.5 mm. object"?

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:36:12 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 6:20:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:08:59 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 6:03:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:52:58 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > ADDENDUM REGARDING THE "6.5 MM. OBJECT" (in order to give credit where credit is due---to Bud, who, in 2006, made me aware that the "object" was declared an "artifact").....
> > > > >
> > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID (ON APRIL 15, 2006):
> > > > >
> > > > > No-one saw it [the "6.5mm. object" on the X-ray] on the night of the autopsy, despite an almost frantic search for bullets or bullet fragments.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BUD SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a lie, and Ben knows it, as I've pointed it out to him before. The x-ray tech taking the x-rays said he pointed the object out to the chief radiologist, who declared it an artifact. Presumably he would have told the autopsists the same thing, who would then ignore the object (especially if they looked in that area and saw no such fragment). When asked about the object decades later, what reason would they have to remember it if the chief radiologist told them it wasn't real the day of the autopsy?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > BUD ALSO SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here we see a kook trying to disregard the physical evidence on the grounds of a legal technicality. If you are really trying to approach this case to figure out what happened, you wouldn't be trying to throw out evidence, or find reasons to disregard it. You'd approach each piece of evidence on the grounds of what is likely and rational. This is what the kooks can't do, they leap towards conspiracy every chance they can, concocting far-fetched scenarios that they've convinced themselves are "likely" and "rational". That's why it is useless to argue this case with kooks, they have no ratonality to apply to the case, they can't see what an unlikely proposition they are presenting.
> > > > >
> > > > > More from that 2006 discussion here:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/pwFph7Gah08/aHn3AFkCdAoJ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David... what was the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Probably an artifact, just as Ebersole told Custer on 11/22/63.
> > >
> > > (Happy now?)
> >
> >
> > I'm not asking WHAT YOU THINK THE OBJECT *IS*...
> >
> > I'm asking you to describe what the largest foreign object in the AP X-ray is so that everyone is on the same page. You can either describe it in terms that everyone will understand, or you can cite a graphic online that has an arrow pointing to it... I really don't care, AS LONG AS IT'S UNAMBIGUOUS WHAT THE TOPIC IS.
> >
> >
> > WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID TO ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION, DAVID???
> >
> > If you like, I'll even give you the wording to use - you can say: "Ben, it's the 6.5mm virtually round object seen in the AP X-ray that is the largest foreign object". That would be unambiguous, since there's only one such object in the AP X-ray.
> >
>
> But I have doubts that it can even be defined as an "object". If it's an artifact (as Ebersole suggested on Nov. 22), then it's not really an "object" at all, is it Ben?

Call it anything you want. Call it the largest white spot ... I don't care.

Simply supply a citation to anything you want to call it.

Now, how many more times are you going to show your cowardice?

> Why don't you just stop playing your silly mind games and spit it out --- i.e., where the heck do you think you can go with the "6.5 mm. object"?

What is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

[David Von Pein]

OK. The largest white spot is (probably) an artifact. Citation:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Custer_10-28-97/html/Custer_0011b.htm

[Ben Holmes]

Clearly, David prefers cowardice to clarity...

[Ben Holmes]

There you go again, David... desperately attempting to explain an object you refuse to describe.

WHAT OBJECT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, DAVID?

What is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

Describe it's location or description unambiguously...

Or run like the yellow coward you are again...

Who cares?

[David Von Pein]

Oh, brother.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:57:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:32:58 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:27:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > To run off believers...
> > > > >
> > > > > All you have to do is keep citing & quoting the evidence... and believers just get frustrated and leave.
> > > >
> > > > Who has unlimited time to waste on a retard?
> > >
> > >
> > > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... you're merely demonstrating with your ad hominem that you can't debate the evidence in this case.
> >
> > You are running from the point I made.
>
>
> You don't "run" from insults, you simply ignore 'em.
>
> Calling me a "retard" doesn't advance your faith at all.
>
> Only the EVIDENCE can do that.

You`re still running from the point I made.

>
> > > This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> > > > >
> > > > > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
> > > >
> > > > What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?
> > >
> > >
> > > Most everything.
> > >
> > > But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.
> >
> > It is neither overwhelming or compelling. I mentioned the things that kick the hell out of the idea that the throat shot came from the front.
>
>
> Your opinion doesn't mean anything...

Nothing matter more.

> The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...

What expert in the proper field did a careful examination of the wound and declared it an entry?

> this is why the Warren Commission couldn't "find" the Parkland Press Conference...
>
>
> > > Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.
>
>
> Dead silence...

You didn`t say anything, why did you expect a response?

>
> > > And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.
> >
> > Nonsense. Oswald was shooting from right where he was seen shooting from.
>
>
> You asked "What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?"
>
> And I've provided simply *one* example out of many that I can offer... and instead of dealing with it, you run.

You provided an example of how you cannot properly evaluate evidence. How does this draw into question Oswald`s guilt?

> > > And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.
> > >
> > > There... see how easy that was?
> >
> > > Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.
> >
> > You decided to look at the wrong things and have decided to look at those things incorrectly. There is nothing compelling about this approach.
>
>
> Yep... coward.
>
> I've answered your challenge quite easily, and all you can do is whine...

All you did was confirm what I said. Nothing you`ve offered draws into question Oswald`s guilt.

>
> > > And that fact tells the tale.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.
> > > >
> > > > > Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.
> > > > >
> > > > > And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.
> > > >
> > > > If you weren`t simply a blowhard shooting blanks you`d be posting offerings like "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> > >
> > > Be happy to do so.
> > >
> > > Indeed, that's the next topic.
> > >
> > > The problem, of course, is that you refuse to publicly acknowledge what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray *is*.
> >
> > How does that present a problem for you?
>
>
> It doesn't.
>
> It's *YOUR* problem.

Wrong. I`ve never used it to conclude Oswald`s guilt.

> You'll either answer it, or demonstrate your cowardice.

Shifting the burden. You seem to think that object is significant but can`t put an argument on the table that it is.

> > > Until I can get a believer to actually address this evidence, why should I bother to move ahead to more advanced material?
> >
> > <snicker> I hope you don`t, I hate to be proven wrong. As it stands I was shown to be correct, and you are just a blowhard shooting blanks.
>
>
> Yep... cowardice....

Yet you can`t seem to put your ideas and the evidence that supports them on the table for consideration.

>
> > > You have to start with the basics.
> > >
> > > John McAdams knew this... which is why he lied and then ran away when this topic was introduced.
> > >
> > >
> > > > and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald".
> > >
> > >
> > > Ask Guinn. Then tell everyone here what a "control" is ... in scientific terms.
> >
> > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
>
>
> Actually, I can. I simply enjoy forcing believers to state it.
>
> Proving you a coward is just as much fun as proving you wrong.

Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.

> > Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?
>
>
> Nah... again, you're desperate to have something to whine about...

<snicker> I`m batting a thousand.

> I'm more interested in the evidence.

You can`t put an supportable ideas on the table using that evidence. Unless you can put compelling arguments on the table what is the point?

> > > > Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.
> >
> > You don`t say anything. You have to carefully construct questions that sort of allude to things, but you don`t come right out and say what your ideas are. This is all anyone needs to know.
>
>
> These are simple questions... anyone knowledgeable on case evidence can INSTANTLY answer them.
>
> Even people who don't know the answers can Google the correct answer fairly quickly.
>
> So what we have here, is someone knowledgeable on the case evidence, with the ability to explain it, debating a coward.

What we have here is an intellectual coward who doesn`t want to flesh out his ideas for fear someone might call on him to support them. We have a blowhard shooting blanks, who knows his ideas are retarded and doesn`t want them out where they can be seen and evaluated.

>
> > > You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> >
> > Just letting the lurkers in on what they are witnessing.
>
>
> Yep... you're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
>
>
> > > But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...
> >
> > Ben says as he runs away.
>
> Who's running, "Bud?"
>
> Do you seriously think that lying will convince anyone?

Do the lurkers see you starting posts with headers that say "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald" or "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray" or the like? No, they don`t, you are too embarrassed by your own ideas to put them out where they can be seen. And I don`t blame you.

[Bud]

Let me explain it to you, stupid. DVP said this...

"You can't even prove it's an actual "OBJECT". Nobody can."

He is contesting that it can be called an actual object. Your question assumes it is an actual object. Your question can`t be addressed until the issue DVP raised about it is answered.

> > > When you ANSWER THE QUESTION - then I'll be happy to deal with your false claims you've posted.
> >
> > Cart before the horse. Since your question assumes it is an object it must be shown to be one first.
>
>
> Nope.
>
> Call it a horse.

Then you must first establish it is a horse. You still have the same problem, you are just *saying* it is something without first establishing that it is what you are calling it.

> What's the largest HORSE seen in the AP X-ray?
>
> And simply cite for your answer... it can be ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO BE, as long as you can cite an authoritative source for your claim.

Jerrol Custer is not an authoritative source?

[Ben Holmes]

Looks like you chose to run again...


But in case you forgot, what's the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

You can call it anything you want as long as you can cite for it.


And no, I'm not asking you to EXPLAIN the object, I'm asking you to DEFINE the object.

Either a description that fits nothing else, or a cite to a graphic with an arrow on it...

Or, of course, you can run like the yellow-bellied coward you are again...

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 4:41:37 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:57:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:32:58 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:27:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > To run off believers...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All you have to do is keep citing & quoting the evidence... and believers just get frustrated and leave.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who has unlimited time to waste on a retard?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... you're merely demonstrating with your ad hominem that you can't debate the evidence in this case.
> > >
> > > You are running from the point I made.
> >
> >
> > You don't "run" from insults, you simply ignore 'em.
> >
> > Calling me a "retard" doesn't advance your faith at all.
> >
> > Only the EVIDENCE can do that.
>
> You`re still running from the point I made.

No, I've specifically addressed it.

> > > > This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
> > > > >
> > > > > What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Most everything.
> > > >
> > > > But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.
> > >
> > > It is neither overwhelming or compelling. I mentioned the things that kick the hell out of the idea that the throat shot came from the front.
> >
> >
> > Your opinion doesn't mean anything...
>
> Nothing matter more.
>
> > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
>
> What expert in the proper field did a careful examination of the wound and declared it an entry?


The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...

By the *ONLY* medically trained experts to have ever seen it.

> > this is why the Warren Commission couldn't "find" the Parkland Press Conference...
> >
> >
> > > > Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.
> >
> >
> > Dead silence...
>
> You didn`t say anything, why did you expect a response?

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. Oswald was shooting from right where he was seen shooting from.
> >
> >
> > You asked "What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?"
> >
> > And I've provided simply *one* example out of many that I can offer... and instead of dealing with it, you run.
>
> You provided an example of how you cannot properly evaluate evidence. How does this draw into question Oswald`s guilt?

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.
> > > >
> > > > There... see how easy that was?
> > >
> > > > Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.
> > >
> > > You decided to look at the wrong things and have decided to look at those things incorrectly. There is nothing compelling about this approach.
> >
> >
> > Yep... coward.
> >
> > I've answered your challenge quite easily, and all you can do is whine...
>
> All you did was confirm what I said. Nothing you`ve offered draws into question Oswald`s guilt.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > And that fact tells the tale.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you weren`t simply a blowhard shooting blanks you`d be posting offerings like "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> > > >
> > > > Be happy to do so.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, that's the next topic.
> > > >
> > > > The problem, of course, is that you refuse to publicly acknowledge what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray *is*.
> > >
> > > How does that present a problem for you?
> >
> >
> > It doesn't.
> >
> > It's *YOUR* problem.
>
> Wrong. I`ve never used it to conclude Oswald`s guilt.

Who cares?

> > You'll either answer it, or demonstrate your cowardice.
>
> Shifting the burden. You seem to think that object is significant but can`t put an argument on the table that it is.

Nope... not "shifting the burden" at all. You've chosen your side, it's up to you to defend it.

You can't 'pick & choose' what you'll defend.

> > > > Until I can get a believer to actually address this evidence, why should I bother to move ahead to more advanced material?
> > >
> > > <snicker> I hope you don`t, I hate to be proven wrong. As it stands I was shown to be correct, and you are just a blowhard shooting blanks.
> >
> >
> > Yep... cowardice...
>

> Yet you can`t seem to put your ideas and the evidence that supports them on the table for consideration.

Yep... cowardice...

David is trying to help you, but he's a coward too...

> > > > You have to start with the basics.
> > > >
> > > > John McAdams knew this... which is why he lied and then ran away when this topic was introduced.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ask Guinn. Then tell everyone here what a "control" is ... in scientific terms.
> > >
> > > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
> >
> >
> > Actually, I can. I simply enjoy forcing believers to state it.
> >
> > Proving you a coward is just as much fun as proving you wrong.
>
> Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.

How silly! Sometimes your lies are just amusing!

> > > Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?
> >
> >
> > Nah... again, you're desperate to have something to whine about...
>
> <snicker> I`m batting a thousand.

Still a coward, eh "Bud?"

> > I'm more interested in the evidence.
>
> You can`t put an supportable ideas on the table using that evidence. Unless you can put compelling arguments on the table what is the point?

What evidence?

You refuse to acknowledge any...

Such as what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...

> > > > > Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.
> > >
> > > You don`t say anything. You have to carefully construct questions that sort of allude to things, but you don`t come right out and say what your ideas are. This is all anyone needs to know.
> >
> >
> > These are simple questions... anyone knowledgeable on case evidence can INSTANTLY answer them.
> >
> > Even people who don't know the answers can Google the correct answer fairly quickly.
> >
> > So what we have here, is someone knowledgeable on the case evidence, with the ability to explain it, debating a coward.
>
> What we have here is an intellectual coward who doesn`t want to flesh out his ideas for fear someone might call on him to support them.

If you ever develop enough courage to answer the question, you'll quickly see the topic move forward.


But unless you stop the cowardice, all you're going to do is sit here and whimper.

>We have a blowhard shooting blanks, who knows his ideas are retarded and doesn`t want them out where they can be seen and evaluated.

Unlike you, I've actually put a scenario on the table for everyone to examine.

> > > > You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > >
> > > Just letting the lurkers in on what they are witnessing.
> >
> >
> > Yep... you're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> >
> >
> > > > But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...
> > >
> > > Ben says as he runs away.
> >
> > Who's running, "Bud?"
> >
> > Do you seriously think that lying will convince anyone?
>
> Do the lurkers see you starting posts with headers that say "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald" or "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray" or the like? No, they don`t, you are too embarrassed by your own ideas to put them out where they can be seen. And I don`t blame you.

Tut tut tut, "Bud;" you'd only whine some more if I posted those posts.

Indeed, I'll make you a offer...

Specify what the largest foreign object in the AP X-ray *is* (and yes, I'm asking you to POINT TO IT) - and my next post will be titled "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"

But I predict nothing but cowardice from you...

[David Von Pein]

Already did, you idiot, at 6:55 PM EDT today, when I said this:

OK. The largest white spot is (probably) an artifact. Citation:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Custer_10-28-97/html/Custer_0011b.htm

[Ben Holmes]

You see?

Morons...

I've REPEATEDLY stated that we haven't gotten to the point yet where we can discuss WHAT the object is.

YOU CAN'T EVEN DEFINE ***WHAT*** OBJECT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT!!!

It's easy to define the JFK autopsy AP X-ray - since there's only one in the public domain. But it has a number of foreign objects seen in it.

And you're too yellow to publicly acknowledge which one is which...

So was John McAdams...

> > > > When you ANSWER THE QUESTION - then I'll be happy to deal with your false claims you've posted.
> > >
> > > Cart before the horse. Since your question assumes it is an object it must be shown to be one first.
> >
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > Call it a horse.
>
> Then you must first establish it is a horse. You still have the same problem, you are just *saying* it is something without first establishing that it is what you are calling it.

That is, of course, why I specified that you'd have to cite for it.

> > What's the largest HORSE seen in the AP X-ray?
> >
> > And simply cite for your answer... it can be ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO BE, as long as you can cite an authoritative source for your claim.
>
> Jerrol Custer is not an authoritative source?

For what???


ROTFLMAO!!!

[Ben Holmes]

The "largest" white spot is JFK's skull.


Here - I'll make it easy for you... simply click this link:

http://jimmarrs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/XRay-1.png

Then come back here and tell me "Red arrow" or "Green Arrow" or "Not shown by arrow"

Or, you can run like a yellow coward yet again...

[Bud]

Meaningless. Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit.

You have nothing but keep insisting it is something.

> > > this is why the Warren Commission couldn't "find" the Parkland Press Conference...
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dead silence...
> >
> > You didn`t say anything, why did you expect a response?
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You said nothing. You did that thing where you vaguely allude. Spit it out and spell it out.

> > > > > And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. Oswald was shooting from right where he was seen shooting from.
> > >
> > >
> > > You asked "What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?"
> > >
> > > And I've provided simply *one* example out of many that I can offer... and instead of dealing with it, you run.
> >
> > You provided an example of how you cannot properly evaluate evidence. How does this draw into question Oswald`s guilt?
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You don`t know how to evaluate evidence. Why should that impede me in determining Oswald`s guilt?

>
> > > > > And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.
> > > > >
> > > > > There... see how easy that was?
> > > >
> > > > > Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.
> > > >
> > > > You decided to look at the wrong things and have decided to look at those things incorrectly. There is nothing compelling about this approach.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep... coward.
> > >
> > > I've answered your challenge quite easily, and all you can do is whine...
> >
> > All you did was confirm what I said. Nothing you`ve offered draws into question Oswald`s guilt.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

Well, you seem to think it does, but you are an idiot.

> > > > > And that fact tells the tale.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you weren`t simply a blowhard shooting blanks you`d be posting offerings like "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> > > > >
> > > > > Be happy to do so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Indeed, that's the next topic.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem, of course, is that you refuse to publicly acknowledge what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray *is*.
> > > >
> > > > How does that present a problem for you?
> > >
> > >
> > > It doesn't.
> > >
> > > It's *YOUR* problem.
> >
> > Wrong. I`ve never used it to conclude Oswald`s guilt.
>
>
> Who cares?
>
>
>
> > > You'll either answer it, or demonstrate your cowardice.
> >
> > Shifting the burden. You seem to think that object is significant but can`t put an argument on the table that it is.
>
>
> Nope... not "shifting the burden" at all. You've chosen your side, it's up to you to defend it.

The x-ray isn`t a "side", stupid. It is evidence, and you seem to think it is significant but can`t bring yourself to say why.

> You can't 'pick & choose' what you'll defend.

You can`t shift the burden onto me because you can`t put your arguments and the evidence that supports your arguments on the table for consideration.

> > > > > Until I can get a believer to actually address this evidence, why should I bother to move ahead to more advanced material?
> > > >
> > > > <snicker> I hope you don`t, I hate to be proven wrong. As it stands I was shown to be correct, and you are just a blowhard shooting blanks.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep... cowardice...
> >
> > Yet you can`t seem to put your ideas and the evidence that supports them on the table for consideration.
>
>
> Yep... cowardice...
>
> David is trying to help you, but he's a coward too...

Until we see posts start appearing where you put your ideas and the support for your ideas on the table for consideration my assessment that you are a blowhard shooting blanks will be proven true.

>
> > > > > You have to start with the basics.
> > > > >
> > > > > John McAdams knew this... which is why he lied and then ran away when this topic was introduced.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask Guinn. Then tell everyone here what a "control" is ... in scientific terms.
> > > >
> > > > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, I can. I simply enjoy forcing believers to state it.
> > >
> > > Proving you a coward is just as much fun as proving you wrong.
> >
> > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
>
>
> How silly! Sometimes your lies are just amusing!

Yet still no such posts are appearing.

>
> > > > Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?
> > >
> > >
> > > Nah... again, you're desperate to have something to whine about...
> >
> > <snicker> I`m batting a thousand.
>
>
> Still a coward, eh "Bud?"
>
>
> > > I'm more interested in the evidence.
> >
> > You can`t put an supportable ideas on the table using that evidence. Unless you can put compelling arguments on the table what is the point?
>
>
> What evidence?

You are free to use any evidence you like in support of your ideas. Use the AP x-ray, use the NAA evidence, anything you like.

> You refuse to acknowledge any...
>
> Such as what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...

Stop shooting blanks and start a post outlining the significance of this evidence.

>
> > > > > > Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.
> > > >
> > > > You don`t say anything. You have to carefully construct questions that sort of allude to things, but you don`t come right out and say what your ideas are. This is all anyone needs to know.
> > >
> > >
> > > These are simple questions... anyone knowledgeable on case evidence can INSTANTLY answer them.
> > >
> > > Even people who don't know the answers can Google the correct answer fairly quickly.
> > >
> > > So what we have here, is someone knowledgeable on the case evidence, with the ability to explain it, debating a coward.
> >
> > What we have here is an intellectual coward who doesn`t want to flesh out his ideas for fear someone might call on him to support them.
>
>
> If you ever develop enough courage to answer the question, you'll quickly see the topic move forward.

Why the conditions? Why can`t you just present your ideas and the support for your ideas?

>
> But unless you stop the cowardice, all you're going to do is sit here and whimper.
>
>
> >We have a blowhard shooting blanks, who knows his ideas are retarded and doesn`t want them out where they can be seen and evaluated.
>
>
> Unlike you, I've actually put a scenario on the table for everyone to examine.

Where?

>
>
> > > > > You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > >
> > > > Just letting the lurkers in on what they are witnessing.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep... you're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > >
> > >
> > > > > But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...
> > > >
> > > > Ben says as he runs away.
> > >
> > > Who's running, "Bud?"
> > >
> > > Do you seriously think that lying will convince anyone?
> >
> > Do the lurkers see you starting posts with headers that say "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald" or "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray" or the like? No, they don`t, you are too embarrassed by your own ideas to put them out where they can be seen. And I don`t blame you.
>
> Tut tut tut, "Bud;" you'd only whine some more if I posted those posts.

You are simply ashamed of the ideas you hold.

> Indeed, I'll make you a offer...
>
> Specify what the largest foreign object in the AP X-ray *is* (and yes, I'm asking you to POINT TO IT) - and my next post will be titled "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"

No conditions. Put your arguments on the table or STFU.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:56:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 8:15:50 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 4:41:37 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:57:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:32:58 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:27:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > To run off believers...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All you have to do is keep citing & quoting the evidence... and believers just get frustrated and leave.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who has unlimited time to waste on a retard?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... you're merely demonstrating with your ad hominem that you can't debate the evidence in this case.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are running from the point I made.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't "run" from insults, you simply ignore 'em.
> > > >
> > > > Calling me a "retard" doesn't advance your faith at all.
> > > >
> > > > Only the EVIDENCE can do that.
> > >
> > > You`re still running from the point I made.
> >
> >
> > No, I've specifically addressed it.

Dead silence...

"Bud's" too dishonest to admit he's been caught lying again...

> > > > > > This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Most everything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is neither overwhelming or compelling. I mentioned the things that kick the hell out of the idea that the throat shot came from the front.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your opinion doesn't mean anything...
> > >
> > > Nothing matter more.
> > >
> > > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > >
> > > What expert in the proper field did a careful examination of the wound and declared it an entry?
> >
> >
> > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> >
> > By the *ONLY* medically trained experts to have ever seen it.
>
> Meaningless. Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit.

ROTFLMAO!!!

And you got your medical degree where, exactly?


Your experience in forensic pathology is what, exactly?

> You have nothing but keep insisting it is something.

You lost.

You've chosen your side, yet you're too much a coward to defend it.

You lose!

> > You can't 'pick & choose' what you'll defend.
>
> You can`t shift the burden onto me because you can`t put your arguments and the evidence that supports your arguments on the table for consideration.

No, I *can't* "shift the burden"... IT'S ALREADY YOURS!!!


You lost!

> > > > > > Until I can get a believer to actually address this evidence, why should I bother to move ahead to more advanced material?
> > > > >
> > > > > <snicker> I hope you don`t, I hate to be proven wrong. As it stands I was shown to be correct, and you are just a blowhard shooting blanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep... cowardice...
> > >
> > > Yet you can`t seem to put your ideas and the evidence that supports them on the table for consideration.
> >
> >
> > Yep... cowardice...
> >
> > David is trying to help you, but he's a coward too...
>
> Until we see posts start appearing where you put your ideas and the support for your ideas on the table for consideration my assessment that you are a blowhard shooting blanks will be proven true.

Coward, aren't you "Bud?"

> > > > > > You have to start with the basics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John McAdams knew this... which is why he lied and then ran away when this topic was introduced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald".
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ask Guinn. Then tell everyone here what a "control" is ... in scientific terms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I can. I simply enjoy forcing believers to state it.
> > > >
> > > > Proving you a coward is just as much fun as proving you wrong.
> > >
> > > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
> >
> >
> > How silly! Sometimes your lies are just amusing!
>
> Yet still no such posts are appearing.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > > Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nah... again, you're desperate to have something to whine about...
> > >
> > > <snicker> I`m batting a thousand.
> >
> >
> > Still a coward, eh "Bud?"
> >
> >
> > > > I'm more interested in the evidence.
> > >
> > > You can`t put an supportable ideas on the table using that evidence. Unless you can put compelling arguments on the table what is the point?
> >
> >
> > What evidence?
>
> You are free to use any evidence you like in support of your ideas. Use the AP x-ray, use the NAA evidence, anything you like.

Okay - you've specified that I'm allowed to use any evidence I want.

I'm going to use the Mauser found in the 6th Floor sniper's nest... you know, the one that belonged to the real assassin.

His name was Jackson, and he wasn't related to Lee Harvey Oswald at all.

You lost.

> > You refuse to acknowledge any...
> >
> > Such as what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...
>
> Stop shooting blanks and start a post outlining the significance of this evidence.

The Mauser wasn't shooting blanks...

> > > > > > > Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don`t say anything. You have to carefully construct questions that sort of allude to things, but you don`t come right out and say what your ideas are. This is all anyone needs to know.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > These are simple questions... anyone knowledgeable on case evidence can INSTANTLY answer them.
> > > >
> > > > Even people who don't know the answers can Google the correct answer fairly quickly.
> > > >
> > > > So what we have here, is someone knowledgeable on the case evidence, with the ability to explain it, debating a coward.
> > >
> > > What we have here is an intellectual coward who doesn`t want to flesh out his ideas for fear someone might call on him to support them.
> >
> >
> > If you ever develop enough courage to answer the question, you'll quickly see the topic move forward.
>
> Why the conditions? Why can`t you just present your ideas and the support for your ideas?

You've already lost. The Mauser proves it.

You can't put Jackson's Mouser in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands... they were Jackson's prints...

> > But unless you stop the cowardice, all you're going to do is sit here and whimper.
> >
> >
> > >We have a blowhard shooting blanks, who knows his ideas are retarded and doesn`t want them out where they can be seen and evaluated.
> >
> >
> > Unlike you, I've actually put a scenario on the table for everyone to examine.
>
> Where?

As I've repeatedly told you, in the last forum where a believer actually presented his scenario... the Amazon Forums.

My offer is still on the table - I'll give a scenario exactly as detailed, and with just as much evidence and citation as you're willing to post.

But, of course, you're a coward.

> > > > > > You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > > >
> > > > > Just letting the lurkers in on what they are witnessing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep... you're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ben says as he runs away.
> > > >
> > > > Who's running, "Bud?"
> > > >
> > > > Do you seriously think that lying will convince anyone?
> > >
> > > Do the lurkers see you starting posts with headers that say "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald" or "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray" or the like? No, they don`t, you are too embarrassed by your own ideas to put them out where they can be seen. And I don`t blame you.
> >
> > Tut tut tut, "Bud;" you'd only whine some more if I posted those posts.
>
> You are simply ashamed of the ideas you hold.

ROTFLMAO!!!

> > Indeed, I'll make you a offer...
> >
> > Specify what the largest foreign object in the AP X-ray *is* (and yes, I'm asking you to POINT TO IT) - and my next post will be titled "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
>
> No conditions. Put your arguments on the table or STFU.

Quite the gutless coward, aren't you "Bud?"

> > But I predict nothing but cowardice from you...

My crystal ball is still operating perfectly.

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:20:00 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:56:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 8:15:50 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 4:41:37 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:57:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:32:58 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:27:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > To run off believers...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All you have to do is keep citing & quoting the evidence... and believers just get frustrated and leave.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who has unlimited time to waste on a retard?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... you're merely demonstrating with your ad hominem that you can't debate the evidence in this case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are running from the point I made.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't "run" from insults, you simply ignore 'em.
> > > > >
> > > > > Calling me a "retard" doesn't advance your faith at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the EVIDENCE can do that.
> > > >
> > > > You`re still running from the point I made.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, I've specifically addressed it.
>
>
> Dead silence...
>
> "Bud's" too dishonest to admit he's been caught lying again...

I made the point I wanted to make, no use repeating it.

> > > > > > > This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Most everything.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is neither overwhelming or compelling. I mentioned the things that kick the hell out of the idea that the throat shot came from the front.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your opinion doesn't mean anything...
> > > >
> > > > Nothing matter more.
> > > >
> > > > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > > >
> > > > What expert in the proper field did a careful examination of the wound and declared it an entry?
> > >
> > >
> > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > >
> > > By the *ONLY* medically trained experts to have ever seen it.
> >
> > Meaningless. Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> And you got your medical degree where, exactly?
>
>
> Your experience in forensic pathology is what, exactly?

You asked a couple of meaningless questions and my assertion remains true...

"Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit."

Why are conspiracy retards so afraid to look at evidence correctly?

The answer is that they are playing silly games.

> > You have nothing but keep insisting it is something.
>
>
>
> You lost.

Why not get the janitor`s opinion?

> > > > > this is why the Warren Commission couldn't "find" the Parkland Press Conference...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dead silence...
> > > >
> > > > You didn`t say anything, why did you expect a response?
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > You said nothing. You did that thing where you vaguely allude. Spit it out and spell it out.
>
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You made a retard assertion about Bugliosi being "afraid" and vaguely alluded to him lying. You seem afraid to spell out your ideas. I know why, they are retarded.

> > > > > > > And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nonsense. Oswald was shooting from right where he was seen shooting from.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You asked "What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?"
> > > > >
> > > > > And I've provided simply *one* example out of many that I can offer... and instead of dealing with it, you run.
> > > >
> > > > You provided an example of how you cannot properly evaluate evidence. How does this draw into question Oswald`s guilt?
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > You don`t know how to evaluate evidence. Why should that impede me in determining Oswald`s guilt?
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

Then you should be able to say how the doctor`s opinions should be given the weight necessary to impact whether Oswald was guilty. But that would require thinking and putting ideas out in the open and supporting them, things you can`t do.

> > > > > > > And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There... see how easy that was?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You decided to look at the wrong things and have decided to look at those things incorrectly. There is nothing compelling about this approach.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep... coward.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've answered your challenge quite easily, and all you can do is whine...
> > > >
> > > > All you did was confirm what I said. Nothing you`ve offered draws into question Oswald`s guilt.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > Well, you seem to think it does, but you are an idiot.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

About which part?

And making some meaningless empty claims and then running from supporting them does not meet the challenge.

> > > > > > > And that fact tells the tale.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you weren`t simply a blowhard shooting blanks you`d be posting offerings like "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Be happy to do so.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Indeed, that's the next topic.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The problem, of course, is that you refuse to publicly acknowledge what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray *is*.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How does that present a problem for you?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's *YOUR* problem.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong. I`ve never used it to conclude Oswald`s guilt.
> > >
> > >
> > > Who cares?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > You'll either answer it, or demonstrate your cowardice.
> > > >
> > > > Shifting the burden. You seem to think that object is significant but can`t put an argument on the table that it is.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope... not "shifting the burden" at all. You've chosen your side, it's up to you to defend it.
> >
> > The x-ray isn`t a "side", stupid. It is evidence, and you seem to think it is significant but can`t bring yourself to say why.
>
>
> You've chosen your side, yet you're too much a coward to defend it.
>
> You lose!
>
>
>
> > > You can't 'pick & choose' what you'll defend.
> >
> > You can`t shift the burden onto me because you can`t put your arguments and the evidence that supports your arguments on the table for consideration.
>
>
> No, I *can't* "shift the burden"... IT'S ALREADY YOURS!!!

Wrong. I`ve never used this evidence to advance an idea. You seem to think it has the power to advance an idea of yours, but you are too much of an intellectual coward to put the idea on the table.

>
> You lost!
>
>
> > > > > > > Until I can get a believer to actually address this evidence, why should I bother to move ahead to more advanced material?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snicker> I hope you don`t, I hate to be proven wrong. As it stands I was shown to be correct, and you are just a blowhard shooting blanks.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep... cowardice...
> > > >
> > > > Yet you can`t seem to put your ideas and the evidence that supports them on the table for consideration.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep... cowardice...
> > >
> > > David is trying to help you, but he's a coward too...
> >
> > Until we see posts start appearing where you put your ideas and the support for your ideas on the table for consideration my assessment that you are a blowhard shooting blanks will be proven true.
>
>
> Coward, aren't you "Bud?"

You are the one who is deathly afraid to put his ideas on the table for consideration.

>
>
> > > > > > > You have to start with the basics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > John McAdams knew this... which is why he lied and then ran away when this topic was introduced.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ask Guinn. Then tell everyone here what a "control" is ... in scientific terms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, I can. I simply enjoy forcing believers to state it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Proving you a coward is just as much fun as proving you wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
> > >
> > >
> > > How silly! Sometimes your lies are just amusing!
> >
> > Yet still no such posts are appearing.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

Where are they?

>
> > > > > > Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nah... again, you're desperate to have something to whine about...
> > > >
> > > > <snicker> I`m batting a thousand.
> > >
> > >
> > > Still a coward, eh "Bud?"
> > >
> > >
> > > > > I'm more interested in the evidence.
> > > >
> > > > You can`t put an supportable ideas on the table using that evidence. Unless you can put compelling arguments on the table what is the point?
> > >
> > >
> > > What evidence?
> >
> > You are free to use any evidence you like in support of your ideas. Use the AP x-ray, use the NAA evidence, anything you like.
>
>
> Okay - you've specified that I'm allowed to use any evidence I want.
>
> I'm going to use the Mauser found in the 6th Floor sniper's nest... you know, the one that belonged to the real assassin.
>
> His name was Jackson, and he wasn't related to Lee Harvey Oswald at all.
>
> You lost.

Is this you admitting you can`t take the evidence in this case and put compelling arguments on the table for consideration?

> > > You refuse to acknowledge any...
> > >
> > > Such as what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...
> >
> > Stop shooting blanks and start a post outlining the significance of this evidence.
>
>
> The Mauser wasn't shooting blanks...

Good. If this is your idea, put it on the table with the support for it.

> > > > > > > > Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don`t say anything. You have to carefully construct questions that sort of allude to things, but you don`t come right out and say what your ideas are. This is all anyone needs to know.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > These are simple questions... anyone knowledgeable on case evidence can INSTANTLY answer them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even people who don't know the answers can Google the correct answer fairly quickly.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what we have here, is someone knowledgeable on the case evidence, with the ability to explain it, debating a coward.
> > > >
> > > > What we have here is an intellectual coward who doesn`t want to flesh out his ideas for fear someone might call on him to support them.
> > >
> > >
> > > If you ever develop enough courage to answer the question, you'll quickly see the topic move forward.
> >
> > Why the conditions? Why can`t you just present your ideas and the support for your ideas?
>
>
> You've already lost. The Mauser proves it.
>
> You can't put Jackson's Mouser in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands... they were Jackson's prints...

Include the print evidence in your case that the Mauser was used. Start a post supporting the idea that a Mauser was used in this murder.

See, this is how it works. You can`t just say "I think bigfoot exists". You have to make the case, you have to put the evidence on the table that you used to come to that conclusion. You just can`t say "footprints", ir "film". You have to make a compelling argument that you are correct. If you can`t make compelling arguments using the evidence you are merely making empty claims, shooting blanks.

> > > But unless you stop the cowardice, all you're going to do is sit here and whimper.
> > >
> > >
> > > >We have a blowhard shooting blanks, who knows his ideas are retarded and doesn`t want them out where they can be seen and evaluated.
> > >
> > >
> > > Unlike you, I've actually put a scenario on the table for everyone to examine.
> >
> > Where?
>
> As I've repeatedly told you, in the last forum where a believer actually presented his scenario... the Amazon Forums.

I`m talking about *your* ideas, stupid. Not something somebody said somewhere else.

> My offer is still on the table - I'll give a scenario exactly as detailed, and with just as much evidence and citation as you're willing to post.

No, you don`t make conditions. You don`t have to put your ideas on the table for consideration. But I will point out that although you raise issues all the time, you are deathly afraid to make arguments and put them on the table along with their support for consideration. I maintain that the reason you don`t do this is because you know your ideas are retarded and are ashamed of them. You support my contention every time you raise an issue but balk at saying exactly what your position is on it and how it supports any contentions of yours.

> But, of course, you're a coward.
>
>
> > > > > > > You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just letting the lurkers in on what they are witnessing.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep... you're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ben says as he runs away.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who's running, "Bud?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you seriously think that lying will convince anyone?
> > > >
> > > > Do the lurkers see you starting posts with headers that say "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald" or "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray" or the like? No, they don`t, you are too embarrassed by your own ideas to put them out where they can be seen. And I don`t blame you.
> > >
> > > Tut tut tut, "Bud;" you'd only whine some more if I posted those posts.
> >
> > You are simply ashamed of the ideas you hold.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!

It is evident. Guys like Bob Harris actually have themselves convinced that they hold good ideas and that the evidence actually supports his ideas. He has no problem endlessly putting his ideas on the table, along with the evidence he feels supports them. You, on the other hand, know your ideas are bad, so you keep them hidden away, ashamed to put them on the table for consideration. You are the kind of intellectual coward who can only criticize what others think, but can`t support his own ideas to save his life.

> > > Indeed, I'll make you a offer...
> > >
> > > Specify what the largest foreign object in the AP X-ray *is* (and yes, I'm asking you to POINT TO IT) - and my next post will be titled "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> >
> > No conditions. Put your arguments on the table or STFU.
>
>
> Quite the gutless coward, aren't you "Bud?"
>
>
> > > But I predict nothing but cowardice from you...
>
>
> My crystal ball is still operating perfectly.

Have you started any posts outlining your ideas and the support for those ideas?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 4:46:28 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:20:00 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:56:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 8:15:50 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 4:41:37 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 5:57:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:32:58 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 3:27:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 2:06:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > To run off believers...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > All you have to do is keep citing & quoting the evidence... and believers just get frustrated and leave.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Who has unlimited time to waste on a retard?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud"... you're merely demonstrating with your ad hominem that you can't debate the evidence in this case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You are running from the point I made.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don't "run" from insults, you simply ignore 'em.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Calling me a "retard" doesn't advance your faith at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only the EVIDENCE can do that.
> > > > >
> > > > > You`re still running from the point I made.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, I've specifically addressed it.
> >
> >
> > Dead silence...
> >
> > "Bud's" too dishonest to admit he's been caught lying again...
>
> I made the point I wanted to make, no use repeating it.

No "Bud," you *LIED*, and I merely pointed it out.

And you refuse to publicly admit that you got caught lying.

I SPECIFICALLY addressed your point, and you simply lied about that...

> > > > > > > > This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Most everything.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is neither overwhelming or compelling. I mentioned the things that kick the hell out of the idea that the throat shot came from the front.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your opinion doesn't mean anything...
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing matter more.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > > > >
> > > > > What expert in the proper field did a careful examination of the wound and declared it an entry?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > > >
> > > > By the *ONLY* medically trained experts to have ever seen it.
> > >
> > > Meaningless. Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit.
> >
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!!!
> >
> > And you got your medical degree where, exactly?
> >
> >
> > Your experience in forensic pathology is what, exactly?
>
> You asked a couple of meaningless questions and my assertion remains true...

Yep... zip.

> "Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit."

You're lying again, "Bud."

> Why are conspiracy retards so afraid to look at evidence correctly?

You mean run away from it?

> The answer is that they are playing silly games.

No, the answer is you're too dishonest and cowardly...

> > > You have nothing but keep insisting it is something.
> >
> >
> >
> > You lost.
>
> Why not get the janitor`s opinion?

Nope... medically trained doctors who dealt with hundreds of bullet wound injuries every year is going to be hard to beat.

> > > > > > this is why the Warren Commission couldn't "find" the Parkland Press Conference...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dead silence...
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn`t say anything, why did you expect a response?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > >
> > > You said nothing. You did that thing where you vaguely allude. Spit it out and spell it out.
> >
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> You made a retard assertion about Bugliosi being "afraid" and vaguely alluded to him lying. You seem afraid to spell out your ideas. I know why, they are retarded.

Yep... Bugliosi certainly *WAS* afraid of the evidence, just as you are... and yes, he PROVABLY got caught lying, just as you frequently do...

> > > > > > > > And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nonsense. Oswald was shooting from right where he was seen shooting from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You asked "What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I've provided simply *one* example out of many that I can offer... and instead of dealing with it, you run.
> > > > >
> > > > > You provided an example of how you cannot properly evaluate evidence. How does this draw into question Oswald`s guilt?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > >
> > > You don`t know how to evaluate evidence. Why should that impede me in determining Oswald`s guilt?
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> Then you should be able to say how the doctor`s opinions should be given the weight necessary to impact whether Oswald was guilty. But that would require thinking and putting ideas out in the open and supporting them, things you can`t do.

Nope.

I don't presume the conclusions, then go around judging the evidence in terms of whether or not it fits my "conclusions."

That's a tactic reserved for believers.

> > > > > > > > And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There... see how easy that was?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You decided to look at the wrong things and have decided to look at those things incorrectly. There is nothing compelling about this approach.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep... coward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've answered your challenge quite easily, and all you can do is whine...
> > > > >
> > > > > All you did was confirm what I said. Nothing you`ve offered draws into question Oswald`s guilt.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > >
> > > Well, you seem to think it does, but you are an idiot.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> About which part?
>
> And making some meaningless empty claims and then running from supporting them does not meet the challenge.

Feel free to cite for your claim... but you know you're lying, and cannot do so.

> > > > > > > > And that fact tells the tale.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you weren`t simply a blowhard shooting blanks you`d be posting offerings like "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Be happy to do so.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Indeed, that's the next topic.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The problem, of course, is that you refuse to publicly acknowledge what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray *is*.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How does that present a problem for you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It doesn't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's *YOUR* problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong. I`ve never used it to conclude Oswald`s guilt.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Who cares?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > You'll either answer it, or demonstrate your cowardice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shifting the burden. You seem to think that object is significant but can`t put an argument on the table that it is.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope... not "shifting the burden" at all. You've chosen your side, it's up to you to defend it.
> > >
> > > The x-ray isn`t a "side", stupid. It is evidence, and you seem to think it is significant but can`t bring yourself to say why.
> >
> >
> > You've chosen your side, yet you're too much a coward to defend it.
> >
> > You lose!
> >
> >
> >
> > > > You can't 'pick & choose' what you'll defend.
> > >
> > > You can`t shift the burden onto me because you can`t put your arguments and the evidence that supports your arguments on the table for consideration.
> >
> >
> > No, I *can't* "shift the burden"... IT'S ALREADY YOURS!!!
>
> Wrong. I`ve never used this evidence to advance an idea. You seem to think it has the power to advance an idea of yours, but you are too much of an intellectual coward to put the idea on the table.

Cherry picking what evidence you want to use won't convince anyone else.

> >
> > You lost!
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > Until I can get a believer to actually address this evidence, why should I bother to move ahead to more advanced material?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snicker> I hope you don`t, I hate to be proven wrong. As it stands I was shown to be correct, and you are just a blowhard shooting blanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep... cowardice...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet you can`t seem to put your ideas and the evidence that supports them on the table for consideration.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep... cowardice...
> > > >
> > > > David is trying to help you, but he's a coward too...
> > >
> > > Until we see posts start appearing where you put your ideas and the support for your ideas on the table for consideration my assessment that you are a blowhard shooting blanks will be proven true.
> >
> >
> > Coward, aren't you "Bud?"
>
> You are the one who is deathly afraid to put his ideas on the table for consideration.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > > > > > You have to start with the basics.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > John McAdams knew this... which is why he lied and then ran away when this topic was introduced.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ask Guinn. Then tell everyone here what a "control" is ... in scientific terms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, I can. I simply enjoy forcing believers to state it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Proving you a coward is just as much fun as proving you wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How silly! Sometimes your lies are just amusing!
> > >
> > > Yet still no such posts are appearing.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> Where are they?

You're whining again, "Bud."

> > > > > > > Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nah... again, you're desperate to have something to whine about...
> > > > >
> > > > > <snicker> I`m batting a thousand.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Still a coward, eh "Bud?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > I'm more interested in the evidence.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can`t put an supportable ideas on the table using that evidence. Unless you can put compelling arguments on the table what is the point?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What evidence?
> > >
> > > You are free to use any evidence you like in support of your ideas. Use the AP x-ray, use the NAA evidence, anything you like.
> >
> >
> > Okay - you've specified that I'm allowed to use any evidence I want.
> >
> > I'm going to use the Mauser found in the 6th Floor sniper's nest... you know, the one that belonged to the real assassin.
> >
> > His name was Jackson, and he wasn't related to Lee Harvey Oswald at all.
> >
> > You lost.
>
> Is this you admitting you can`t take the evidence in this case and put compelling arguments on the table for consideration?

Just did.

> > > > You refuse to acknowledge any...
> > > >
> > > > Such as what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...
> > >
> > > Stop shooting blanks and start a post outlining the significance of this evidence.
> >
> >
> > The Mauser wasn't shooting blanks...
>
> Good. If this is your idea, put it on the table with the support for it.

Just did.

> > > > > > > > > Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You don`t say anything. You have to carefully construct questions that sort of allude to things, but you don`t come right out and say what your ideas are. This is all anyone needs to know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These are simple questions... anyone knowledgeable on case evidence can INSTANTLY answer them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Even people who don't know the answers can Google the correct answer fairly quickly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what we have here, is someone knowledgeable on the case evidence, with the ability to explain it, debating a coward.
> > > > >
> > > > > What we have here is an intellectual coward who doesn`t want to flesh out his ideas for fear someone might call on him to support them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you ever develop enough courage to answer the question, you'll quickly see the topic move forward.
> > >
> > > Why the conditions? Why can`t you just present your ideas and the support for your ideas?
> >
> >
> > You've already lost. The Mauser proves it.
> >
> > You can't put Jackson's Mouser in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands... they were Jackson's prints...
>
> Include the print evidence in your case that the Mauser was used. Start a post supporting the idea that a Mauser was used in this murder.

Don't need to.

You already accept this evidence.

> See, this is how it works. You can`t just say "I think bigfoot exists". You have to make the case, you have to put the evidence on the table that you used to come to that conclusion. You just can`t say "footprints", ir "film". You have to make a compelling argument that you are correct. If you can`t make compelling arguments using the evidence you are merely making empty claims, shooting blanks.

I can't force you to acknowledge the evidence, nor do I need to...

> > > > But unless you stop the cowardice, all you're going to do is sit here and whimper.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >We have a blowhard shooting blanks, who knows his ideas are retarded and doesn`t want them out where they can be seen and evaluated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unlike you, I've actually put a scenario on the table for everyone to examine.
> > >
> > > Where?
> >
> > As I've repeatedly told you, in the last forum where a believer actually presented his scenario... the Amazon Forums.
>
> I`m talking about *your* ideas, stupid. Not something somebody said somewhere else.

Lack of literacy, quite obviously...

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > My offer is still on the table - I'll give a scenario exactly as detailed, and with just as much evidence and citation as you're willing to post.
>
> No, you don`t make conditions.

You're clearly a moron, because I just did.

They are, indeed, the SAME conditions you demand.

You want to force me to post my scenario without doing so yourself.

Not going to happen.

> You don`t have to put your ideas on the table for consideration. But I will point out that although you raise issues all the time, you are deathly afraid to make arguments and put them on the table along with their support for consideration. I maintain that the reason you don`t do this is because you know your ideas are retarded and are ashamed of them. You support my contention every time you raise an issue but balk at saying exactly what your position is on it and how it supports any contentions of yours.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > But, of course, you're a coward.
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just letting the lurkers in on what they are witnessing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep... you're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ben says as he runs away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who's running, "Bud?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you seriously think that lying will convince anyone?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do the lurkers see you starting posts with headers that say "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald" or "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray" or the like? No, they don`t, you are too embarrassed by your own ideas to put them out where they can be seen. And I don`t blame you.
> > > >
> > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud;" you'd only whine some more if I posted those posts.
> > >
> > > You are simply ashamed of the ideas you hold.
> >
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> It is evident. Guys like Bob Harris actually have themselves convinced that they hold good ideas and that the evidence actually supports his ideas. He has no problem endlessly putting his ideas on the table, along with the evidence he feels supports them. You, on the other hand, know your ideas are bad, so you keep them hidden away, ashamed to put them on the table for consideration. You are the kind of intellectual coward who can only criticize what others think, but can`t support his own ideas to save his life.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > Indeed, I'll make you a offer...
> > > >
> > > > Specify what the largest foreign object in the AP X-ray *is* (and yes, I'm asking you to POINT TO IT) - and my next post will be titled "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> > >
> > > No conditions. Put your arguments on the table or STFU.
> >
> >
> > Quite the gutless coward, aren't you "Bud?"
> >
> >
> > > > But I predict nothing but cowardice from you...
> >
> >
> > My crystal ball is still operating perfectly.
>
> Have you started any posts outlining your ideas and the support for those ideas?

Of course...

But you knew that...

[Bud]

You offered something of no evidential value. I realize this and you don`t.

As I`ve pointed out before, if someone who was an expert in the relevant fields was going to make a determination on whether a bullet wound was an entrance or an exit they would do so only after a careful investigation of the wound. So you offer the wrong people doing the wrong things and expect it to be treated as meaningful.

> > > > > > > > > This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Most everything.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is neither overwhelming or compelling. I mentioned the things that kick the hell out of the idea that the throat shot came from the front.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your opinion doesn't mean anything...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nothing matter more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What expert in the proper field did a careful examination of the wound and declared it an entry?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > > > >
> > > > > By the *ONLY* medically trained experts to have ever seen it.
> > > >
> > > > Meaningless. Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit.
> > >
> > >
> > > ROTFLMAO!!!
> > >
> > > And you got your medical degree where, exactly?
> > >
> > >
> > > Your experience in forensic pathology is what, exactly?
> >
> > You asked a couple of meaningless questions and my assertion remains true...
>
>
> Yep... zip.
>
>
>
> > "Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit."
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

Then you should be able to name someone with relevant expertise who did an examination of the throat wound to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit.

>
> > Why are conspiracy retards so afraid to look at evidence correctly?
>
>
> You mean run away from it?
>
>
> > The answer is that they are playing silly games.
>
>
> No, the answer is you're too dishonest and cowardly...
>
>
>
> > > > You have nothing but keep insisting it is something.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You lost.
> >
> > Why not get the janitor`s opinion?
>
>
> Nope... medically trained doctors who dealt with hundreds of bullet wound injuries every year is going to be hard to beat.

You insist on pretending this evidence is something it is not. I`m not going to pretend along with you. They don`t have the necessary training and they didn`t conduct the necessary investigation to determine whether this wound was an entrance or an exit.

> > > > > > > this is why the Warren Commission couldn't "find" the Parkland Press Conference...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dead silence...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You didn`t say anything, why did you expect a response?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > >
> > > > You said nothing. You did that thing where you vaguely allude. Spit it out and spell it out.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > You made a retard assertion about Bugliosi being "afraid" and vaguely alluded to him lying. You seem afraid to spell out your ideas. I know why, they are retarded.
>
>
> Yep... Bugliosi certainly *WAS* afraid of the evidence, just as you are... and yes, he PROVABLY got caught lying, just as you frequently do...

Ben proves me right once more, merely repeating his vague empty claims.

> > > > > > > > > And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nonsense. Oswald was shooting from right where he was seen shooting from.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You asked "What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And I've provided simply *one* example out of many that I can offer... and instead of dealing with it, you run.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You provided an example of how you cannot properly evaluate evidence. How does this draw into question Oswald`s guilt?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > >
> > > > You don`t know how to evaluate evidence. Why should that impede me in determining Oswald`s guilt?
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > Then you should be able to say how the doctor`s opinions should be given the weight necessary to impact whether Oswald was guilty. But that would require thinking and putting ideas out in the open and supporting them, things you can`t do.
>
> Nope.
>
> I don't presume the conclusions, then go around judging the evidence in terms of whether or not it fits my "conclusions."

Nonsense. You do what every other conspiracy retard does. If something is indicative of Oswald`s guilt, if you can`t figure some angle to explain it away you go with the evidence being faked or the witness who provided it being coerced.

> That's a tactic reserved for believers.
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There... see how easy that was?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You decided to look at the wrong things and have decided to look at those things incorrectly. There is nothing compelling about this approach.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yep... coward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've answered your challenge quite easily, and all you can do is whine...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All you did was confirm what I said. Nothing you`ve offered draws into question Oswald`s guilt.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > >
> > > > Well, you seem to think it does, but you are an idiot.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > About which part?
> >
> > And making some meaningless empty claims and then running from supporting them does not meet the challenge.
>
>
> Feel free to cite for your claim... but you know you're lying, and cannot do so.

You`ve done right here in this post, offering the opinion of the doctors as evidence of Oswald`s innocence. You can`t hold other people to your level of stupidity.

> > > > > > > > > And that fact tells the tale.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The evidence is WELL EXPLAINED in terms of a conspiracy - yet doesn't fit the Warren Commission's theory at all.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Which explains why the Warren Commission simply lied about the evidence they collected.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And despite my posting of the "Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission" for many years now - there's *STILL* no answers to them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you weren`t simply a blowhard shooting blanks you`d be posting offerings like "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Be happy to do so.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Indeed, that's the next topic.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The problem, of course, is that you refuse to publicly acknowledge what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray *is*.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How does that present a problem for you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It doesn't.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's *YOUR* problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong. I`ve never used it to conclude Oswald`s guilt.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Who cares?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > You'll either answer it, or demonstrate your cowardice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shifting the burden. You seem to think that object is significant but can`t put an argument on the table that it is.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope... not "shifting the burden" at all. You've chosen your side, it's up to you to defend it.
> > > >
> > > > The x-ray isn`t a "side", stupid. It is evidence, and you seem to think it is significant but can`t bring yourself to say why.
> > >
> > >
> > > You've chosen your side, yet you're too much a coward to defend it.
> > >
> > > You lose!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > You can't 'pick & choose' what you'll defend.
> > > >
> > > > You can`t shift the burden onto me because you can`t put your arguments and the evidence that supports your arguments on the table for consideration.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, I *can't* "shift the burden"... IT'S ALREADY YOURS!!!
> >
> > Wrong. I`ve never used this evidence to advance an idea. You seem to think it has the power to advance an idea of yours, but you are too much of an intellectual coward to put the idea on the table.
>
>
>
> Cherry picking what evidence you want to use won't convince anyone else.

You haven`t shown this evidence to be inconsistent with Oswald`s guilt.

>
> > >
> > > You lost!
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Until I can get a believer to actually address this evidence, why should I bother to move ahead to more advanced material?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <snicker> I hope you don`t, I hate to be proven wrong. As it stands I was shown to be correct, and you are just a blowhard shooting blanks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yep... cowardice...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yet you can`t seem to put your ideas and the evidence that supports them on the table for consideration.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep... cowardice...
> > > > >
> > > > > David is trying to help you, but he's a coward too...
> > > >
> > > > Until we see posts start appearing where you put your ideas and the support for your ideas on the table for consideration my assessment that you are a blowhard shooting blanks will be proven true.
> > >
> > >
> > > Coward, aren't you "Bud?"
> >
> > You are the one who is deathly afraid to put his ideas on the table for consideration.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > You have to start with the basics.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > John McAdams knew this... which is why he lied and then ran away when this topic was introduced.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ask Guinn. Then tell everyone here what a "control" is ... in scientific terms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, I can. I simply enjoy forcing believers to state it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Proving you a coward is just as much fun as proving you wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, Ben proves me correct. He can`t start a post presenting evidence that supports the idea that the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > How silly! Sometimes your lies are just amusing!
> > > >
> > > > Yet still no such posts are appearing.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > Where are they?
>
>
> You're whining again, "Bud."

You claim they exist but run when challenged to produce them.

>
> > > > > > > > Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nah... again, you're desperate to have something to whine about...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snicker> I`m batting a thousand.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Still a coward, eh "Bud?"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm more interested in the evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can`t put an supportable ideas on the table using that evidence. Unless you can put compelling arguments on the table what is the point?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What evidence?
> > > >
> > > > You are free to use any evidence you like in support of your ideas. Use the AP x-ray, use the NAA evidence, anything you like.
> > >
> > >
> > > Okay - you've specified that I'm allowed to use any evidence I want.
> > >
> > > I'm going to use the Mauser found in the 6th Floor sniper's nest... you know, the one that belonged to the real assassin.
> > >
> > > His name was Jackson, and he wasn't related to Lee Harvey Oswald at all.
> > >
> > > You lost.
> >
> > Is this you admitting you can`t take the evidence in this case and put compelling arguments on the table for consideration?
>
>
> Just did.

And this is why conspiracy retards should be ignored, they can`t use the evidence to put compelling ideas on the table for consideration. You have no Mauser, you have no Mauser bullets, you have no suspect you can produce. You are shooting blanks.

> > > > > You refuse to acknowledge any...
> > > > >
> > > > > Such as what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...
> > > >
> > > > Stop shooting blanks and start a post outlining the significance of this evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > > The Mauser wasn't shooting blanks...
> >
> > Good. If this is your idea, put it on the table with the support for it.
>
>
> Just did.

Then this is what you have to offer after years of studying the case. Nothing. This is why the WC`s finding are so superior to the ideas of the conspiracy retards. They have a rifle, bullets, a suspect that is tangible. Retards have imagination.

> > > > > > > > > > Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You don`t say anything. You have to carefully construct questions that sort of allude to things, but you don`t come right out and say what your ideas are. This is all anyone needs to know.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > These are simple questions... anyone knowledgeable on case evidence can INSTANTLY answer them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Even people who don't know the answers can Google the correct answer fairly quickly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So what we have here, is someone knowledgeable on the case evidence, with the ability to explain it, debating a coward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What we have here is an intellectual coward who doesn`t want to flesh out his ideas for fear someone might call on him to support them.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you ever develop enough courage to answer the question, you'll quickly see the topic move forward.
> > > >
> > > > Why the conditions? Why can`t you just present your ideas and the support for your ideas?
> > >
> > >
> > > You've already lost. The Mauser proves it.
> > >
> > > You can't put Jackson's Mouser in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands... they were Jackson's prints...
> >
> > Include the print evidence in your case that the Mauser was used. Start a post supporting the idea that a Mauser was used in this murder.
>
>
> Don't need to.
>
> You already accept this evidence.

How so?

> > See, this is how it works. You can`t just say "I think bigfoot exists". You have to make the case, you have to put the evidence on the table that you used to come to that conclusion. You just can`t say "footprints", ir "film". You have to make a compelling argument that you are correct. If you can`t make compelling arguments using the evidence you are merely making empty claims, shooting blanks.
>
>
> I can't force you to acknowledge the evidence, nor do I need to...

I can`t give you the ability to weigh evidence, nor do I need to.

> > > > > But unless you stop the cowardice, all you're going to do is sit here and whimper.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >We have a blowhard shooting blanks, who knows his ideas are retarded and doesn`t want them out where they can be seen and evaluated.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Unlike you, I've actually put a scenario on the table for everyone to examine.
> > > >
> > > > Where?
> > >
> > > As I've repeatedly told you, in the last forum where a believer actually presented his scenario... the Amazon Forums.
> >
> > I`m talking about *your* ideas, stupid. Not something somebody said somewhere else.
>
>
> Lack of literacy, quite obviously...

You are retarded, obviously. I challenge you to produce something and you offer what someone else said somewhere else.

> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
>
>
> > > My offer is still on the table - I'll give a scenario exactly as detailed, and with just as much evidence and citation as you're willing to post.
> >
> > No, you don`t make conditions.
>
>
> You're clearly a moron, because I just did.

You can claim to be Napoleon also.

> They are, indeed, the SAME conditions you demand.
>
> You want to force me to post my scenario without doing so yourself.
>
> Not going to happen.

You can`t, that was the point I was making. You support my contention when you don`t.

> > You don`t have to put your ideas on the table for consideration. But I will point out that although you raise issues all the time, you are deathly afraid to make arguments and put them on the table along with their support for consideration. I maintain that the reason you don`t do this is because you know your ideas are retarded and are ashamed of them. You support my contention every time you raise an issue but balk at saying exactly what your position is on it and how it supports any contentions of yours.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

The truth might look like lies to the retarded.

> > > But, of course, you're a coward.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > > You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just letting the lurkers in on what they are witnessing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yep... you're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ben says as he runs away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who's running, "Bud?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you seriously think that lying will convince anyone?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do the lurkers see you starting posts with headers that say "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald" or "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray" or the like? No, they don`t, you are too embarrassed by your own ideas to put them out where they can be seen. And I don`t blame you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud;" you'd only whine some more if I posted those posts.
> > > >
> > > > You are simply ashamed of the ideas you hold.
> > >
> > >
> > > ROTFLMAO!!!
> >
> > It is evident. Guys like Bob Harris actually have themselves convinced that they hold good ideas and that the evidence actually supports his ideas. He has no problem endlessly putting his ideas on the table, along with the evidence he feels supports them. You, on the other hand, know your ideas are bad, so you keep them hidden away, ashamed to put them on the table for consideration. You are the kind of intellectual coward who can only criticize what others think, but can`t support his own ideas to save his life.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You`re an intellectual coward, Ben.

>
>
> > > > > Indeed, I'll make you a offer...
> > > > >
> > > > > Specify what the largest foreign object in the AP X-ray *is* (and yes, I'm asking you to POINT TO IT) - and my next post will be titled "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> > > >
> > > > No conditions. Put your arguments on the table or STFU.
> > >
> > >
> > > Quite the gutless coward, aren't you "Bud?"
> > >
> > >
> > > > > But I predict nothing but cowardice from you...
> > >
> > >
> > > My crystal ball is still operating perfectly.
> >
> > Have you started any posts outlining your ideas and the support for those ideas?
>
> Of course...
>
> But you knew that...

Where?

[Ben Holmes]

As was your comment.

Lied, didn't you?

> As I`ve pointed out before, if someone who was an expert in the relevant fields was going to make a determination on whether a bullet wound was an entrance or an exit they would do so only after a careful investigation of the wound. So you offer the wrong people doing the wrong things and expect it to be treated as meaningful.

Nope... changing the topic, I see.

You can't read, can you?

> > > > > > > > > > This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Most everything.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is neither overwhelming or compelling. I mentioned the things that kick the hell out of the idea that the throat shot came from the front.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your opinion doesn't mean anything...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nothing matter more.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What expert in the proper field did a careful examination of the wound and declared it an entry?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the *ONLY* medically trained experts to have ever seen it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Meaningless. Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ROTFLMAO!!!
> > > >
> > > > And you got your medical degree where, exactly?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your experience in forensic pathology is what, exactly?
> > >
> > > You asked a couple of meaningless questions and my assertion remains true...
> >
> >
> > Yep... zip.
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit."
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> Then you should be able to name someone with relevant expertise who did an examination of the throat wound to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit.

Of course I can. So can you.

> > > Why are conspiracy retards so afraid to look at evidence correctly?
> >
> >
> > You mean run away from it?
> >
> >
> > > The answer is that they are playing silly games.
> >
> >
> > No, the answer is you're too dishonest and cowardly...
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > You have nothing but keep insisting it is something.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You lost.
> > >
> > > Why not get the janitor`s opinion?
> >
> >
> > Nope... medically trained doctors who dealt with hundreds of bullet wound injuries every year is going to be hard to beat.
>
> You insist on pretending this evidence is something it is not. I`m not going to pretend along with you. They don`t have the necessary training and they didn`t conduct the necessary investigation to determine whether this wound was an entrance or an exit.

How silly of you!

> > > > > > > > this is why the Warren Commission couldn't "find" the Parkland Press Conference...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dead silence...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You didn`t say anything, why did you expect a response?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > > >
> > > > > You said nothing. You did that thing where you vaguely allude. Spit it out and spell it out.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > >
> > > You made a retard assertion about Bugliosi being "afraid" and vaguely alluded to him lying. You seem afraid to spell out your ideas. I know why, they are retarded.
> >
> >
> > Yep... Bugliosi certainly *WAS* afraid of the evidence, just as you are... and yes, he PROVABLY got caught lying, just as you frequently do...
>
> Ben proves me right once more, merely repeating his vague empty claims.

"Claims" that I support by cited evidence.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > > > > > > > And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nonsense. Oswald was shooting from right where he was seen shooting from.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You asked "What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And I've provided simply *one* example out of many that I can offer... and instead of dealing with it, you run.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You provided an example of how you cannot properly evaluate evidence. How does this draw into question Oswald`s guilt?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > > >
> > > > > You don`t know how to evaluate evidence. Why should that impede me in determining Oswald`s guilt?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > >
> > > Then you should be able to say how the doctor`s opinions should be given the weight necessary to impact whether Oswald was guilty. But that would require thinking and putting ideas out in the open and supporting them, things you can`t do.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > I don't presume the conclusions, then go around judging the evidence in terms of whether or not it fits my "conclusions."
>
> Nonsense. You do what every other conspiracy retard does. If something is indicative of Oswald`s guilt, if you can`t figure some angle to explain it away you go with the evidence being faked or the witness who provided it being coerced.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > That's a tactic reserved for believers.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There... see how easy that was?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You decided to look at the wrong things and have decided to look at those things incorrectly. There is nothing compelling about this approach.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yep... coward.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've answered your challenge quite easily, and all you can do is whine...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > All you did was confirm what I said. Nothing you`ve offered draws into question Oswald`s guilt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, you seem to think it does, but you are an idiot.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > >
> > > About which part?
> > >
> > > And making some meaningless empty claims and then running from supporting them does not meet the challenge.
> >
> >
> > Feel free to cite for your claim... but you know you're lying, and cannot do so.
>
> You`ve done right here in this post, offering the opinion of the doctors as evidence of Oswald`s innocence. You can`t hold other people to your level of stupidity.

No citation... seems like you *KNOW* you're lying again, "Bud."

Still whining again, "Bud."

> > > > > > > > > Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nah... again, you're desperate to have something to whine about...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snicker> I`m batting a thousand.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Still a coward, eh "Bud?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm more interested in the evidence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can`t put an supportable ideas on the table using that evidence. Unless you can put compelling arguments on the table what is the point?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What evidence?
> > > > >
> > > > > You are free to use any evidence you like in support of your ideas. Use the AP x-ray, use the NAA evidence, anything you like.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay - you've specified that I'm allowed to use any evidence I want.
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to use the Mauser found in the 6th Floor sniper's nest... you know, the one that belonged to the real assassin.
> > > >
> > > > His name was Jackson, and he wasn't related to Lee Harvey Oswald at all.
> > > >
> > > > You lost.
> > >
> > > Is this you admitting you can`t take the evidence in this case and put compelling arguments on the table for consideration?
> >
> >
> > Just did.
>
> And this is why conspiracy retards should be ignored, they can`t use the evidence to put compelling ideas on the table for consideration. You have no Mauser, you have no Mauser bullets, you have no suspect you can produce. You are shooting blanks.

You have no Autopsy X-rays...

ROTFLMAO!!! You lose!

> > > > > > You refuse to acknowledge any...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Such as what is the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...
> > > > >
> > > > > Stop shooting blanks and start a post outlining the significance of this evidence.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Mauser wasn't shooting blanks...
> > >
> > > Good. If this is your idea, put it on the table with the support for it.
> >
> >
> > Just did.
>
> Then this is what you have to offer after years of studying the case. Nothing. This is why the WC`s finding are so superior to the ideas of the conspiracy retards. They have a rifle, bullets, a suspect that is tangible. Retards have imagination.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > > > > > > > > Since you have no ideas you can put on the table and support you have nothing to offer, and can only criticize what other have done.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You're ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE for me to say something that you can criticize... and I can well understand why.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You don`t say anything. You have to carefully construct questions that sort of allude to things, but you don`t come right out and say what your ideas are. This is all anyone needs to know.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These are simple questions... anyone knowledgeable on case evidence can INSTANTLY answer them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Even people who don't know the answers can Google the correct answer fairly quickly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So what we have here, is someone knowledgeable on the case evidence, with the ability to explain it, debating a coward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What we have here is an intellectual coward who doesn`t want to flesh out his ideas for fear someone might call on him to support them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you ever develop enough courage to answer the question, you'll quickly see the topic move forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why the conditions? Why can`t you just present your ideas and the support for your ideas?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You've already lost. The Mauser proves it.
> > > >
> > > > You can't put Jackson's Mouser in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands... they were Jackson's prints...
> > >
> > > Include the print evidence in your case that the Mauser was used. Start a post supporting the idea that a Mauser was used in this murder.
> >
> >
> > Don't need to.
> >
> > You already accept this evidence.
>
> How so?

Since you refuse to refute it, you accept it...

It's simple.

> > > See, this is how it works. You can`t just say "I think bigfoot exists". You have to make the case, you have to put the evidence on the table that you used to come to that conclusion. You just can`t say "footprints", ir "film". You have to make a compelling argument that you are correct. If you can`t make compelling arguments using the evidence you are merely making empty claims, shooting blanks.
> >
> >
> > I can't force you to acknowledge the evidence, nor do I need to...
>
> I can`t give you the ability to weigh evidence, nor do I need to.

Of course you don't "need to," because I already have it.

ROTFLMAO!!!

> > > > > > But unless you stop the cowardice, all you're going to do is sit here and whimper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >We have a blowhard shooting blanks, who knows his ideas are retarded and doesn`t want them out where they can be seen and evaluated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unlike you, I've actually put a scenario on the table for everyone to examine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where?
> > > >
> > > > As I've repeatedly told you, in the last forum where a believer actually presented his scenario... the Amazon Forums.
> > >
> > > I`m talking about *your* ideas, stupid. Not something somebody said somewhere else.
> >
> >
> > Lack of literacy, quite obviously...
>
> You are retarded, obviously. I challenge you to produce something and you offer what someone else said somewhere else.

Still complaining about your inability to read???

> > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> >
> >
> > > > My offer is still on the table - I'll give a scenario exactly as detailed, and with just as much evidence and citation as you're willing to post.

"Bud" clearly never read this far...

> > > No, you don`t make conditions.
> >
> >
> > You're clearly a moron, because I just did.
>
> You can claim to be Napoleon also.

I don't make claims contrary to the evidence. That's what believers do.

> > They are, indeed, the SAME conditions you demand.
> >
> > You want to force me to post my scenario without doing so yourself.
> >
> > Not going to happen.
>
> You can`t, that was the point I was making. You support my contention when you don`t.

You're lying again, "Bud."


Of course, this is *PROOF* that you're a child molester... you support my contention when you refuse to refute it.

> > > You don`t have to put your ideas on the table for consideration. But I will point out that although you raise issues all the time, you are deathly afraid to make arguments and put them on the table along with their support for consideration. I maintain that the reason you don`t do this is because you know your ideas are retarded and are ashamed of them. You support my contention every time you raise an issue but balk at saying exactly what your position is on it and how it supports any contentions of yours.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> The truth might look like lies to the retarded.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > But, of course, you're a coward.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Just letting the lurkers in on what they are witnessing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yep... you're totally frustrated by trying to defend the indefensible...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But I'll just stick with the evidence... and laugh at all the cowards running away...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ben says as he runs away.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who's running, "Bud?"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you seriously think that lying will convince anyone?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do the lurkers see you starting posts with headers that say "How the NAA Evidence Exonerates Oswald" or "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray" or the like? No, they don`t, you are too embarrassed by your own ideas to put them out where they can be seen. And I don`t blame you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tut tut tut, "Bud;" you'd only whine some more if I posted those posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are simply ashamed of the ideas you hold.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ROTFLMAO!!!
> > >
> > > It is evident. Guys like Bob Harris actually have themselves convinced that they hold good ideas and that the evidence actually supports his ideas. He has no problem endlessly putting his ideas on the table, along with the evidence he feels supports them. You, on the other hand, know your ideas are bad, so you keep them hidden away, ashamed to put them on the table for consideration. You are the kind of intellectual coward who can only criticize what others think, but can`t support his own ideas to save his life.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> You`re an intellectual coward, Ben.

Says the moron who refuses to point to the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray...

ROTFLMAO!!!

> > > > > > Indeed, I'll make you a offer...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Specify what the largest foreign object in the AP X-ray *is* (and yes, I'm asking you to POINT TO IT) - and my next post will be titled "The Significance of the Object in the AP X-ray"
> > > > >
> > > > > No conditions. Put your arguments on the table or STFU.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Quite the gutless coward, aren't you "Bud?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > But I predict nothing but cowardice from you...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My crystal ball is still operating perfectly.
> > >
> > > Have you started any posts outlining your ideas and the support for those ideas?
> >
> > Of course...
> >
> > But you knew that...
>
> Where?

You wouldn't answer 'em anyway, so why do you care?

[Bud]

No, I offered the correct explanation of why people don`t engage you on these issues. That you don`t like this explanation doesn`t make it a lie.

> > As I`ve pointed out before, if someone who was an expert in the relevant fields was going to make a determination on whether a bullet wound was an entrance or an exit they would do so only after a careful investigation of the wound. So you offer the wrong people doing the wrong things and expect it to be treated as meaningful.
>
> Nope... changing the topic, I see.

Addressing the issue you brought up.

> You can't read, can you?
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > This admission on your part that you lost isn't really needed... intelligent readers can figure out who's right.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The list of believers who've run from me is long... although mostly trolls, it also includes believers well versed in the evidence, such as John McAdams, Henry Sienzant, Patrick Collins, David Von Pein and others...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Believers simply cannot explain the evidence in terms of their faith - and get irritated every time I point it out.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Most everything.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But let's start with the easiest for you to understand... the overwhelming evidence that the throat wound came from the front.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It is neither overwhelming or compelling. I mentioned the things that kick the hell out of the idea that the throat shot came from the front.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your opinion doesn't mean anything...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nothing matter more.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What expert in the proper field did a careful examination of the wound and declared it an entry?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The throat wound was described repeatedly as an entry wound within hours...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the *ONLY* medically trained experts to have ever seen it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meaningless. Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ROTFLMAO!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > And you got your medical degree where, exactly?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your experience in forensic pathology is what, exactly?
> > > >
> > > > You asked a couple of meaningless questions and my assertion remains true...
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep... zip.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > "Nobody with the proper expertise did an examination to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit."
> > >
> > >
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > Then you should be able to name someone with relevant expertise who did an examination of the throat wound to determine whether it was an entrance or an exit.
>
>
> Of course I can. So can you.

You are lying of course, and you can`t offer the name of anyone with the proper expertise who did a proper examination of the throat wound before it was obscured by the trach incision.

> > > > Why are conspiracy retards so afraid to look at evidence correctly?
> > >
> > >
> > > You mean run away from it?
> > >
> > >
> > > > The answer is that they are playing silly games.
> > >
> > >
> > > No, the answer is you're too dishonest and cowardly...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > You have nothing but keep insisting it is something.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You lost.
> > > >
> > > > Why not get the janitor`s opinion?
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope... medically trained doctors who dealt with hundreds of bullet wound injuries every year is going to be hard to beat.
> >
> > You insist on pretending this evidence is something it is not. I`m not going to pretend along with you. They don`t have the necessary training and they didn`t conduct the necessary investigation to determine whether this wound was an entrance or an exit.
>
>
> How silly of you!

How cowardly of you!

This demonstrates once more that Ben cannot engage on ideas. If he can`t do that why is he here?

> > > > > > > > > this is why the Warren Commission couldn't "find" the Parkland Press Conference...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Vincent Bugliosi certainly understood how powerful this evidence is - which is why he was forced to lie about it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dead silence...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You didn`t say anything, why did you expect a response?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You said nothing. You did that thing where you vaguely allude. Spit it out and spell it out.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > >
> > > > You made a retard assertion about Bugliosi being "afraid" and vaguely alluded to him lying. You seem afraid to spell out your ideas. I know why, they are retarded.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep... Bugliosi certainly *WAS* afraid of the evidence, just as you are... and yes, he PROVABLY got caught lying, just as you frequently do...
> >
> > Ben proves me right once more, merely repeating his vague empty claims.
>
>
> "Claims" that I support by cited evidence.

In a shoebox under your bed?

> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > And unless you can place Oswald in the front of the limo at the time of the first shot - you've lost.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nonsense. Oswald was shooting from right where he was seen shooting from.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You asked "What have you ever offered that draws into question the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy?"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And I've provided simply *one* example out of many that I can offer... and instead of dealing with it, you run.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You provided an example of how you cannot properly evaluate evidence. How does this draw into question Oswald`s guilt?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You don`t know how to evaluate evidence. Why should that impede me in determining Oswald`s guilt?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > >
> > > > Then you should be able to say how the doctor`s opinions should be given the weight necessary to impact whether Oswald was guilty. But that would require thinking and putting ideas out in the open and supporting them, things you can`t do.
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > I don't presume the conclusions, then go around judging the evidence in terms of whether or not it fits my "conclusions."
> >
> > Nonsense. You do what every other conspiracy retard does. If something is indicative of Oswald`s guilt, if you can`t figure some angle to explain it away you go with the evidence being faked or the witness who provided it being coerced.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

What I described is exactly your approach.

> > > That's a tactic reserved for believers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And the constant refrain from believers that the evidence of this frontal wound was overturned by the autopsy - THAT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WOUND EXISTED, AND DID NOT DISSECT OR EXAMINE IT - is a lie.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There... see how easy that was?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now, like the coward you are, you'll refuse to quote my points above, and ACTUALLY RESPOND TO THEM LIKE AN ADULT.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You decided to look at the wrong things and have decided to look at those things incorrectly. There is nothing compelling about this approach.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yep... coward.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've answered your challenge quite easily, and all you can do is whine...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > All you did was confirm what I said. Nothing you`ve offered draws into question Oswald`s guilt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, you seem to think it does, but you are an idiot.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > >
> > > > About which part?
> > > >
> > > > And making some meaningless empty claims and then running from supporting them does not meet the challenge.
> > >
> > >
> > > Feel free to cite for your claim... but you know you're lying, and cannot do so.
> >
> > You`ve done right here in this post, offering the opinion of the doctors as evidence of Oswald`s innocence. You can`t hold other people to your level of stupidity.
>
>
> No citation... seems like you *KNOW* you're lying again, "Bud."

I cited your claim, made in this very post.

What weight should be given to the opinions of laymen in the proper fields doing no real investigation on whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit be given?

Where did I use this evidence in support of an idea?

Still running. Still no posts appearing showing how the NAA evidence exonerates Oswald or how the AP x-ray is significant.

> > > > > > > > > > Unless he can put arguments on the table what is the point?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nah... again, you're desperate to have something to whine about...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <snicker> I`m batting a thousand.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Still a coward, eh "Bud?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm more interested in the evidence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can`t put an supportable ideas on the table using that evidence. Unless you can put compelling arguments on the table what is the point?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What evidence?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are free to use any evidence you like in support of your ideas. Use the AP x-ray, use the NAA evidence, anything you like.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay - you've specified that I'm allowed to use any evidence I want.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm going to use the Mauser found in the 6th Floor sniper's nest... you know, the one that belonged to the real assassin.
> > > > >
> > > > > His name was Jackson, and he wasn't related to Lee Harvey Oswald at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > You lost.
> > > >
> > > > Is this you admitting you can`t take the evidence in this case and put compelling arguments on the table for consideration?
> > >
> > >
> > > Just did.
> >
> > And this is why conspiracy retards should be ignored, they can`t use the evidence to put compelling ideas on the table for consideration. You have no Mauser, you have no Mauser bullets, you have no suspect you can produce. You are shooting blanks.
>
>
> You have no Autopsy X-rays...

Sure we do.

Also a fallacy.

> > > > See, this is how it works. You can`t just say "I think bigfoot exists". You have to make the case, you have to put the evidence on the table that you used to come to that conclusion. You just can`t say "footprints", ir "film". You have to make a compelling argument that you are correct. If you can`t make compelling arguments using the evidence you are merely making empty claims, shooting blanks.
> > >
> > >
> > > I can't force you to acknowledge the evidence, nor do I need to...
> >
> > I can`t give you the ability to weigh evidence, nor do I need to.
>
>
> Of course you don't "need to," because I already have it.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
>
>
> > > > > > > But unless you stop the cowardice, all you're going to do is sit here and whimper.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >We have a blowhard shooting blanks, who knows his ideas are retarded and doesn`t want them out where they can be seen and evaluated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unlike you, I've actually put a scenario on the table for everyone to examine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Where?
> > > > >
> > > > > As I've repeatedly told you, in the last forum where a believer actually presented his scenario... the Amazon Forums.
> > > >
> > > > I`m talking about *your* ideas, stupid. Not something somebody said somewhere else.
> > >
> > >
> > > Lack of literacy, quite obviously...
> >
> > You are retarded, obviously. I challenge you to produce something and you offer what someone else said somewhere else.
>
>
> Still complaining about your inability to read???

Just pointing out another one of your failures.

>
>
> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > My offer is still on the table - I'll give a scenario exactly as detailed, and with just as much evidence and citation as you're willing to post.
>
>
> "Bud" clearly never read this far...
>
>
>
> > > > No, you don`t make conditions.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're clearly a moron, because I just did.
> >
> > You can claim to be Napoleon also.
>
>
> I don't make claims contrary to the evidence. That's what believers do.
>
>
> > > They are, indeed, the SAME conditions you demand.
> > >
> > > You want to force me to post my scenario without doing so yourself.
> > >
> > > Not going to happen.
> >
> > You can`t, that was the point I was making. You support my contention when you don`t.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
>
> Of course, this is *PROOF* that you're a child molester... you support my contention when you refuse to refute it.

You are afraid to put your ideas on the table for consideration because you know they are retarded and are ashamed of them.

You have nothing to offer. Just a blowhard shooting blanks...

[Ben Holmes]

Then you lied and stated that I was "running" from your point, even though I specifically addressed it.

Tell us "Bud," do you really think people don't catch your lying?

[Bud]

In what meaningful way did you contest what I wrote?

[Ben Holmes]

It's still in this post.

Anyone literate can follow along...

> > Tell us "Bud," do you really think people don't catch your lying?

Dead silence...