You Think Someone Would Have Noticed?

[lazu...@gmail.com]

Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK, and Connally ,hit by the same bullet. Not one!

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:56:07 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK, and Connally ,hit by the same bullet. Not one!

More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...

Fortunately for history, he was interviewed on T.V. - and stated that JFK & Connally were hit by separate bullets.

[Bud]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:17:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:56:07 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK, and Connally ,hit by the same bullet. Not one!
>
> More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...

He was questioned by the FBI. Doesn`t seem to have much to say of importance...

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9965#relPageId=10&tab=page

> Fortunately for history, he was interviewed on T.V. - and stated that JFK & Connally were hit by separate bullets.

This interview?

https://youtu.be/SzNkaFt8grg

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 6:01:45 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:17:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:56:07 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK, and Connally ,hit by the same bullet. Not one!
> >
> > More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
>
> He was questioned by the FBI. Doesn`t seem to have much to say of importance...
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9965#relPageId=10&tab=page

You're lying again, "Bud."

Here it is again: More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...

> > Fortunately for history, he was interviewed on T.V. - and stated that JFK & Connally were hit by separate bullets.
>
> This interview?

[snipped]

Don't waste my time.

Notice that "Bud" refused to acknowledge the truth of the statements I made, and only pretended to refute them - without actually doing so.

[David Von Pein]

"LAZ" SAID [NEEDLESS COMMAS REMOVED BY DVP]:

Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK and Connally hit by the same bullet. Not one!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But Mr. Zapruder's camera sure as heck did....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

[Bud]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:56:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 6:01:45 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:17:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:56:07 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK, and Connally ,hit by the same bullet. Not one!
> > >
> > > More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
> >
> > He was questioned by the FBI. Doesn`t seem to have much to say of importance...
> >
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9965#relPageId=10&tab=page
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

<snicker> About what? Be specific.

> Here it is again: More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
>
>
> > > Fortunately for history, he was interviewed on T.V. - and stated that JFK & Connally were hit by separate bullets.
> >
> > This interview?
>
> [snipped]
>
> Don't waste my time.

My God, you are such an intellectual coward.

> Notice that "Bud" refused to acknowledge the truth of the statements I made, and only pretended to refute them - without actually doing so.

You want to make pronouncements and not have them challenged. You should go back to your own forum if you are afraid to defend your ideas.

For the lurkers, Ben stated that Chaney said in a TV interview that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets. I think this is the interview he is referring to, see if you can find where Chaney said anything like that...

https://youtu.be/SzNkaFt8grg

[Ben Holmes]

The Warren Commission didn't think so.

They thought that Connally had a 'delayed reaction'...

So you're simply lying right now, David...

Why are you lying?

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:56:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 6:01:45 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:17:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:56:07 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK, and Connally ,hit by the same bullet. Not one!
> > > >
> > > > More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
> > >
> > > He was questioned by the FBI. Doesn`t seem to have much to say of importance...
> > >
> > > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9965#relPageId=10&tab=page
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> <snicker> About what? Be specific.

I did... here it is right below:

> > Here it is again: More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...

Tell us "Bud" - why do you think lying will get you anywhere?

[David Von Pein]

Why would you think I have to be in lockstep with every single thing the WC said?

I'm not allowed to go "outside" the WC or the WCR for any of my conclusions, is that it Holmes? (Geesh.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 12:31:52 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:37:03 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > "LAZ" SAID [NEEDLESS COMMAS REMOVED BY DVP]:
> > >
> > > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK and Connally hit by the same bullet. Not one!
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > But Mr. Zapruder's camera sure as heck did....
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
> >
> > The Warren Commission didn't think so.
> >
> > They thought that Connally had a 'delayed reaction'...
> >
> > So you're simply lying right now, David...
> >
> > Why are you lying?
>
> Why would you think I have to be in lockstep with every single thing the WC said?

YOU MADE THE CLAIM!!!

You know it's a lie.

The Warren Commission *DID NOT FEEL* that the film showed both being hit by the same bullet - they RECOGNIZED a delay...

This is how they were able to still claim the SBT - by speaking of a "delayed reaction."

So you're simply lying.


> I'm not allowed to go "outside" the WC or the WCR for any o" f my conclusions, is that it Holmes? (Geesh.)

IT WAS **YOUR** CLAIM!!! **YOU** brought up the Warren Commission ... **YOU** made the false assertion of what they "thought".

***YOU***!!!

Now you're desperate to disavow it.

Then simply admit that the film doesn't show what you just claimed it did.

After you do that, we can discuss your cowardice in refusing to deal with James Chaney.

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 1:20:08 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 12:31:52 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:37:03 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > "LAZ" SAID [NEEDLESS COMMAS REMOVED BY DVP]:
> > > >
> > > > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK and Connally hit by the same bullet. Not one!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > But Mr. Zapruder's camera sure as heck did....
> > > >
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
> > >
> > > The Warren Commission didn't think so.
> > >
> > > They thought that Connally had a 'delayed reaction'...
> > >
> > > So you're simply lying right now, David...
> > >
> > > Why are you lying?
> >
> > Why would you think I have to be in lockstep with every single thing the WC said?
>
> YOU MADE THE CLAIM!!!
>
> You know it's a lie.
>
> The Warren Commission *DID NOT FEEL* that the film showed both being hit by the same bullet - they RECOGNIZED a delay...
>
> This is how they were able to still claim the SBT - by speaking of a "delayed reaction."
>
> So you're simply lying.
>
>
> > I'm not allowed to go "outside" the WC or the WCR for any o" f my conclusions, is that it Holmes? (Geesh.)
>
> IT WAS **YOUR** CLAIM!!! **YOU** brought up the Warren Commission ...

Liar. YOU brought up the Warren Commission in this thread. I certainly didn't.

> **YOU** made the false assertion of what they "thought".
>

Where? When? Post the link to my "assertion" re: the WC.



> ***YOU***!!!
>

In THIS thread? You're nuts. YOU are the one inserting the stuff about the WC and the alleged "delayed reaction" into this thread. Not me.

> Now you're desperate to disavow it.
>

You're nuts.

> Then simply admit that the film doesn't show what you just claimed it did.
>

The film shows *exactly* what I said it does (IMO) --- two men reacting to a bullet at an identical point in time on the Z-Film. It couldn't be more obvious to me.

> After you do that, we can discuss your cowardice in refusing to deal with James Chaney.

Nice shift. But I'd rather stay on-topic and discuss your refusal to admit that what we're seeing in the clip below is the SBT in action:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jbpymw7jW20/WMzJdh_W5AI/AAAAAAABLkU/Eyc_-irXYv8vxMwinJVEiKJvO4iv0IIwQCLcB/s1600/Z-Film%2BClip-SBT-In-Motion.gif

What do you see happening in the above film clip, Ben?

[Bud]

I ask you what I said that was a lie and you quote yourself? Are you retarded?

And why are you such an intellectual coward that you are afraid to address the issues you yourself bring up?

And why can`t you show where in the TV interview of Chaney where he said that JFK and Connally were hit be separate bullets? Was this just another lie?

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:51:14 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 1:20:08 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:51:11 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 12:31:52 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:37:03 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > "LAZ" SAID [NEEDLESS COMMAS REMOVED BY DVP]:
> > > > >
> > > > > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK and Connally hit by the same bullet. Not one!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > But Mr. Zapruder's camera sure as heck did....
> > > > >
> > > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
> > > >
> > > > The Warren Commission didn't think so.
> > > >
> > > > They thought that Connally had a 'delayed reaction'...
> > > >
> > > > So you're simply lying right now, David...
> > > >
> > > > Why are you lying?
> > >
> > > Why would you think I have to be in lockstep with every single thing the WC said?
> >
> > YOU MADE THE CLAIM!!!
> >
> > You know it's a lie.
> >
> > The Warren Commission *DID NOT FEEL* that the film showed both being hit by the same bullet - they RECOGNIZED a delay...
> >
> > This is how they were able to still claim the SBT - by speaking of a "delayed reaction."
> >
> > So you're simply lying.
> >
> >
> > > I'm not allowed to go "outside" the WC or the WCR for any o" f my conclusions, is that it Holmes? (Geesh.)
> >
> > IT WAS **YOUR** CLAIM!!! **YOU** brought up the Warren Commission ...
>
> Liar. YOU brought up the Warren Commission in this thread. I certainly didn't.

Yep, it's true, you caught me in a mistake... you did not bring up the Warren Commission. My apologies to you ... you tell far too many lies for me to have to invent any. I'll stick to your PROVABLE lies, I'm sure you'll be happier.

So the question becomes, why do you REFUSE to state that the Warren Commission was wrong when *THEY* made the claim that the Zapruder film FAILS to show both men being hit by the same bullet?

Indeed, just a decade or so ago, *ALL* believers were in lockstep, that there was a "delayed reaction" - now all believers are claiming that the extant Zapruder film shows what it simply does not show.

Then, suddenly a new thought appeared on the horizon... someone, and I'm not sure who, decided that they would simply start asserting that the Zapruder film shows SIMULTANEOUS reactions... but that's simply a lie.

The *real* reaction - where Connally explosively exhales - is now COMPLETELY UNEXPLAINED BY YOU ... since you no longer have a bullet to cause this.

So, did the compression of his lungs by the bullet simply pause for a few seconds?

> > **YOU** made the false assertion of what they "thought".
> >
>
> Where? When? Post the link to my "assertion" re: the WC.

Do you expect people to cite for their claims?

Is it something you do?

> > ***YOU***!!!
> >
>
> In THIS thread? You're nuts. YOU are the one inserting the stuff about the WC and the alleged "delayed reaction" into this thread. Not me.

Are you publicly denying that the Warren Commission believed that there was a delayed reaction on Connally's part?

> > Now you're desperate to disavow it.
> >
>
> You're nuts.
>
>
>
> > Then simply admit that the film doesn't show what you just claimed it did.
> >
>
> The film shows *exactly* what I said it does (IMO) --- two men reacting to a bullet at an identical point in time on the Z-Film. It couldn't be more obvious to me.

Sadly, it's still not "obvious" to me, nor; I quite suspect, to most people who've watched the film.

> > After you do that, we can discuss your cowardice in refusing to deal with James Chaney.
>
> Nice shift. But I'd rather stay on-topic and discuss your refusal to admit that what we're seeing in the clip below is the SBT in action:

Yep... James Chaney just SCARES BELIEVERS TO DEATH!!!

And since the topic is about WITNESSES to a single bullet striking two men, you've been quite noticeably silent on that fact.

Indeed, contrary to the Warren Commission's theory, WHICH YOU ACCEPT AND DEFEND, there's a witness that states that separate bullets struck both men.

His name is James Chaney.

You know this.

This **IS** the topic of this thread... you've hijacked it into the Zapruder film - which shows IN YOUR OPINION that the SBT is real - but YOU HAVEN'T PUBLICLY STATED WHAT THE WITNESSES OBSERVED IN DEALEY PLAZA!

Why not start with "Yes, it's true that no witnesses saw both victims being struck by a single bullet, and yes it's true that the closest POLICE witness contradicted such a theory, but here's why I think that's wrong..."

> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jbpymw7jW20/WMzJdh_W5AI/AAAAAAABLkU/Eyc_-irXYv8vxMwinJVEiKJvO4iv0IIwQCLcB/s1600/Z-Film%2BClip-SBT-In-Motion.gif
>
> What do you see happening in the above film clip, Ben?

No reaction until around the 230's or so.

Now, back to James Chaney... was he a witness bearing on the SBT?

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 3:51:37 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 12:33:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:56:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 6:01:45 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:17:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:56:07 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK, and Connally ,hit by the same bullet. Not one!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
> > > > >
> > > > > He was questioned by the FBI. Doesn`t seem to have much to say of importance...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9965#relPageId=10&tab=page
> > > >
> > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > >
> > > <snicker> About what? Be specific.
> >
> >
> > I did... here it is right below:
> >
> >
> > > > Here it is again: More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
> >
> >
> > Tell us "Bud" - why do you think lying will get you anywhere?
>
> I ask you what I said that was a lie and you quote yourself? Are you retarded?

You *ANSWERED* that statement as if you were refuting it.


You *WANTED* people to think you were refuting what I said... and that's a lie.


There was no reason for me to explain this to you... you certainly know when you're lying.

> And why are you such an intellectual coward that you are afraid to address the issues you yourself bring up?

Never happened...

> And why can`t you show where in the TV interview of Chaney where he said that JFK and Connally were hit be separate bullets? Was this just another lie?

Too bad you don't pay attention to the evidence... you've clearly not read any testimony on this issue.

All you have to do is state publicly that you can't find the information on James Chaney stating that a separate bullet struck Connally, and I'll cite it.

**I'LL INSTANTLY CITE IT**

My guess is that you're going to refuse to do so, since this is a habit you've gotten into.

But if you do, I feel no need to answer material you already know.

[Bud]

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 3:51:37 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 12:33:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:56:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 6:01:45 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:17:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:56:07 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK, and Connally ,hit by the same bullet. Not one!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He was questioned by the FBI. Doesn`t seem to have much to say of importance...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9965#relPageId=10&tab=page
> > > > >
> > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > >
> > > > <snicker> About what? Be specific.
> > >
> > >
> > > I did... here it is right below:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Here it is again: More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
> > >
> > >
> > > Tell us "Bud" - why do you think lying will get you anywhere?
> >
> > I ask you what I said that was a lie and you quote yourself? Are you retarded?
>
>
> You *ANSWERED* that statement as if you were refuting it.

I was providing the lurkers with more information on the issue you brought up.

>
> You *WANTED* people to think you were refuting what I said... and that's a lie.

By linking to a report written in 1975, stupid? I pretty sure the WC had wrapped up their investigation by then.

>
> There was no reason for me to explain this to you... you certainly know when you're lying.
>
>
> > And why are you such an intellectual coward that you are afraid to address the issues you yourself bring up?
>
>
> Never happened...

Just did.

>
> > And why can`t you show where in the TV interview of Chaney where he said that JFK and Connally were hit be separate bullets? Was this just another lie?
>
> Too bad you don't pay attention to the evidence... you've clearly not read any testimony on this issue.

Blah, blah, blah. Your said this...

"Fortunately for history, he was interviewed on T.V. - and stated that JFK & Connally were hit by separate bullets."

I produced a video of Chaney giving a TV interview and asked if this was the one you were referring to...

https://youtu.be/SzNkaFt8grg

You snipped the link and ran like the intellectual coward you are, which should tell anyone all they need to know.

[Bud]

If you were actually interested in the truth instead of merely playing silly games you`d see look at the evidence yourself and make your own determination, rather than try to score points against the WC.

>
>
> > > Now you're desperate to disavow it.
> > >
> >
> > You're nuts.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Then simply admit that the film doesn't show what you just claimed it did.
> > >
> >
> > The film shows *exactly* what I said it does (IMO) --- two men reacting to a bullet at an identical point in time on the Z-Film. It couldn't be more obvious to me.
>
>
> Sadly, it's still not "obvious" to me, nor; I quite suspect, to most people who've watched the film.

You are an idiot with no interest in the truth. It is as plain as day.

>
> > > After you do that, we can discuss your cowardice in refusing to deal with James Chaney.
> >
> > Nice shift. But I'd rather stay on-topic and discuss your refusal to admit that what we're seeing in the clip below is the SBT in action:
>
>
> Yep... James Chaney just SCARES BELIEVERS TO DEATH!!!

He said all the shots came from behind. He doesn`t hurt the idea that Oswald, firing from the TSBD hit both men one bit.

> And since the topic is about WITNESSES to a single bullet striking two men, you've been quite noticeably silent on that fact.

Was Kennedy hit in the face? Could he even *be* hit in the face from a shot from the rear? Could Connally be hit in the chest from a shot from the rear? You bring this issue up, but you don`t want to deal with what it actually is.

> Indeed, contrary to the Warren Commission's theory, WHICH YOU ACCEPT AND DEFEND, there's a witness that states that separate bullets struck both men.
>
> His name is James Chaney.

Quote him.

> You know this.
>
> This **IS** the topic of this thread... you've hijacked it into the Zapruder film - which shows IN YOUR OPINION that the SBT is real - but YOU HAVEN'T PUBLICLY STATED WHAT THE WITNESSES OBSERVED IN DEALEY PLAZA!

The z-film is evidence with which to weigh the information Chaney provided, stupid. You don`t get to make rules that compartmentalize issues into the parameters you demand must be maintained.

And it is retarded you even try this. If I started a post about the evidence that supports a revolver at the Tippit murder scene, you or another conspiracy retard would jump in about the "automatic" transmission. Can I say "That is outside the boundaries I`ve decided are relevant"?

> Why not start with "Yes, it's true that no witnesses saw both victims being struck by a single bullet, and yes it's true that the closest POLICE witness contradicted such a theory, but here's why I think that's wrong..."

He offered the Zapruder film as evidence against Chaney`s assertion.

And why don`t you quote what Chaney actually said? The reason why is because you know a lot of it doesn`t even make sense.

>
> > https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jbpymw7jW20/WMzJdh_W5AI/AAAAAAABLkU/Eyc_-irXYv8vxMwinJVEiKJvO4iv0IIwQCLcB/s1600/Z-Film%2BClip-SBT-In-Motion.gif
> >
> > What do you see happening in the above film clip, Ben?
>
> No reaction until around the 230's or so.

So, two separate shots a split second apart? These are the absurdities the conspiracy retards have to suggest in order to avoid facing reality.

> Now, back to James Chaney... was he a witness bearing on the SBT?

He supports it is some ways.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 9:10:06 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 3:51:37 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 12:33:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:56:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 6:01:45 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:17:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:56:07 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK, and Connally ,hit by the same bullet. Not one!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He was questioned by the FBI. Doesn`t seem to have much to say of importance...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9965#relPageId=10&tab=page
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > > >
> > > > > <snicker> About what? Be specific.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I did... here it is right below:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Here it is again: More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tell us "Bud" - why do you think lying will get you anywhere?
> > >
> > > I ask you what I said that was a lie and you quote yourself? Are you retarded?
> >
> >
> > You *ANSWERED* that statement as if you were refuting it.
>
> I was providing the lurkers with more information on the issue you brought up.

Yep... you *STILL* refuse to publicly acknowledge that James Chaney wasn't questioned by ANYONE for the Warren Commission.

And you *CERTAINLY* haven't tried to explain that rather damaging fact.

> > You *WANTED* people to think you were refuting what I said... and that's a lie.
>
> By linking to a report written in 1975, stupid? I pretty sure the WC had wrapped up their investigation by then.

Yep... you lied.

You *STILL* refuse to acknowledge the truth of what I stated.

> > There was no reason for me to explain this to you... you certainly know when you're lying.
> >
> >
> > > And why are you such an intellectual coward that you are afraid to address the issues you yourself bring up?
> >
> >
> > Never happened...
>
> Just did.

You're lying again, "Bud."

Indeed, it's *YOU* that's refusing to address the issue I raised, not I.

> > > And why can`t you show where in the TV interview of Chaney where he said that JFK and Connally were hit be separate bullets? Was this just another lie?
> >
> > Too bad you don't pay attention to the evidence... you've clearly not read any testimony on this issue.
>
> Blah, blah, blah. Your said this...
>
> "Fortunately for history, he was interviewed on T.V. - and stated that JFK & Connally were hit by separate bullets."

Both statements are 100% correct.

You've admitted the first one, and are in denial on the second one.

> I produced a video of Chaney giving a TV interview and asked if this was the one you were referring to...
>
> https://youtu.be/SzNkaFt8grg
>
> You snipped the link and ran like the intellectual coward you are, which should tell anyone all they need to know.

All you have to do is publicly acknowledge THAT **YOU** DON'T KNOW ABOUT CHANEY'S STATEMENTS ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT BULLETS STRIKING JFK & CONNALLY - and I'll immediately cite it.

> > All you have to do is state publicly that you can't find the information on James Chaney stating that a separate bullet struck Connally, and I'll cite it.
> >
> > **I'LL INSTANTLY CITE IT**
> >
> > My guess is that you're going to refuse to do so, since this is a habit you've gotten into.
> >
> > But if you do, I feel no need to answer material you already know.

Yep... you *DO* know.

You refuse to claim you don't... so you're just trying to waste my time.

What a coward!!

[Bud]

On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 12:51:57 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 9:10:06 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 11:47:43 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 3:51:37 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, March 18, 2017 at 12:33:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 8:40:29 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 9:56:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 6:01:45 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 5:17:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 17, 2017 at 10:56:07 AM UTC-7, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Not one person in Dealey Plaza saw JFK, and Connally ,hit by the same bullet. Not one!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He was questioned by the FBI. Doesn`t seem to have much to say of importance...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9965#relPageId=10&tab=page
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snicker> About what? Be specific.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I did... here it is right below:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Here it is again: More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell us "Bud" - why do you think lying will get you anywhere?
> > > >
> > > > I ask you what I said that was a lie and you quote yourself? Are you retarded?
> > >
> > >
> > > You *ANSWERED* that statement as if you were refuting it.
> >
> > I was providing the lurkers with more information on the issue you brought up.
>
>
> Yep... you *STILL* refuse to publicly acknowledge that James Chaney wasn't questioned by ANYONE for the Warren Commission.

Nor did I dispute it.

> And you *CERTAINLY* haven't tried to explain that rather damaging fact.

I don`t have any ideas that require it to be explained.

>
>
> > > You *WANTED* people to think you were refuting what I said... and that's a lie.
> >
> > By linking to a report written in 1975, stupid? I pretty sure the WC had wrapped up their investigation by then.
>
>
> Yep... you lied.
>
> You *STILL* refuse to acknowledge the truth of what I stated.
>
>
> > > There was no reason for me to explain this to you... you certainly know when you're lying.
> > >
> > >
> > > > And why are you such an intellectual coward that you are afraid to address the issues you yourself bring up?
> > >
> > >
> > > Never happened...
> >
> > Just did.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> Indeed, it's *YOU* that's refusing to address the issue I raised, not I.
>
>
>
> > > > And why can`t you show where in the TV interview of Chaney where he said that JFK and Connally were hit be separate bullets? Was this just another lie?
> > >
> > > Too bad you don't pay attention to the evidence... you've clearly not read any testimony on this issue.
> >
> > Blah, blah, blah. Your said this...
> >
> > "Fortunately for history, he was interviewed on T.V. - and stated that JFK & Connally were hit by separate bullets."
>
>
> Both statements are 100% correct.
>
> You've admitted the first one, and are in denial on the second one.
>
>
> > I produced a video of Chaney giving a TV interview and asked if this was the one you were referring to...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/SzNkaFt8grg
> >
> > You snipped the link and ran like the intellectual coward you are, which should tell anyone all they need to know.
>
>
> All you have to do is publicly acknowledge THAT **YOU** DON'T KNOW ABOUT CHANEY'S STATEMENTS ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT BULLETS STRIKING JFK & CONNALLY - and I'll immediately cite it.

Why do you break out in this tiresome dance routine whenever you get your tail stuck in a crack?

You said that Chaney said some things in a TV interview. I produced a TV interview of Chaney and simply asked if this was the one you were referring to. Why are you afraid to direct the lurkers to the primary source you referenced, are you afraid they will find that it doesn`t support your claim?

[Ben Holmes]

I have... what makes you think I haven't?

Why are you so dishonest that you refuse to acknowledge that you believe that the Warren Commission was wrong?

> > > > Now you're desperate to disavow it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You're nuts.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Then simply admit that the film doesn't show what you just claimed it did.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The film shows *exactly* what I said it does (IMO) --- two men reacting to a bullet at an identical point in time on the Z-Film. It couldn't be more obvious to me.
> >
> >
> > Sadly, it's still not "obvious" to me, nor; I quite suspect, to most people who've watched the film.
>
> You are an idiot with no interest in the truth. It is as plain as day.

Ad hominem simply shows that you understand the weakness of your case, and that you know you lost.

> > > > After you do that, we can discuss your cowardice in refusing to deal with James Chaney.
> > >
> > > Nice shift. But I'd rather stay on-topic and discuss your refusal to admit that what we're seeing in the clip below is the SBT in action:
> >
> >
> > Yep... James Chaney just SCARES BELIEVERS TO DEATH!!!
>
> He said all the shots came from behind. He doesn`t hurt the idea that Oswald, firing from the TSBD hit both men one bit.

You're lying again, "Bud."

James Chaney said a number of things *YOU DON'T BELIEVE*.

(and that undermine the Warren Commission's theory)


Why don't you start by QUOTING what James Chaney said about where the shots came from.

Believers frequently lie when asked to support their claim.

> > And since the topic is about WITNESSES to a single bullet striking two men, you've been quite noticeably silent on that fact.
>
> Was Kennedy hit in the face?

That statement is easy to understand once you know that JFK was struck in the right temple.

>Could he even *be* hit in the face from a shot from the rear?

That's always been the problem believers have faced. The same question can be asked of the front throat entry wound.

Early on, the theory was that JFK was struck as he APPROACHED the TSBD, later, the theory was that he turned around to look at the TSBD.

The simple answer has been right in front of you all along...

>Could Connally be hit in the chest from a shot from the rear?

Yes... he was.

>You bring this issue up, but you don`t want to deal with what it actually is.

I'm answering EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU RAISE - and you're running from mine.

> > Indeed, contrary to the Warren Commission's theory, WHICH YOU ACCEPT AND DEFEND, there's a witness that states that separate bullets struck both men.
> >
> > His name is James Chaney.
>
> Quote him.

I'll cite the evidence as soon as you publicly acknowledge that you do not know of his statements, and have not been able to find them on your own.

> > You know this.
> >
> > This **IS** the topic of this thread... you've hijacked it into the Zapruder film - which shows IN YOUR OPINION that the SBT is real - but YOU HAVEN'T PUBLICLY STATED WHAT THE WITNESSES OBSERVED IN DEALEY PLAZA!
>
> The z-film is evidence

Tut tut tut... was it a person? Was it a witness as the original post was discussing?

>with which to weigh the information Chaney provided, stupid.

Actually, the information James Chaney provides INDICTS the authenticity of the extant Z-film.

I'm sure you know that photographic evidence is *NOT* considered more credible than eyewitnesses...

I once stated: "For the same reason that the legal system gives precedence to eyewitness testimony over photographic or written evidence." and was promptly chastised by a believer that this was inaccurate.

A common refrain from believers is that physical evidence 'trumps' eyewitness testimony. Yet the facts are not quite what believers perceive them to be:

Normal legal procedure here in the U.S. permits photographs and motion pictures to be used as evidence in courts of law only when a foundation for their introduction has been established by eyewitness testimony. For example:

"The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness." McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Edition (1984), Section 214.

It's interesting that only in the JFK case is photographic and x-ray evidence being used routinely to discount the eyewitness testimony... in direct contradiction to normal judicial process.

James Chaney's statements are evidence that the extant Z-film has been altered.

It's as simple as that.

The Z-film isn't a "witness" as the original poster was discussing.

It's as simple as that.

David and you are RUNNING FURIOUSLY AWAY FROM THAT FACT.

It's as simple as that.

> You don`t get to make rules that compartmentalize issues into the parameters you demand must be maintained.

I do, however, get to point out your cowardice.

> And it is retarded you even try this. If I started a post about the evidence that supports a revolver at the Tippit murder scene, you or another conspiracy retard would jump in about the "automatic" transmission. Can I say "That is outside the boundaries I`ve decided are relevant"?

Nope. If someone is arguing that it's a revolver, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS SUCH AN ASSERTION.

You've not even publicly admitted that not only is there no witness who states that they saw the SBT, but that there are witnesses who SPECIFICALLY ASSERT THE CONTRARY.

This is your burden.

*YOU* have to explain the witnesses who said that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.

Or run away.

Who cares?

> > Why not start with "Yes, it's true that no witnesses saw both victims being struck by a single bullet, and yes it's true that the closest POLICE witness contradicted such a theory, but here's why I think that's wrong..."
>
> He offered the Zapruder film as evidence against Chaney`s assertion.

It's absolutely true that the OPINION of some believers is that the extant Z-film contradicts Chaney's assertion that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.

The problem is that it's only an *OPINION*, and not a verifiable fact.

Nor is Chaney the only witness to have said this.

Moreover, Chaney provides some of the *STRONGEST* and most credible evidence showing that the extant Z-film has been altered.

> And why don`t you quote what Chaney actually said? The reason why is because you know a lot of it doesn`t even make sense.

Just as soon as you publicly state that you don't know this to be a fact, and that you cannot find it on your own, I will **INSTANTLY** cite the relevant testimony.

Until then, you're simply wasting everyone's time.

> > > https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jbpymw7jW20/WMzJdh_W5AI/AAAAAAABLkU/Eyc_-irXYv8vxMwinJVEiKJvO4iv0IIwQCLcB/s1600/Z-Film%2BClip-SBT-In-Motion.gif
> > >
> > > What do you see happening in the above film clip, Ben?
> >
> > No reaction until around the 230's or so.
>
> So, two separate shots a split second apart? These are the absurdities the conspiracy retards have to suggest in order to avoid facing reality.

This is, indeed; precisely what the evidence shows.

The extant Z-film shows it... I see it, the Warren Commission accepted it.

Several witnesses asserted it as well.

> > Now, back to James Chaney... was he a witness bearing on the SBT?
>
> He supports it is some ways.

In WHAT WAY DOES HE SUPPORT THE SBT?

You're a liar, you'll NEVER quote anything James Chaney said that would support, EVEN INDIRECTLY, the SBT.

Particularly since he EXPLICITLY stated that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.

[Ben Holmes]

Yes, you did.

> > And you *CERTAINLY* haven't tried to explain that rather damaging fact.
>
> I don`t have any ideas that require it to be explained.

Any *HONEST* person would laugh at such a thought.

If you go up to anyone, and state that an investigation that had hundreds of investigators, never questioned a police eyewitness to the crime, PHOTOGRAPHED less than a dozen feet away from the murder victim, and watching the murder victim at the time of the crime - they'd not believe you.

It's just so INCREDIBLE that it requires an explanation.

One that you refuse to give...

Or even admit is more than reasonable to ask for...

But no-one ever thought you were honest, did they "Bud?"

> > > > You *WANTED* people to think you were refuting what I said... and that's a lie.
> > >
> > > By linking to a report written in 1975, stupid? I pretty sure the WC had wrapped up their investigation by then.
> >
> >
> > Yep... you lied.
> >
> > You *STILL* refuse to acknowledge the truth of what I stated.
> >
> >
> > > > There was no reason for me to explain this to you... you certainly know when you're lying.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > And why are you such an intellectual coward that you are afraid to address the issues you yourself bring up?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Never happened...
> > >
> > > Just did.
> >
> >
> > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > Indeed, it's *YOU* that's refusing to address the issue I raised, not I.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > And why can`t you show where in the TV interview of Chaney where he said that JFK and Connally were hit be separate bullets? Was this just another lie?
> > > >
> > > > Too bad you don't pay attention to the evidence... you've clearly not read any testimony on this issue.
> > >
> > > Blah, blah, blah. Your said this...
> > >
> > > "Fortunately for history, he was interviewed on T.V. - and stated that JFK & Connally were hit by separate bullets."
> >
> >
> > Both statements are 100% correct.
> >
> > You've admitted the first one, and are in denial on the second one.
> >
> >
> > > I produced a video of Chaney giving a TV interview and asked if this was the one you were referring to...
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/SzNkaFt8grg
> > >
> > > You snipped the link and ran like the intellectual coward you are, which should tell anyone all they need to know.
> >
> >
> > All you have to do is publicly acknowledge THAT **YOU** DON'T KNOW ABOUT CHANEY'S STATEMENTS ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT BULLETS STRIKING JFK & CONNALLY - and I'll immediately cite it.
>
> Why do you break out in this tiresome dance routine whenever you get your tail stuck in a crack?

ROTFLMAO!!!

I've stated that I'll **INSTANTLY** cite the testimony that supports my assertion - all you have to do is publicly state that you don't know it, and can't find it on your own.

YOU COULD INSTANTLY PROVE ME A LIAR - but you don't...

Which merely goes to show that you know that I *WOULD* instantly cite.

So you're a liar.

> You said that Chaney said some things in a TV interview.

Yep... he certainly talked during an interview.

>I produced a TV interview of Chaney and simply asked if this was the one you were referring to. Why are you afraid to direct the lurkers to the primary source you referenced, are you afraid they will find that it doesn`t support your claim?

Because I recognized the lie you were trying to tell.

Why are you afraid to publicly state that you don't know that Chaney asserted that two different bullets struck JFK & Connally?

Why are you afraid to publicly state that you can't find that information?

> > > > All you have to do is state publicly that you can't find the information on James Chaney stating that a separate bullet struck Connally, and I'll cite it.
> > > >
> > > > **I'LL INSTANTLY CITE IT**
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that you're going to refuse to do so, since this is a habit you've gotten into.
> > > >
> > > > But if you do, I feel no need to answer material you already know.
> >
> > Yep... you *DO* know.
> >
> > You refuse to claim you don't... so you're just trying to waste my time.
> >
> > What a coward!!

Still a coward, eh "Bud?"

[Bud]

I don`t even know what position they took on the issue. I have my own two eyes.

> > > > > Now you're desperate to disavow it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're nuts.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Then simply admit that the film doesn't show what you just claimed it did.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The film shows *exactly* what I said it does (IMO) --- two men reacting to a bullet at an identical point in time on the Z-Film. It couldn't be more obvious to me.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sadly, it's still not "obvious" to me, nor; I quite suspect, to most people who've watched the film.
> >
> > You are an idiot with no interest in the truth. It is as plain as day.
>
>
> Ad hominem simply shows that you understand the weakness of your case, and that you know you lost.

I`ll leave that for the lurkers to determine. They can watch the clip that DVP provided a link to, and make their own determinations about what it shows, and whether you are being honest about what it shows.

>
> > > > > After you do that, we can discuss your cowardice in refusing to deal with James Chaney.
> > > >
> > > > Nice shift. But I'd rather stay on-topic and discuss your refusal to admit that what we're seeing in the clip below is the SBT in action:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep... James Chaney just SCARES BELIEVERS TO DEATH!!!
> >
> > He said all the shots came from behind. He doesn`t hurt the idea that Oswald, firing from the TSBD hit both men one bit.

Shots from behind only strengthen my ideas, and weaken yours.

> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> James Chaney said a number of things *YOU DON'T BELIEVE*.

Hard to see how Chaney could believe them. He said the shots came from behind, but that Kennedy was struck in the face.

> (and that undermine the Warren Commission's theory)
>
>
> Why don't you start by QUOTING what James Chaney said about where the shots came from.

I linked to the interview...

https://youtu.be/SzNkaFt8grg

At 1:00 he is clearly indicating a shot from behind him. This is corroborated with the FBI report, which states...

"Chaney was positive all the noises came from behind his motorcycle and none of the noises came from the side or front of the position Chaney was located."

The information Chaney provided does no serious harm to the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy.

> Believers frequently lie when asked to support their claim.
>
>
>
> > > And since the topic is about WITNESSES to a single bullet striking two men, you've been quite noticeably silent on that fact.
> >
> > Was Kennedy hit in the face?
>
>
> That statement is easy to understand once you know that JFK was struck in the right temple.

You are allowing he was mistaken?

> >Could he even *be* hit in the face from a shot from the rear?
>
>
> That's always been the problem believers have faced. The same question can be asked of the front throat entry wound.
>
> Early on, the theory was that JFK was struck as he APPROACHED the TSBD, later, the theory was that he turned around to look at the TSBD.
>
> The simple answer has been right in front of you all along...
>
>
> >Could Connally be hit in the chest from a shot from the rear?
>
>
> Yes... he was.

Is it reasonable to believe he was shot after Kennedy was hit in the head?

>
> >You bring this issue up, but you don`t want to deal with what it actually is.
>
>
> I'm answering EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU RAISE - and you're running from mine.

You refuse to produce your source. I`m the one citing.

> > > Indeed, contrary to the Warren Commission's theory, WHICH YOU ACCEPT AND DEFEND, there's a witness that states that separate bullets struck both men.
> > >
> > > His name is James Chaney.
> >
> > Quote him.
>
>
> I'll cite the evidence as soon as you publicly acknowledge that you do not know of his statements, and have not been able to find them on your own.

Keep your running streak going.

>
> > > You know this.
> > >
> > > This **IS** the topic of this thread... you've hijacked it into the Zapruder film - which shows IN YOUR OPINION that the SBT is real - but YOU HAVEN'T PUBLICLY STATED WHAT THE WITNESSES OBSERVED IN DEALEY PLAZA!
> >
> > The z-film is evidence
>
>
> Tut tut tut... was it a person? Was it a witness as the original post was discussing?
>
>
> >with which to weigh the information Chaney provided, stupid.
>
>
> Actually, the information James Chaney provides INDICTS the authenticity of the extant Z-film.

The exact opposite is true.

> I'm sure you know that photographic evidence is *NOT* considered more credible than eyewitnesses...

I`m sure you are retarded with no interest in the truth.

If I watch a ballgame on TV and see something occur, then talk to someone who saw the game and they say something different occurred, should I rely on my own two eyes or what the person said?

> I once stated: "For the same reason that the legal system gives precedence to eyewitness testimony over photographic or written evidence." and was promptly chastised by a believer that this was inaccurate.
>
> A common refrain from believers is that physical evidence 'trumps' eyewitness testimony. Yet the facts are not quite what believers perceive them to be:
>
> Normal legal procedure here in the U.S. permits photographs and motion pictures to be used as evidence in courts of law only when a foundation for their introduction has been established by eyewitness testimony. For example:
>
> "The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness." McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Edition (1984), Section 214.

The bar is very, very low. Zapruder vouching that it was an accurate depiction is all that was needed. Maybe anyone there could have.

> It's interesting that only in the JFK case is photographic and x-ray evidence being used routinely to discount the eyewitness testimony... in direct contradiction to normal judicial process.

Any jury would give a lot of weight to any video of a crime put in front of them. You just have no interest in the truth.

> James Chaney's statements are evidence that the extant Z-film has been altered.
>
> It's as simple as that.
>
> The Z-film isn't a "witness" as the original poster was discussing.

Of course it is. Surveillance camera footage is routinely being used to convict people, cell phone video is routinely being used to convict people, it is probably helping to put thousands of people a day behind bars.

> It's as simple as that.
>
> David and you are RUNNING FURIOUSLY AWAY FROM THAT FACT.
>
> It's as simple as that.
>
>
> > You don`t get to make rules that compartmentalize issues into the parameters you demand must be maintained.
>
>
> I do, however, get to point out your cowardice.

It is your cowardice that forces you to try to prevent an open discussion of ideas.

>
>
> > And it is retarded you even try this. If I started a post about the evidence that supports a revolver at the Tippit murder scene, you or another conspiracy retard would jump in about the "automatic" transmission. Can I say "That is outside the boundaries I`ve decided are relevant"?
>
> Nope. If someone is arguing that it's a revolver, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS SUCH AN ASSERTION.

This is why DVP brought up the Zapruder film. And you squawked when he did.

> You've not even publicly admitted that not only is there no witness who states that they saw the SBT, but that there are witnesses who SPECIFICALLY ASSERT THE CONTRARY.

There were no witnesses to the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally because they go really, really fast.

> This is your burden.
>
> *YOU* have to explain the witnesses who said that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.

How hard is it to explain? If the bullet passed through both of their heads you`d expect the witnesses to have decent information to work with. With what occurred, not so much.

> Or run away.
>
> Who cares?
>
>
>
> > > Why not start with "Yes, it's true that no witnesses saw both victims being struck by a single bullet, and yes it's true that the closest POLICE witness contradicted such a theory, but here's why I think that's wrong..."
> >
> > He offered the Zapruder film as evidence against Chaney`s assertion.
>
> It's absolutely true that the OPINION of some believers is that the extant Z-film contradicts Chaney's assertion that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.
>
> The problem is that it's only an *OPINION*, and not a verifiable fact.
>
> Nor is Chaney the only witness to have said this.
>
> Moreover, Chaney provides some of the *STRONGEST* and most credible evidence showing that the extant Z-film has been altered.

Instead of making empty claims, why don`t you start quoting Chaney?

> > And why don`t you quote what Chaney actually said? The reason why is because you know a lot of it doesn`t even make sense.
>
>
> Just as soon as you publicly state that you don't know this to be a fact, and that you cannot find it on your own, I will **INSTANTLY** cite the relevant testimony.
>
> Until then, you're simply wasting everyone's time.
>
>
> > > > https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jbpymw7jW20/WMzJdh_W5AI/AAAAAAABLkU/Eyc_-irXYv8vxMwinJVEiKJvO4iv0IIwQCLcB/s1600/Z-Film%2BClip-SBT-In-Motion.gif
> > > >
> > > > What do you see happening in the above film clip, Ben?
> > >
> > > No reaction until around the 230's or so.
> >
> > So, two separate shots a split second apart? These are the absurdities the conspiracy retards have to suggest in order to avoid facing reality.
>
> This is, indeed; precisely what the evidence shows.

This, indeed shows that you have absolutely no interest in the truth. You`d rather play silly games and latch onto any absurdity in order to deny the obvious.

> The extant Z-film shows it... I see it, the Warren Commission accepted it.
>
> Several witnesses asserted it as well.
>
>
> > > Now, back to James Chaney... was he a witness bearing on the SBT?
> >
> > He supports it is some ways.
>
> In WHAT WAY DOES HE SUPPORT THE SBT?

Shots from behind.

> You're a liar, you'll NEVER quote anything James Chaney said that would support, EVEN INDIRECTLY, the SBT.

See above.

> Particularly since he EXPLICITLY stated that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.

Quote him.

[Bud]

Quote me.

> > > And you *CERTAINLY* haven't tried to explain that rather damaging fact.
> >
> > I don`t have any ideas that require it to be explained.
>
> Any *HONEST* person would laugh at such a thought.

Quote me taking a position that requires that information.

> If you go up to anyone, and state that an investigation that had hundreds of investigators, never questioned a police eyewitness to the crime, PHOTOGRAPHED less than a dozen feet away from the murder victim, and watching the murder victim at the time of the crime - they'd not believe you.

Your ability to criticize and your attempts to shift the burden with begged questions aside, what idea do I have that need why Chaney didn`t testify explained?

> It's just so INCREDIBLE that it requires an explanation.

If it is keeping you up at night you better get to work finding an answer.

> One that you refuse to give...

Shifting the burden.

> Or even admit is more than reasonable to ask for...
>
> But no-one ever thought you were honest, did they "Bud?"

This is like having Jeffery Dahmer questioning your humanity.

Anyone following this twisted retard reasoning?

> > You said that Chaney said some things in a TV interview.
>
>
> Yep... he certainly talked during an interview.
>
>
> >I produced a TV interview of Chaney and simply asked if this was the one you were referring to. Why are you afraid to direct the lurkers to the primary source you referenced, are you afraid they will find that it doesn`t support your claim?
>
>
> Because I recognized the lie you were trying to tell.

By asking your source?

> Why are you afraid to publicly state that you don't know that Chaney asserted that two different bullets struck JFK & Connally?
>
> Why are you afraid to publicly state that you can't find that information?

Why are you afraid to publicly state that you lied when you said that Chaney stated that JFK and Connally were struck by separate bullets in that TV interview?

[Ben Holmes]

Now you know... Why are you so dishonest that you refuse to acknowledge that you believe that the Warren Commission was wrong?

> > > > > > Now you're desperate to disavow it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're nuts.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Then simply admit that the film doesn't show what you just claimed it did.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The film shows *exactly* what I said it does (IMO) --- two men reacting to a bullet at an identical point in time on the Z-Film. It couldn't be more obvious to me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sadly, it's still not "obvious" to me, nor; I quite suspect, to most people who've watched the film.
> > >
> > > You are an idiot with no interest in the truth. It is as plain as day.
> >
> >
> > Ad hominem simply shows that you understand the weakness of your case, and that you know you lost.
>
> I`ll leave that for the lurkers to determine. They can watch the clip that DVP provided a link to, and make their own determinations about what it shows, and whether you are being honest about what it shows.

Good luck!

Most of America has chosen my side...

> > > > > > After you do that, we can discuss your cowardice in refusing to deal with James Chaney.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice shift. But I'd rather stay on-topic and discuss your refusal to admit that what we're seeing in the clip below is the SBT in action:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep... James Chaney just SCARES BELIEVERS TO DEATH!!!
> > >
> > > He said all the shots came from behind. He doesn`t hurt the idea that Oswald, firing from the TSBD hit both men one bit.
>
> Shots from behind only strengthen my ideas, and weaken yours.


You're lying again, "Bud."



> > You're lying again, "Bud."
> >
> > James Chaney said a number of things *YOU DON'T BELIEVE*.
>
> Hard to see how Chaney could believe them. He said the shots came from behind, but that Kennedy was struck in the face.


You're lying again, "Bud."


> > (and that undermine the Warren Commission's theory)
> >
> >
> > Why don't you start by QUOTING what James Chaney said about where the shots came from.
>
> I linked to the interview...

Yep... I knew you'd be too dishonest to QUOTE the words that prove you a liar.

But you *are* lying about what Chaney said.

> https://youtu.be/SzNkaFt8grg
>
> At 1:00 he is clearly indicating a shot from behind him. This is corroborated with the FBI report, which states...

Once again, you're lying.

> "Chaney was positive all the noises came from behind his motorcycle and none of the noises came from the side or front of the position Chaney was located."

The fact that you refuse to quote *HIS* exact words show that you understand quite well that you're lying.

> The information Chaney provided does no serious harm to the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy.

Au contraire... first, you don't believe Chaney - second, it provides SERIOUS evidence of a conspiracy, whether or not you believe Oswald was a part of it.

> > Believers frequently lie when asked to support their claim.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > And since the topic is about WITNESSES to a single bullet striking two men, you've been quite noticeably silent on that fact.
> > >
> > > Was Kennedy hit in the face?
> >
> >
> > That statement is easy to understand once you know that JFK was struck in the right temple.
>
> You are allowing he was mistaken?

What mistake?

> > >Could he even *be* hit in the face from a shot from the rear?
> >
> >
> > That's always been the problem believers have faced. The same question can be asked of the front throat entry wound.
> >
> > Early on, the theory was that JFK was struck as he APPROACHED the TSBD, later, the theory was that he turned around to look at the TSBD.
> >
> > The simple answer has been right in front of you all along...
> >
> >
> > >Could Connally be hit in the chest from a shot from the rear?
> >
> >
> > Yes... he was.
>
> Is it reasonable to believe he was shot after Kennedy was hit in the head?

Yes.

> > >You bring this issue up, but you don`t want to deal with what it actually is.
> >
> >
> > I'm answering EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU RAISE - and you're running from mine.
>
> You refuse to produce your source. I`m the one citing.


I'm answering EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU RAISE - and you're running from mine.

Why the cowardice, "Bud?"

> > > > Indeed, contrary to the Warren Commission's theory, WHICH YOU ACCEPT AND DEFEND, there's a witness that states that separate bullets struck both men.
> > > >
> > > > His name is James Chaney.
> > >
> > > Quote him.
> >
> >
> > I'll cite the evidence as soon as you publicly acknowledge that you do not know of his statements, and have not been able to find them on your own.
>
> Keep your running streak going.

Quite the coward, aren't you?

> > > > You know this.
> > > >
> > > > This **IS** the topic of this thread... you've hijacked it into the Zapruder film - which shows IN YOUR OPINION that the SBT is real - but YOU HAVEN'T PUBLICLY STATED WHAT THE WITNESSES OBSERVED IN DEALEY PLAZA!
> > >
> > > The z-film is evidence
> >
> >
> > Tut tut tut... was it a person? Was it a witness as the original post was discussing?

Dead silence...

> > >with which to weigh the information Chaney provided, stupid.
> >
> >
> > Actually, the information James Chaney provides INDICTS the authenticity of the extant Z-film.
>
> The exact opposite is true.

You're lying again, "Bud."

Nor will you provide ANY SUPPORT AT ALL for your claim.


It's easy for me to do so... in addition to the statement that two DIFFERENT bullets struck JFK & Connally, Chaney also describes something not seen in any video that day... and could *not* have been missed.

> > I'm sure you know that photographic evidence is *NOT* considered more credible than eyewitnesses...
>
> I`m sure you are retarded with no interest in the truth.

And yet, I quote the proof.

You, with your ad hominem 'rebuttal' - admit that you lost.

> If I watch a ballgame on TV and see something occur, then talk to someone who saw the game and they say something different occurred, should I rely on my own two eyes or what the person said?

A judge would laugh at your idea that you can decide for yourself what the law says about photographs.

> > I once stated: "For the same reason that the legal system gives precedence to eyewitness testimony over photographic or written evidence." and was promptly chastised by a believer that this was inaccurate.
> >
> > A common refrain from believers is that physical evidence 'trumps' eyewitness testimony. Yet the facts are not quite what believers perceive them to be:
> >
> > Normal legal procedure here in the U.S. permits photographs and motion pictures to be used as evidence in courts of law only when a foundation for their introduction has been established by eyewitness testimony. For example:
> >
> > "The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness." McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Edition (1984), Section 214.
>
> The bar is very, very low. Zapruder vouching that it was an accurate depiction is all that was needed. Maybe anyone there could have.

Good of you to finally acknowledge that I'm right.

> > It's interesting that only in the JFK case is photographic and x-ray evidence being used routinely to discount the eyewitness testimony... in direct contradiction to normal judicial process.
>
> Any jury would give a lot of weight to any video of a crime put in front of them. You just have no interest in the truth.

Of course they would. It would first have to be admitted.

> > James Chaney's statements are evidence that the extant Z-film has been altered.
> >
> > It's as simple as that.
> >
> > The Z-film isn't a "witness" as the original poster was discussing.
>
> Of course it is.

What was "his" name? Can you offer a Social Security Number for the film? What nationality... was 'Mr. Film' an American?

What a moron!!!

> Surveillance camera footage is routinely being used to convict people, cell phone video is routinely being used to convict people, it is probably helping to put thousands of people a day behind bars.

Non sequitur...

> > It's as simple as that.
> >
> > David and you are RUNNING FURIOUSLY AWAY FROM THAT FACT.
> >
> > It's as simple as that.
> >
> >
> > > You don`t get to make rules that compartmentalize issues into the parameters you demand must be maintained.
> >
> >
> > I do, however, get to point out your cowardice.
>
> It is your cowardice that forces you to try to prevent an open discussion of ideas.

There can be no "open discussion" with liars & cowards.

I've stated that many times before, and will no doubt be forced to say it again many times in the future.

> > > And it is retarded you even try this. If I started a post about the evidence that supports a revolver at the Tippit murder scene, you or another conspiracy retard would jump in about the "automatic" transmission. Can I say "That is outside the boundaries I`ve decided are relevant"?
> >
> > Nope. If someone is arguing that it's a revolver, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS SUCH AN ASSERTION.
>
> This is why DVP brought up the Zapruder film. And you squawked when he did.

Once again, you're admitting that I'm right, and that your assertion that "That is outside the boundaries I`ve decided are relevant?" is simply wrong.

Good of you to admit it.

But tell us how bringing up a film contradicts the FACT that not a single eyewitness ever stated that they saw JFK & Connally hit with the same shot?

I know you now falsely claim that a film is a person - but I reject such nonsense.

So tell us how a FILM has anything at all to do with the FACT that NOT A SINGLE **PERSON** stated that they saw one bullet strike both men?

> > You've not even publicly admitted that not only is there no witness who states that they saw the SBT, but that there are witnesses who SPECIFICALLY ASSERT THE CONTRARY.
>
> There were no witnesses to the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally because they go really, really fast.

Yet I have *TWO* witnesses that state they were struck at different times.

Is this the mythical "Time Traveling Bullet Theory?"

> > This is your burden.
> >
> > *YOU* have to explain the witnesses who said that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.
>
> How hard is it to explain? If the bullet passed through both of their heads you`d expect the witnesses to have decent information to work with. With what occurred, not so much.

It's going to be *IMPOSSIBLE* for you to explain... (Well, other than the "Time Traveling Bullet Theory," that is...)

You've not even tried to do so.

> > Or run away.
> >
> > Who cares?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Why not start with "Yes, it's true that no witnesses saw both victims being struck by a single bullet, and yes it's true that the closest POLICE witness contradicted such a theory, but here's why I think that's wrong..."
> > >
> > > He offered the Zapruder film as evidence against Chaney`s assertion.
> >
> > It's absolutely true that the OPINION of some believers is that the extant Z-film contradicts Chaney's assertion that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.
> >
> > The problem is that it's only an *OPINION*, and not a verifiable fact.
> >
> > Nor is Chaney the only witness to have said this.
> >
> > Moreover, Chaney provides some of the *STRONGEST* and most credible evidence showing that the extant Z-film has been altered.
>
> Instead of making empty claims, why don`t you start quoting Chaney?

ROTFLMAO!!!

Why would you dare ask someone to do what YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO DO?

You gutless coward!

> > > And why don`t you quote what Chaney actually said? The reason why is because you know a lot of it doesn`t even make sense.
> >
> >
> > Just as soon as you publicly state that you don't know this to be a fact, and that you cannot find it on your own, I will **INSTANTLY** cite the relevant testimony.
> >
> > Until then, you're simply wasting everyone's time.

And clearly, "Bud" *DOES* know I'm right, and realizes he'd look absolutely silly when I **INSTANTLY** cite what he's afraid of... and trying to imply doesn't exist.

> > > > > https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jbpymw7jW20/WMzJdh_W5AI/AAAAAAABLkU/Eyc_-irXYv8vxMwinJVEiKJvO4iv0IIwQCLcB/s1600/Z-Film%2BClip-SBT-In-Motion.gif
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you see happening in the above film clip, Ben?
> > > >
> > > > No reaction until around the 230's or so.
> > >
> > > So, two separate shots a split second apart? These are the absurdities the conspiracy retards have to suggest in order to avoid facing reality.
> >
> > This is, indeed; precisely what the evidence shows.
>
> This, indeed shows that you have absolutely no interest in the truth. You`d rather play silly games and latch onto any absurdity in order to deny the obvious.

The Warren Commission was afraid of this same evidence... they knew that if two shots were less than 2.3 seconds apart, it would PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that there were multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza.

> > The extant Z-film shows it... I see it, the Warren Commission accepted it.
> >
> > Several witnesses asserted it as well.
> >
> >
> > > > Now, back to James Chaney... was he a witness bearing on the SBT?
> > >
> > > He supports it is some ways.
> >
> > In WHAT WAY DOES HE SUPPORT THE SBT?
>
> Shots from behind.

That has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the SBT.

I knew, of course, that you were lying...

> > You're a liar, you'll NEVER quote anything James Chaney said that would support, EVEN INDIRECTLY, the SBT.
>
> See above.

Yep... you're a liar.

> > Particularly since he EXPLICITLY stated that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.
>
> Quote him.

I'll **INSTANTLY** provide the citation to the testimony that supports this.

But you've refused multiple times now to deny it... so it's clear that I don't need to - you already know.

[Ben Holmes]

Certainly... here's your lie again:

***************************************************

> More importantly, the closest, and most *credible* of witnesses to the murder, Police Officer James Chaney; was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission...

He was questioned by the FBI. Doesn`t seem to have much to say of importance...

***************************************************

You tried to REFUTE the fact that he was never questioned by anyone for the Warren Commission


And got caught.

[David Von Pein]

"A few seconds"?? Come now, Ben. You're overstating the time factor here and you know it.

Connally is hit by Oswald's CE399 bullet at Z224.

Connally's cheeks can be seen to be noticeably puffed out at about Z238.

Difference in time --- 14/18ths of one second.

So not even ONE single second has passed between the time the bullet struck him via my SBT timeline at Z224 and the time when we see Connally's "puffed cheeks" reaction.

I wouldn't even call 14/18th of a second a "delayed reaction" at all. It's practically an IMMEDIATE reaction.

It sure as heck isn't very much of a "delay", at any rate.

[Bud]

Lurkers, did someone produce where the Warren Commission stated their position on this? I didn`t see it. And even if he did produce it, could it be trusted? He does like to change people`s words.

> > > > > > > Now you're desperate to disavow it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're nuts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then simply admit that the film doesn't show what you just claimed it did.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The film shows *exactly* what I said it does (IMO) --- two men reacting to a bullet at an identical point in time on the Z-Film. It couldn't be more obvious to me.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sadly, it's still not "obvious" to me, nor; I quite suspect, to most people who've watched the film.
> > > >
> > > > You are an idiot with no interest in the truth. It is as plain as day.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ad hominem simply shows that you understand the weakness of your case, and that you know you lost.
> >
> > I`ll leave that for the lurkers to determine. They can watch the clip that DVP provided a link to, and make their own determinations about what it shows, and whether you are being honest about what it shows.
>
>
> Good luck!
>
> Most of America has chosen my side...

Lurkers, is Ben claiming that most of America has watched the clip DVP linked to and have sided with him that it shows the two men being hit with two different bullets? His lies are getting more outrageous, he really is off the deep end.

> > > > > > > After you do that, we can discuss your cowardice in refusing to deal with James Chaney.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nice shift. But I'd rather stay on-topic and discuss your refusal to admit that what we're seeing in the clip below is the SBT in action:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep... James Chaney just SCARES BELIEVERS TO DEATH!!!
> > > >
> > > > He said all the shots came from behind. He doesn`t hurt the idea that Oswald, firing from the TSBD hit both men one bit.
> >
> > Shots from behind only strengthen my ideas, and weaken yours.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

Lurkers, Ben is a stump. I`m sure you realize that since Ben`s expressed ideas are shots from the front and mine are shots from the back, that the ideas that Chaney expressed in the TV interview support my ideas and do harm to his.

> > > You're lying again, "Bud."
> > >
> > > James Chaney said a number of things *YOU DON'T BELIEVE*.
> >
> > Hard to see how Chaney could believe them. He said the shots came from behind, but that Kennedy was struck in the face.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

Lurkers, you`ll notice I have no problem linking to the information that supports my contentions. Here is the video again...

https://youtu.be/SzNkaFt8grg

At about 0:55 Llyod asks Chaney if he saw the person who took the shots. Chaney replies (and I won`t put quotes on it for fear of getting a word wrong) No sir, it was back over my right shoulder. Now, he says "right", but he tilts his head to indicate his left. I thing the word he uses in wrong and the motion, which comes from reenacting the event in his head is correct. But in any case, he turns his body slightly to indicate behind him. Can any honest person (and Ben has clearly disqualified himself as such) say that Chaney is not indicating behind him? When someone says "back over my shoulder", where else in the world can they mean? This is bolstered by the interview he gave to the FBI, where he told them the shots definitely came from behind him.

Clearly, Ben has no interest in the truth and only wants to play gotcha games by cherry picking information.

> > > (and that undermine the Warren Commission's theory)
> > >
> > >
> > > Why don't you start by QUOTING what James Chaney said about where the shots came from.
> >
> > I linked to the interview...
>
>
> Yep... I knew you'd be too dishonest to QUOTE the words that prove you a liar.
>
> But you *are* lying about what Chaney said.
>
>
> > https://youtu.be/SzNkaFt8grg
> >
> > At 1:00 he is clearly indicating a shot from behind him. This is corroborated with the FBI report, which states...
>
>
> Once again, you're lying.
>
>
> > "Chaney was positive all the noises came from behind his motorcycle and none of the noises came from the side or front of the position Chaney was located."
>
>
> The fact that you refuse to quote *HIS* exact words show that you understand quite well that you're lying.

Lurkers, Ben hates the truth, so he is forced to play semantics games to try to brush away information that is inconvenient to his ideas. Ben wanted to make pretend that this TV interview was some great thing that bolstered his ideas, but in reality what he says in that interview is consistent and supportive of the idea of Oswald taking shots from the TSBD. He can`t lift one quote from Chaney in this interview that hurts any ideas I have, or helps any of his.

>
> > The information Chaney provided does no serious harm to the idea that Oswald killed Kennedy.
>
>
> Au contraire... first, you don't believe Chaney - second, it provides SERIOUS evidence of a conspiracy, whether or not you believe Oswald was a part of it.
>
>
>
> > > Believers frequently lie when asked to support their claim.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > And since the topic is about WITNESSES to a single bullet striking two men, you've been quite noticeably silent on that fact.
> > > >
> > > > Was Kennedy hit in the face?
> > >
> > >
> > > That statement is easy to understand once you know that JFK was struck in the right temple.
> >
> > You are allowing he was mistaken?
>
>
> What mistake?

Lurkers, ask yourself, was Kennedy shot in the face? The correct answer is no, and anyone asserting that Kennedy was shot in the face would be mistaken.

>
> > > >Could he even *be* hit in the face from a shot from the rear?
> > >
> > >
> > > That's always been the problem believers have faced. The same question can be asked of the front throat entry wound.
> > >
> > > Early on, the theory was that JFK was struck as he APPROACHED the TSBD, later, the theory was that he turned around to look at the TSBD.
> > >
> > > The simple answer has been right in front of you all along...
> > >
> > >
> > > >Could Connally be hit in the chest from a shot from the rear?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes... he was.
> >
> > Is it reasonable to believe he was shot after Kennedy was hit in the head?
>
>
> Yes.

Lurkers, this is retarded and unsupportable. I`ll just produce a little testimony John Connally that illustrates why, there is more...

"I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest. that I had probably been fatally hit.
So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else."

So Lurkers, this is what Ben has (apparently, since he is afraid to post it), hearsay evidence of something that makes little sense. And this is what this conspiracy retard has chosen to be the foundation of his fantastic ideas. And then they wonder why others find it is so clear that they are only playing silly games.

> > > >You bring this issue up, but you don`t want to deal with what it actually is.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm answering EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU RAISE - and you're running from mine.
> >
> > You refuse to produce your source. I`m the one citing.
>
>
> I'm answering EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU RAISE - and you're running from mine.
>
> Why the cowardice, "Bud?"

Lurkers, clearly Ben is deathly afraid to have an honest exchange of ideas on any issue he raises. He will do anything to avoid it, play semantics games, quote out of context, ask loaded and begged questions, muddy the water, shift the burden, just every dirty trick in the book to avoid having an honest discussion.

> > > > > Indeed, contrary to the Warren Commission's theory, WHICH YOU ACCEPT AND DEFEND, there's a witness that states that separate bullets struck both men.
> > > > >
> > > > > His name is James Chaney.
> > > >
> > > > Quote him.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll cite the evidence as soon as you publicly acknowledge that you do not know of his statements, and have not been able to find them on your own.
> >
> > Keep your running streak going.
>
>
> Quite the coward, aren't you?
>
>
>
> > > > > You know this.
> > > > >
> > > > > This **IS** the topic of this thread... you've hijacked it into the Zapruder film - which shows IN YOUR OPINION that the SBT is real - but YOU HAVEN'T PUBLICLY STATED WHAT THE WITNESSES OBSERVED IN DEALEY PLAZA!
> > > >
> > > > The z-film is evidence
> > >
> > >
> > > Tut tut tut... was it a person? Was it a witness as the original post was discussing?

Lurkers, Ben put "witness" in quotes to indicate a pseudo witness. Now he wants to act like he meant a real person. There is no end to his deceit. He actually give me more examples of his dishonesty than I care to point out, it is taking more and more of my time to illustrate all the times he is being deceitful.

> Dead silence...
>
>
>
> > > >with which to weigh the information Chaney provided, stupid.
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, the information James Chaney provides INDICTS the authenticity of the extant Z-film.
> >
> > The exact opposite is true.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> Nor will you provide ANY SUPPORT AT ALL for your claim.

Lurkers, Ben has not shown where anything that Chaney has said is in conflict with the z-film. There has to be a conflict shown before it can be addressed.

> It's easy for me to do so... in addition to the statement that two DIFFERENT bullets struck JFK & Connally, Chaney also describes something not seen in any video that day... and could *not* have been missed.

Lurkers, Ben has not produced any support for any of the things he wants considered as fact.

>
> > > I'm sure you know that photographic evidence is *NOT* considered more credible than eyewitnesses...
> >
> > I`m sure you are retarded with no interest in the truth.
>
>
> And yet, I quote the proof.

Lurkers, did you see a quote? Me neither.

> You, with your ad hominem 'rebuttal' - admit that you lost.
>
>
> > If I watch a ballgame on TV and see something occur, then talk to someone who saw the game and they say something different occurred, should I rely on my own two eyes or what the person said?
>
>
> A judge would laugh at your idea that you can decide for yourself what the law says about photographs.

Lurkers, did Ben offer anything about how much weight a jury would give photographic evidence *after* it is admitted into evidence? Everyone reading this knows the answer. A hell of a lot. If a cop says the person he shot had a gun and film shows the suspect didn`t have a gun, who or what will the jury use to decide what occurred? Which will be given more weight, the cop`s assertion or the film? You don`t cite for a lot of things, you either have the ability to reason or you do not.

>
> > > I once stated: "For the same reason that the legal system gives precedence to eyewitness testimony over photographic or written evidence." and was promptly chastised by a believer that this was inaccurate.
> > >
> > > A common refrain from believers is that physical evidence 'trumps' eyewitness testimony. Yet the facts are not quite what believers perceive them to be:
> > >
> > > Normal legal procedure here in the U.S. permits photographs and motion pictures to be used as evidence in courts of law only when a foundation for their introduction has been established by eyewitness testimony. For example:
> > >
> > > "The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness." McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Edition (1984), Section 214.
> >
> > The bar is very, very low. Zapruder vouching that it was an accurate depiction is all that was needed. Maybe anyone there could have.
>
>
> Good of you to finally acknowledge that I'm right.

Lurkers, all evidence has to pass muster before being admitted as evidence, this was never a point of contention. The real point is how much weight to give the evidence, and whether the information that fallible human beings provide should be given more weight than what is seen on film.

Ben is advancing the idea that what fallible human beings present is more reliable than cold unemotional film. But if that is the case, then there really was a dog in the limo. A fallible human being said there was, and I have never seen anything from any other human witness that contradicts this. Only the film and photos show Hill to be wrong, nothing quoted from any other witness that I am aware of can do so.

>
> > > It's interesting that only in the JFK case is photographic and x-ray evidence being used routinely to discount the eyewitness testimony... in direct contradiction to normal judicial process.
> >
> > Any jury would give a lot of weight to any video of a crime put in front of them. You just have no interest in the truth.
>
>
> Of course they would. It would first have to be admitted.
>
>
> > > James Chaney's statements are evidence that the extant Z-film has been altered.
> > >
> > > It's as simple as that.
> > >
> > > The Z-film isn't a "witness" as the original poster was discussing.
> >
> > Of course it is.
>
>
> What was "his" name? Can you offer a Social Security Number for the film? What nationality... was 'Mr. Film' an American?
>
> What a moron!!!
>
> > Surveillance camera footage is routinely being used to convict people, cell phone video is routinely being used to convict people, it is probably helping to put thousands of people a day behind bars.
>
>
> Non sequitur...

Lurkers, I`m confident you can see how the point I just made applies. What it comes down to is Ben is trying to advance the idea that what people say occurred trumps what can be seen of film to have occurred. I expect that anyone reading this will see that this is a retarded approach to evidence. Once you recognize that it is a film of the event, what the film shows should clearly outweigh any impressions people gathered during the event.

>
> > > It's as simple as that.
> > >
> > > David and you are RUNNING FURIOUSLY AWAY FROM THAT FACT.
> > >
> > > It's as simple as that.
> > >
> > >
> > > > You don`t get to make rules that compartmentalize issues into the parameters you demand must be maintained.
> > >
> > >
> > > I do, however, get to point out your cowardice.
> >
> > It is your cowardice that forces you to try to prevent an open discussion of ideas.
>
>
> There can be no "open discussion" with liars & cowards.

Lurkers, Ben demonstrates this with everything he writes. Clearly I am willing to discuss ideas and clearly Ben is not up to this. In an open discussion of ideas Ben has no chance and he knows it.

> I've stated that many times before, and will no doubt be forced to say it again many times in the future.
>
>
>
> > > > And it is retarded you even try this. If I started a post about the evidence that supports a revolver at the Tippit murder scene, you or another conspiracy retard would jump in about the "automatic" transmission. Can I say "That is outside the boundaries I`ve decided are relevant"?
> > >
> > > Nope. If someone is arguing that it's a revolver, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS SUCH AN ASSERTION.
> >
> > This is why DVP brought up the Zapruder film. And you squawked when he did.
>
>
> Once again, you're admitting that I'm right, and that your assertion that "That is outside the boundaries I`ve decided are relevant?" is simply wrong.
>
> Good of you to admit it.

Lurkers, Ben`s assessment of the situation is wrong.

> But tell us how bringing up a film contradicts the FACT that not a single eyewitness ever stated that they saw JFK & Connally hit with the same shot?
>
> I know you now falsely claim that a film is a person - but I reject such nonsense.
>
> So tell us how a FILM has anything at all to do with the FACT that NOT A SINGLE **PERSON** stated that they saw one bullet strike both men?

Lurkers when you view the information in context this is not surprising. Take ten thousand people who have never seen the z-film. Don`t tell them they are going to be watching the film of a murder, just show them the film. Ask them what they just saw, and not one will say a bullet passed between both men. That is not surprising under the circumstance for obvious reason. The clues are subtle and happen very quickly, they can only be caught by examining eighteenth of a second incriments. How many witnesses said they noticed the cracked windshield? That would be easier to discern than the wounds on these men for most people. You just have to look at information in the proper context and you are fine. Conspiracy retards resist this, and try to contrive approaches they think makes their positions look strong. When you apply critical examination to their ideas, they are all shit. That is why Ben wants to limit the discussion to cites only, with no application of thinking to the information allowed.

> > > You've not even publicly admitted that not only is there no witness who states that they saw the SBT, but that there are witnesses who SPECIFICALLY ASSERT THE CONTRARY.
> >
> > There were no witnesses to the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally because they go really, really fast.
>
>
> Yet I have *TWO* witnesses that state they were struck at different times.

Lurkers, for this carry weight under these circumstance you would need several things if you wanted to treat this information as fact. You`d need both men wearing nothing above the waist. Then you would need a witness that was looking either right where a bullet went in or came out at the exact moment that the bullet went in or came out. There is nothing like that in evidence, but Ben wants to play make pretend games that he has something just that strong.

> Is this the mythical "Time Traveling Bullet Theory?"
>
>
>
> > > This is your burden.
> > >
> > > *YOU* have to explain the witnesses who said that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.
> >
> > How hard is it to explain? If the bullet passed through both of their heads you`d expect the witnesses to have decent information to work with. With what occurred, not so much.
>
>
> It's going to be *IMPOSSIBLE* for you to explain... (Well, other than the "Time Traveling Bullet Theory," that is...)
>
> You've not even tried to do so.

Lurkers, I did explain it above. Bullets go very, very fast. For all practical purposes this makes it impossible for human being to discern exactly when bullets enter a body. Which means the witnesses are likely doing off of other, less reliable clues, like when they first noticed the injuries, which does nothing to establish exactly when they occurred. Ben is trying to cut diamonds with a rubber hammer.

This is nothing more or less than the application of reason to information. Ben cannot do this and is angry that other people can. He wants to dictate rules that disallow the application of reason to information because he knows his ideas have no chance in such an evironment.

>
> > > Or run away.
> > >
> > > Who cares?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Why not start with "Yes, it's true that no witnesses saw both victims being struck by a single bullet, and yes it's true that the closest POLICE witness contradicted such a theory, but here's why I think that's wrong..."
> > > >
> > > > He offered the Zapruder film as evidence against Chaney`s assertion.
> > >
> > > It's absolutely true that the OPINION of some believers is that the extant Z-film contradicts Chaney's assertion that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally.
> > >
> > > The problem is that it's only an *OPINION*, and not a verifiable fact.
> > >
> > > Nor is Chaney the only witness to have said this.
> > >
> > > Moreover, Chaney provides some of the *STRONGEST* and most credible evidence showing that the extant Z-film has been altered.
> >
> > Instead of making empty claims, why don`t you start quoting Chaney?
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> Why would you dare ask someone to do what YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO DO?

Lurkers, you saw that I put my information on the table for consideration. You saw that I linked to the very interview that Ben alluded to, Chaney`s TV interview. He wouldn`t even confirm that this was the interview he was talking about because he knew what was said in the interview hurt, rather than helped his ideas. Now all we`ve seen so far from Ben is the characterization of information through the filter of a retard. This should tell anyone all they need to know about the strength of the information he is alluding to but not producing.

> You gutless coward!
>
>
> > > > And why don`t you quote what Chaney actually said? The reason why is because you know a lot of it doesn`t even make sense.
> > >
> > >
> > > Just as soon as you publicly state that you don't know this to be a fact, and that you cannot find it on your own, I will **INSTANTLY** cite the relevant testimony.
> > >
> > > Until then, you're simply wasting everyone's time.
>
>
> And clearly, "Bud" *DOES* know I'm right, and realizes he'd look absolutely silly when I **INSTANTLY** cite what he's afraid of... and trying to imply doesn't exist.

Lurkers, the only thing from Chaney`s own mouth we have to examine is the TV interview I linked to. In it, Chaney doesn`t breathe a word about seeing Connally hit. If he saw them both get hit by bullets separate bullets, don`t you think he might have mentioned it? He mentioned Kennedy being shot, not Connally. He may very well have told other people that he saw blood on Connally`s chest, but this would do little to establish when the wound occurred, especially when it is placed chronologically (by Chaney or others he told) where it makes little sense. Again, this is just applying reason to what os known, something Ben cannot do to save his life. He demands that I stop because it makes the discussion unfair.

>
> > > > > > https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jbpymw7jW20/WMzJdh_W5AI/AAAAAAABLkU/Eyc_-irXYv8vxMwinJVEiKJvO4iv0IIwQCLcB/s1600/Z-Film%2BClip-SBT-In-Motion.gif
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you see happening in the above film clip, Ben?
> > > > >
> > > > > No reaction until around the 230's or so.
> > > >
> > > > So, two separate shots a split second apart? These are the absurdities the conspiracy retards have to suggest in order to avoid facing reality.
> > >
> > > This is, indeed; precisely what the evidence shows.
> >
> > This, indeed shows that you have absolutely no interest in the truth. You`d rather play silly games and latch onto any absurdity in order to deny the obvious.
>
>
> The Warren Commission was afraid of this same evidence... they knew that if two shots were less than 2.3 seconds apart, it would PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that there were multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza.
>
>
>
> > > The extant Z-film shows it... I see it, the Warren Commission accepted it.
> > >
> > > Several witnesses asserted it as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Now, back to James Chaney... was he a witness bearing on the SBT?
> > > >
> > > > He supports it is some ways.
> > >
> > > In WHAT WAY DOES HE SUPPORT THE SBT?
> >
> > Shots from behind.
>
>
> That has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the SBT.
>
> I knew, of course, that you were lying...

Lurkers, I`m sure you are aware that the idea of the single bullet theory accepted by lone nutters everywhere is Lee Harvey Oswald firing a bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD that passed through both men. Ben wants to play semantics games because he has no interest in the truth.

What Chaney indicated could be nothing other than shots coming from behind him. His words and motions scream this. If I say something occurred back over my shoulder, right or left, I can`t be indicating anywhere else but behind me. And the FBI interview affirms this.

[Ben Holmes]

Dead silence...

The cowardice constantly on display from believers is truly amusing! ROTFLMAO!!

> > Indeed, just a decade or so ago, *ALL* believers were in lockstep, that there was a "delayed reaction" - now all believers are claiming that the extant Zapruder film shows what it simply does not show.
> >
> > Then, suddenly a new thought appeared on the horizon... someone, and I'm not sure who, decided that they would simply start asserting that the Zapruder film shows SIMULTANEOUS reactions... but that's simply a lie.
> >
> > The *real* reaction - where Connally explosively exhales - is now COMPLETELY UNEXPLAINED BY YOU ... since you no longer have a bullet to cause this.

Crickets...

> > So, did the compression of his lungs by the bullet simply pause for a few seconds?
> >
>
> "A few seconds"?? Come now, Ben. You're overstating the time factor here and you know it.
>
> Connally is hit by Oswald's CE399 bullet at Z224.
>
> Connally's cheeks can be seen to be noticeably puffed out at about Z238.
>
> Difference in time --- 14/18ths of one second.

What's the compressibility of air?

You won't answer, of course; because the answer points out your error.

Even *accepting* your timing (which, of course is too short) - it's STILL IMPOSSIBLE. You're now on record as claiming that Connally didn't exhale until three quarters of a second LATER.

But another error is your desperate attempt to push forward in time the shot that struck JFK.

As can be seen clearly in the next two frames, JFK was ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF MOVING HIS ARMS UP IN REACTION TO THAT SHOT.

Which means that he was shot as much as a second or so *EARLIER*.

This is the current trend among believers, make the shot to JFK LATER, and make the reaction to the shot from Connally EARLIER.

But this desperate attempt to save the SBT doesn't work.

> So not even ONE single second has passed between the time the bullet struck him via my SBT timeline at Z224 and the time when we see Connally's "puffed cheeks" reaction.

As shown above, simply untrue.

And even if granted for the sake of argument - STILL ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE!

> I wouldn't even call 14/18th of a second a "delayed reaction" at all. It's practically an IMMEDIATE reaction.

I've already pointed out your errors.

If you have the courage to tell us how compressible air is, you will, by yourself, demolish your argument.

Which, of course, is why you won't honestly answer

> It sure as heck isn't very much of a "delay", at any rate.

It's an impossible delay.

Crickets again...

David is just frightened to death of James Chaney - and anything to do with him.

He knows that he cannot accept virtually ANYTHING stated by James Chaney and still retain his faith.

[Ben Holmes]

"If the first shot did not miss, there must be an explanation for Governor Connally's recollection that he was not hit by it. There was, conceivably, a delayed reaction between the time the bullet struck him and the time he realized that he was hit, despite the fact that the bullet struck a glancing blow to a rib and penetrated his wrist bone." - WCR pg 112.

Watch as "Bud" now runs from the question I posed...

[Bud]

Lurkers, Ben always struggles with qualifiers. note the word "conceivably". So although Ben is trying to represent this as a position the WC took, it is not that at all.

Now, can we talk, lurkers? The z-film is a grainy home movie, there is no use pretending it is a digital, high speed camera. It is a crude tool to make precise determinations with, so the WC was reluctant to claim they could make precise determinations using it. Now, to my eyes the clip DVP provided shows the two men reacting to being shot at the same or nearly the same instant. Two shots fired at almost the same instant is an absurd possibility that is really unnecessary to explain what is seen.

Check out the scattered shooting of this firing squad...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugd6UgLlXM

Even with the attempt made to fire in unison it is difficult. And when viewed in the context of the ideas the retards are trying to advance it becomes more absurd. What if there were two hits that clearly occurred a second apart? All the work of setting up the patsy down the drain.

[Ben Holmes]

Ah! So your stance is that the Warren Commission didn't say what I quoted them saying.

How amusing!!!

Perhaps the Warren Commission was simply lying... they 'knew' that the reactions were simultaneous, and they just wanted to pull your leg, right "Bud?"

But in doing so, they gave support to the conspiracy model... and you're too cowardly and dishonest to admit that you don't believe the Warren Commission.

> Now, can we talk, lurkers? The z-film is a grainy home movie, there is no use pretending it is a digital, high speed camera. It is a crude tool to make precise determinations with, so the WC was reluctant to claim they could make precise determinations using it.

And yet, they could examine it FRAME BY FRAME, just as we can.

This, the same film that believers firmly assert doesn't show the large BOH wound - but now, "Bud" claiming that we can't see the reactions of those in the film.

Rather silly of you "Bud," isn't it?

A clear example of having your cake and eating it too... the film is perfectly clear enough to determine that there's no "BOH" wound (although that's not actually the case either - see Z-337 for example), yet not clear enough to see people's reactions to being shot!!

Again, rather silly of you, isn't it "Bud?"

> Now, to my eyes the clip DVP provided shows the two men reacting to being shot at the same or nearly the same instant.

Then all you have to do is explain the SECOND reaction nearly a second later...

You know, the place that CONNALLY HIMSELF says is where he was reacting to being shot.

>Two shots fired at almost the same instant is an absurd possibility that is really unnecessary to explain what is seen.

Why is it "absurd?" Eyewitness testimony time and time again stated how close two of the shots were.

You merely HATE that possibility because you know that the Mannlicher Carcano could not be reloaded and fired any quicker than 2.3 seconds apart.

So shots closer spaced than that PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE SHOOTERS - and thus, a conspiracy.

> Check out the scattered shooting of this firing squad...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugd6UgLlXM
>
> Even with the attempt made to fire in unison it is difficult. And when viewed in the context of the ideas the retards are trying to advance it becomes more absurd. What if there were two hits that clearly occurred a second apart? All the work of setting up the patsy down the drain.

I invite EVERYONE to go watch the video that "Bud" put up to claim it's difficult to fire close together... go to around the 50 second mark, and watch how EVERY SINGLE RIFLE fired in *LESS* than one second.

LESS THAN ONE SECOND!!!

If I'd bothered to actually analyze it, the timing was probably down to just half a second - but I'll let everyone judge for themselves.

It's clear that "Bud" has a problem with citations...

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Bud]

Lurkers, Ben is too stupid to realize that the WC wasn`t stating this as their position.

> How amusing!!!
>
> Perhaps the Warren Commission was simply lying... they 'knew' that the reactions were simultaneous, and they just wanted to pull your leg, right "Bud?"
>
> But in doing so, they gave support to the conspiracy model... and you're too cowardly and dishonest to admit that you don't believe the Warren Commission.
>
>
>
> > Now, can we talk, lurkers? The z-film is a grainy home movie, there is no use pretending it is a digital, high speed camera. It is a crude tool to make precise determinations with, so the WC was reluctant to claim they could make precise determinations using it.
>
>
> And yet, they could examine it FRAME BY FRAME, just as we can.
>
> This, the same film that believers firmly assert doesn't show the large BOH wound - but now, "Bud" claiming that we can't see the reactions of those in the film.

Lurkers, did you see the clip DVP linked to? I know you did. Did you see near simultaneous reactions. I know you did.

> Rather silly of you "Bud," isn't it?
>
> A clear example of having your cake and eating it too... the film is perfectly clear enough to determine that there's no "BOH" wound (although that's not actually the case either - see Z-337 for example), yet not clear enough to see people's reactions to being shot!!

Lurkers, DVP`s clip does show the reactions to being shot.

> Again, rather silly of you, isn't it "Bud?"
>
>
> > Now, to my eyes the clip DVP provided shows the two men reacting to being shot at the same or nearly the same instant.
>
>
> Then all you have to do is explain the SECOND reaction nearly a second later...

Lurkers, why?

> You know, the place that CONNALLY HIMSELF says is where he was reacting to being shot.

Lurkers, we can allow witnesses to be off by a second, can`t we?

>
>
> >Two shots fired at almost the same instant is an absurd possibility that is really unnecessary to explain what is seen.
>
>
> Why is it "absurd?" Eyewitness testimony time and time again stated how close two of the shots were.

Lurkers, besides the difficulties in the mechanics, see if Ben can explain such a thing in terms of pre-planning by the conspiracy. Or, if the extreme closeness of the shots was coincidental. In other words, make sense of it.

> You merely HATE that possibility because you know that the Mannlicher Carcano could not be reloaded and fired any quicker than 2.3 seconds apart.

Lurkers, I don`t know how fast Oswald could operate his gun in the condition it was in when he was shooting. Neither does Ben.

> So shots closer spaced than that PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE SHOOTERS - and thus, a conspiracy.

Lurkers, this is what happens when you work off of information as if it is a factual when it isn`t. The pertinent information is unattainable, how fact could Oswald be operated when he operated it.

>
> > Check out the scattered shooting of this firing squad...
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugd6UgLlXM
> >
> > Even with the attempt made to fire in unison it is difficult. And when viewed in the context of the ideas the retards are trying to advance it becomes more absurd. What if there were two hits that clearly occurred a second apart? All the work of setting up the patsy down the drain.
>
>
> I invite EVERYONE to go watch the video that "Bud" put up to claim it's difficult to fire close together... go to around the 50 second mark, and watch how EVERY SINGLE RIFLE fired in *LESS* than one second.
>
> LESS THAN ONE SECOND!!!

Lurkers, I`m not sure about that. Even with a command of when to fire the time between the first shot and last shot is considerable (and I`m not counting the headshot). Close to a second, I would guess.

> If I'd bothered to actually analyze it, the timing was probably down to just half a second - but I'll let everyone judge for themselves.

Lurkers, me too. I think it clearly illustrates the problems with coordinating two shots close together. And remember, conspiracy retard ideas have a lot of people risking their lives over this.

[Ben Holmes]

Then simply QUOTE their "position" - be sure to cite what page number it's on.

Make sure it includes the information that the reactions by JFK and Connally were SIMULTANEOUS...


But, of course, you won't... you're simply lying again...

> > How amusing!!!
> >
> > Perhaps the Warren Commission was simply lying... they 'knew' that the reactions were simultaneous, and they just wanted to pull your leg, right "Bud?"
> >
> > But in doing so, they gave support to the conspiracy model... and you're too cowardly and dishonest to admit that you don't believe the Warren Commission.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Now, can we talk, lurkers? The z-film is a grainy home movie, there is no use pretending it is a digital, high speed camera. It is a crude tool to make precise determinations with, so the WC was reluctant to claim they could make precise determinations using it.
> >
> >
> > And yet, they could examine it FRAME BY FRAME, just as we can.
> >
> > This, the same film that believers firmly assert doesn't show the large BOH wound - but now, "Bud" claiming that we can't see the reactions of those in the film.
>
> Lurkers, did you see the clip DVP linked to? I know you did. Did you see near simultaneous reactions. I know you did.

Nope.

> > Rather silly of you "Bud," isn't it?
> >
> > A clear example of having your cake and eating it too... the film is perfectly clear enough to determine that there's no "BOH" wound (although that's not actually the case either - see Z-337 for example), yet not clear enough to see people's reactions to being shot!!
>
> Lurkers, DVP`s clip does show the reactions to being shot.

The Warren Commission certainly believed this to be true... and they KNEW THAT THE REACTIONS WERE NOT SIMULTANEOUS.

> > Again, rather silly of you, isn't it "Bud?"
> >
> >
> > > Now, to my eyes the clip DVP provided shows the two men reacting to being shot at the same or nearly the same instant.
> >
> >
> > Then all you have to do is explain the SECOND reaction nearly a second later...
>
> Lurkers, why?

Run Coward... RUN!!!

Believers are DEATHLY AFRAID of the evidence in this case, because time and time again, it fails to support their faith.

And they can't admit that simple truth.

> > You know, the place that CONNALLY HIMSELF says is where he was reacting to being shot.
>
> Lurkers, we can allow witnesses to be off by a second, can`t we?

How does *your* opinion have more credibility than the Warren Commission or the person who was shot?

> > >Two shots fired at almost the same instant is an absurd possibility that is really unnecessary to explain what is seen.
> >
> >
> > Why is it "absurd?" Eyewitness testimony time and time again stated how close two of the shots were.
>
> Lurkers, besides the difficulties in the mechanics, see if Ben can explain such a thing in terms of pre-planning by the conspiracy. Or, if the extreme closeness of the shots was coincidental. In other words, make sense of it.

You yourself provided a cite to a Youtube video where there were, what; 7? shooters who all fired in LESS THAN ONE SECOND.

So what difficulty was there?

> > You merely HATE that possibility because you know that the Mannlicher Carcano could not be reloaded and fired any quicker than 2.3 seconds apart.
>
> Lurkers, I don`t know how fast Oswald could operate his gun in the condition it was in when he was shooting. Neither does Ben.

Sure I do. 2.3 seconds.

"Bud" wants to pretend that the rifle sustained untold damage & injury during the time it was laid in a hole of boxes... and the time the FBI tested it.

With *ZERO* evidence, other than his wild imagination.

And the fact that once again, the evidence doesn't support his faith.

> > So shots closer spaced than that PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE SHOOTERS - and thus, a conspiracy.
>
> Lurkers, this is what happens when you work off of information as if it is a factual when it isn`t. The pertinent information is unattainable, how fact could Oswald be operated when he operated it.

The rifle was tested by real experts - people FAR superior in rifle knowledge & skill to Oswald.

> > > Check out the scattered shooting of this firing squad...
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugd6UgLlXM
> > >
> > > Even with the attempt made to fire in unison it is difficult. And when viewed in the context of the ideas the retards are trying to advance it becomes more absurd. What if there were two hits that clearly occurred a second apart? All the work of setting up the patsy down the drain.
> >
> >
> > I invite EVERYONE to go watch the video that "Bud" put up to claim it's difficult to fire close together... go to around the 50 second mark, and watch how EVERY SINGLE RIFLE fired in *LESS* than one second.
> >
> > LESS THAN ONE SECOND!!!
>
> Lurkers, I`m not sure about that. Even with a command of when to fire the time between the first shot and last shot is considerable (and I`m not counting the headshot). Close to a second, I would guess.

Nope.

> > If I'd bothered to actually analyze it, the timing was probably down to just half a second - but I'll let everyone judge for themselves.
>
> Lurkers, me too. I think it clearly illustrates the problems with coordinating two shots close together. And remember, conspiracy retard ideas have a lot of people risking their lives over this.

It actually demonstrates that you're wrong.

Had they spread their shots over FIVE seconds, they still would have been faster than Dealey Plaza.

But they were far quicker than that.

[Bud]

Lurkers, why would I do that? Ben was the one who thought the WC`s opinion about this was significant, not me.

> Make sure it includes the information that the reactions by JFK and Connally were SIMULTANEOUS...
>
>
> But, of course, you won't... you're simply lying again...
>
>
>
> > > How amusing!!!
> > >
> > > Perhaps the Warren Commission was simply lying... they 'knew' that the reactions were simultaneous, and they just wanted to pull your leg, right "Bud?"
> > >
> > > But in doing so, they gave support to the conspiracy model... and you're too cowardly and dishonest to admit that you don't believe the Warren Commission.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Now, can we talk, lurkers? The z-film is a grainy home movie, there is no use pretending it is a digital, high speed camera. It is a crude tool to make precise determinations with, so the WC was reluctant to claim they could make precise determinations using it.
> > >
> > >
> > > And yet, they could examine it FRAME BY FRAME, just as we can.
> > >
> > > This, the same film that believers firmly assert doesn't show the large BOH wound - but now, "Bud" claiming that we can't see the reactions of those in the film.
> >
> > Lurkers, did you see the clip DVP linked to? I know you did. Did you see near simultaneous reactions. I know you did.
>
>
> Nope.
>
>
>
> > > Rather silly of you "Bud," isn't it?
> > >
> > > A clear example of having your cake and eating it too... the film is perfectly clear enough to determine that there's no "BOH" wound (although that's not actually the case either - see Z-337 for example), yet not clear enough to see people's reactions to being shot!!
> >
> > Lurkers, DVP`s clip does show the reactions to being shot.
>
>
> The Warren Commission certainly believed this to be true... and they KNEW THAT THE REACTIONS WERE NOT SIMULTANEOUS.

Lurkers, have you seen Ben offer anything in support of this? Me either.

>
> > > Again, rather silly of you, isn't it "Bud?"
> > >
> > >
> > > > Now, to my eyes the clip DVP provided shows the two men reacting to being shot at the same or nearly the same instant.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then all you have to do is explain the SECOND reaction nearly a second later...
> >
> > Lurkers, why?
>
>
> Run Coward... RUN!!!
>
> Believers are DEATHLY AFRAID of the evidence in this case, because time and time again, it fails to support their faith.

Lurkers, did you see where Ben showed there was a second reaction? Me neither.

> And they can't admit that simple truth.
>
>
> > > You know, the place that CONNALLY HIMSELF says is where he was reacting to being shot.
> >
> > Lurkers, we can allow witnesses to be off by a second, can`t we?
>
>
> How does *your* opinion have more credibility than the Warren Commission or the person who was shot?

Lurkers, being off by a second is no big deal. It takes longer than a second to say "big deal". Has anyone ever heard of a murder case where it had to be established by the victim the exact second they were hit?

>
> > > >Two shots fired at almost the same instant is an absurd possibility that is really unnecessary to explain what is seen.
> > >
> > >
> > > Why is it "absurd?" Eyewitness testimony time and time again stated how close two of the shots were.
> >
> > Lurkers, besides the difficulties in the mechanics, see if Ben can explain such a thing in terms of pre-planning by the conspiracy. Or, if the extreme closeness of the shots was coincidental. In other words, make sense of it.
>
>
> You yourself provided a cite to a Youtube video where there were, what; 7? shooters who all fired in LESS THAN ONE SECOND.

Lurkers, even with an order given when to fire there was staggered shooting. But what was the plan Ben is suggesting (but will never say). Two gunman, one trained on JFK and one trained on Connally, both with headsets and a command to fire given to both at the same time? What would be the point of going down this path of stupidity? Much simpler to accept what the clip DVP produced clearly shows, both men hot by the same bullet. And you can ask yourself, where was a shooter seen. Sixth floor of the TSBD. How were these victims situated in regards to that position. One in front of the other. Kepp those things in mind while you watch DVP`s clip and the truth becomes inescapable. Ben is retarded.

> So what difficulty was there?
>
>
>
> > > You merely HATE that possibility because you know that the Mannlicher Carcano could not be reloaded and fired any quicker than 2.3 seconds apart.
> >
> > Lurkers, I don`t know how fast Oswald could operate his gun in the condition it was in when he was shooting. Neither does Ben.
>
>
> Sure I do. 2.3 seconds.

Lurkers, Ben can say anything he likes. He can`t support that claim in any meaningful way.

And it is interesting that Ben trusts the FBI on this.

> "Bud" wants to pretend that the rifle sustained untold damage & injury during the time it was laid in a hole of boxes... and the time the FBI tested it.

Lurkers, I`m pretending nothing. Oswald may very well have had that rifle in better working condition than it was when the FBI tested it. Day had to partially disassemble it to get prints. It was dusted with powder both by Day and the FBI. And it was Oswald`s weapon, so he may just have been better at operating it, knowing it`s idiosyncrasies. All this, plus the unknown damage it might has incurred post assassination, and you can see that Ben`s claim is just hot air.

> With *ZERO* evidence, other than his wild imagination.

Lurkers, was it dusted for prints twice, or is that my imagination? Could powder have an impact on it`s operation?

Watch Jesse Ventura try to shoot a Carcano that looks like it hasn`t been oiled since WWII at 1:20 of this video...

https://youtu.be/qSWSgcuYqDo

Even he was getting close with no finesse and a dry gun.

Check this video to see how fast Carcanos are capable of shooting...

https://youtu.be/LcjKYBccoqs

Conspiracy hobbyist want to pretend Oswald`s Carcano was slow. The bullet fragments in the limo say otherwise.

> And the fact that once again, the evidence doesn't support his faith.

Lurkers, the totality of the evidence certainly does support my conclusions. Ben couldn`t figure out that Hinckley shot Reagan if you put him on that case.

> > > So shots closer spaced than that PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE SHOOTERS - and thus, a conspiracy.
> >
> > Lurkers, this is what happens when you work off of information as if it is a factual when it isn`t. The pertinent information is unattainable, how fact could Oswald be operated when he operated it.
>
>
> The rifle was tested by real experts - people FAR superior in rifle knowledge & skill to Oswald.

Lurkers, perhaps they were over-qualified for such easy shooting.

And many of the experts outshot Oswald, getting kill shots on their very first shot.

[Ben Holmes]

Believers always demand evidence, citation, and "proof" from critics - yet RUN FOR THE HILLS each time they're asked to support THEIR OWN STATEMENTS.

"Bud's" a liar, which is why it's not possible to support his claims.

> > Make sure it includes the information that the reactions by JFK and Connally were SIMULTANEOUS...
> >
> >
> > But, of course, you won't... you're simply lying again...
> >
> >
> >
> > > > How amusing!!!
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the Warren Commission was simply lying... they 'knew' that the reactions were simultaneous, and they just wanted to pull your leg, right "Bud?"
> > > >
> > > > But in doing so, they gave support to the conspiracy model... and you're too cowardly and dishonest to admit that you don't believe the Warren Commission.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Now, can we talk, lurkers? The z-film is a grainy home movie, there is no use pretending it is a digital, high speed camera. It is a crude tool to make precise determinations with, so the WC was reluctant to claim they could make precise determinations using it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And yet, they could examine it FRAME BY FRAME, just as we can.
> > > >
> > > > This, the same film that believers firmly assert doesn't show the large BOH wound - but now, "Bud" claiming that we can't see the reactions of those in the film.
> > >
> > > Lurkers, did you see the clip DVP linked to? I know you did. Did you see near simultaneous reactions. I know you did.
> >
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Rather silly of you "Bud," isn't it?
> > > >
> > > > A clear example of having your cake and eating it too... the film is perfectly clear enough to determine that there's no "BOH" wound (although that's not actually the case either - see Z-337 for example), yet not clear enough to see people's reactions to being shot!!
> > >
> > > Lurkers, DVP`s clip does show the reactions to being shot.
> >
> >
> > The Warren Commission certainly believed this to be true... and they KNEW THAT THE REACTIONS WERE NOT SIMULTANEOUS.
>
> Lurkers, have you seen Ben offer anything in support of this? Me either.

Already been quoted and cited.


So you're lying right now, aren't you "Bud?"

> > > > Again, rather silly of you, isn't it "Bud?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Now, to my eyes the clip DVP provided shows the two men reacting to being shot at the same or nearly the same instant.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then all you have to do is explain the SECOND reaction nearly a second later...
> > >
> > > Lurkers, why?
> >
> >
> > Run Coward... RUN!!!
> >
> > Believers are DEATHLY AFRAID of the evidence in this case, because time and time again, it fails to support their faith.
>
> Lurkers, did you see where Ben showed there was a second reaction? Me neither.

Yep... been there, done that... Z-238, as I recall.

You *ran* from the questions that would have established it.

> > And they can't admit that simple truth.
> >
> >
> > > > You know, the place that CONNALLY HIMSELF says is where he was reacting to being shot.
> > >
> > > Lurkers, we can allow witnesses to be off by a second, can`t we?
> >
> >
> > How does *your* opinion have more credibility than the Warren Commission or the person who was shot?
>
> Lurkers, being off by a second is no big deal. It takes longer than a second to say "big deal". Has anyone ever heard of a murder case where it had to be established by the victim the exact second they were hit?

I asked: How does *your* opinion have more credibility than the Warren Commission or the person who was shot?

And rather than admit honestly that your opinion can't be compared to the Warren Commission or to Connally - you sputtered off on something else.

Quite a coward, aren't you "Bud?"

> > > > >Two shots fired at almost the same instant is an absurd possibility that is really unnecessary to explain what is seen.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why is it "absurd?" Eyewitness testimony time and time again stated how close two of the shots were.
> > >
> > > Lurkers, besides the difficulties in the mechanics, see if Ben can explain such a thing in terms of pre-planning by the conspiracy. Or, if the extreme closeness of the shots was coincidental. In other words, make sense of it.
> >
> >
> > You yourself provided a cite to a Youtube video where there were, what; 7? shooters who all fired in LESS THAN ONE SECOND.
>
> Lurkers, even with an order given when to fire there was staggered shooting.

Yep... in less than a single second.

> But what was the plan Ben is suggesting (but will never say). Two gunman, one trained on JFK and one trained on Connally, both with headsets and a command to fire given to both at the same time?

This is a common logical fallacy known as the "strawman".

> What would be the point of going down this path of stupidity?

Only you can answer it.

> Much simpler to accept what the clip DVP produced clearly shows, both men hot by the same bullet.

Nope... not true.

> And you can ask yourself, where was a shooter seen. Sixth floor of the TSBD. How were these victims situated in regards to that position. One in front of the other. Kepp those things in mind while you watch DVP`s clip and the truth becomes inescapable. Ben is retarded.

And once again "Bud" admits he lost.

> > So what difficulty was there?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > You merely HATE that possibility because you know that the Mannlicher Carcano could not be reloaded and fired any quicker than 2.3 seconds apart.
> > >
> > > Lurkers, I don`t know how fast Oswald could operate his gun in the condition it was in when he was shooting. Neither does Ben.
> >
> >
> > Sure I do. 2.3 seconds.
>
> Lurkers, Ben can say anything he likes. He can`t support that claim in any meaningful way.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> And it is interesting that Ben trusts the FBI on this.

Yep... I have good reason to do so here.

> > "Bud" wants to pretend that the rifle sustained untold damage & injury during the time it was laid in a hole of boxes... and the time the FBI tested it.
>
> Lurkers, I`m pretending nothing.

You're LYING again, "Bud."

> Oswald may very well have had that rifle in better working condition than it was when the FBI tested it.

Sheer speculation not supported by ANYTHING AT ALL.

You lose!

> Day had to partially disassemble it to get prints. It was dusted with powder both by Day and the FBI.

Yep... fingerprint powder is notoriously difficult to remove, and hampers correct and speedy operation of the bolt... everyone knows that... NOT!

> And it was Oswald`s weapon, so he may just have been better at operating it, knowing it`s idiosyncrasies.

Then your truly a moron.

The shooters for the FBI, as well as the shooters that shot the rifle for the Warren Commission were so far above Oswald's level that no real comparison can even be made.

Sorta like my knowledge of the evidence in this case compared to you or David.

> All this, plus the unknown damage it might has incurred post assassination, and you can see that Ben`s claim is just hot air.

Speculation doesn't trump evidence... never has, never will.

> > With *ZERO* evidence, other than his wild imagination.
>
> Lurkers, was it dusted for prints twice, or is that my imagination? Could powder have an impact on it`s operation?

ROTFLMAO!!!

The answer to your question is no.

> Watch Jesse Ventura try to shoot a Carcano that looks like it hasn`t been oiled since WWII at 1:20 of this video...
>
> https://youtu.be/qSWSgcuYqDo

Again, speculation takes the place of evidence.

> Even he was getting close with no finesse and a dry gun.

Yet FAR SUPERIOR shooters, far superior even to Jesse Ventura's qualifications, failed with the ACTUAL Mannlicher Carcano.

And nothing you can say or do can evade that FACT.

> Check this video to see how fast Carcanos are capable of shooting...
>
> https://youtu.be/LcjKYBccoqs

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with CE-139, and you're a cowardly liar to even HINT that the Mannlicher Carcano alleged to have shot JFK was EVER capable of such smooth action.

Indeed, by referencing the video, you're showing just how desperate you're getting.

> Conspiracy hobbyist want to pretend Oswald`s Carcano was slow. The bullet fragments in the limo say otherwise.

Logical fallacy.

> > And the fact that once again, the evidence doesn't support his faith.
>
> Lurkers, the totality of the evidence certainly does support my conclusions. Ben couldn`t figure out that Hinckley shot Reagan if you put him on that case.

You haven't listed ANY relevant evidence.

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

> > > > So shots closer spaced than that PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE SHOOTERS - and thus, a conspiracy.
> > >
> > > Lurkers, this is what happens when you work off of information as if it is a factual when it isn`t. The pertinent information is unattainable, how fact could Oswald be operated when he operated it.
> >
> >
> > The rifle was tested by real experts - people FAR superior in rifle knowledge & skill to Oswald.
>
> Lurkers, perhaps they were over-qualified for such easy shooting.

Kook!

> And many of the experts outshot Oswald, getting kill shots on their very first shot.

That's simply not true.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> > > > > Check out the scattered shooting of this firing squad...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ugd6UgLlXM
> > > > >
> > > > > Even with the attempt made to fire in unison it is difficult. And when viewed in the context of the ideas the retards are trying to advance it becomes more absurd. What if there were two hits that clearly occurred a second apart? All the work of setting up the patsy down the drain.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I invite EVERYONE to go watch the video that "Bud" put up to claim it's difficult to fire close together... go to around the 50 second mark, and watch how EVERY SINGLE RIFLE fired in *LESS* than one second.
> > > >
> > > > LESS THAN ONE SECOND!!!
> > >
> > > Lurkers, I`m not sure about that. Even with a command of when to fire the time between the first shot and last shot is considerable (and I`m not counting the headshot). Close to a second, I would guess.
> >
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> >
> > > > If I'd bothered to actually analyze it, the timing was probably down to just half a second - but I'll let everyone judge for themselves.
> > >
> > > Lurkers, me too. I think it clearly illustrates the problems with coordinating two shots close together. And remember, conspiracy retard ideas have a lot of people risking their lives over this.
> >
> >
> > It actually demonstrates that you're wrong.
> >
> > Had they spread their shots over FIVE seconds, they still would have been faster than Dealey Plaza.
> >
> > But they were far quicker than that.

Crickets...

[Bud]

Lurkers, Ben is attempting to shift the burden again. He is the one who asserted the WC`s opinion on this was significant.

>
>
>
> > > Make sure it includes the information that the reactions by JFK and Connally were SIMULTANEOUS...
> > >
> > >
> > > But, of course, you won't... you're simply lying again...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > How amusing!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps the Warren Commission was simply lying... they 'knew' that the reactions were simultaneous, and they just wanted to pull your leg, right "Bud?"
> > > > >
> > > > > But in doing so, they gave support to the conspiracy model... and you're too cowardly and dishonest to admit that you don't believe the Warren Commission.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Now, can we talk, lurkers? The z-film is a grainy home movie, there is no use pretending it is a digital, high speed camera. It is a crude tool to make precise determinations with, so the WC was reluctant to claim they could make precise determinations using it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And yet, they could examine it FRAME BY FRAME, just as we can.
> > > > >
> > > > > This, the same film that believers firmly assert doesn't show the large BOH wound - but now, "Bud" claiming that we can't see the reactions of those in the film.
> > > >
> > > > Lurkers, did you see the clip DVP linked to? I know you did. Did you see near simultaneous reactions. I know you did.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Rather silly of you "Bud," isn't it?
> > > > >
> > > > > A clear example of having your cake and eating it too... the film is perfectly clear enough to determine that there's no "BOH" wound (although that's not actually the case either - see Z-337 for example), yet not clear enough to see people's reactions to being shot!!
> > > >
> > > > Lurkers, DVP`s clip does show the reactions to being shot.
> > >
> > >
> > > The Warren Commission certainly believed this to be true... and they KNEW THAT THE REACTIONS WERE NOT SIMULTANEOUS.
> >
> > Lurkers, have you seen Ben offer anything in support of this? Me either.
>
>
> Already been quoted and cited.

Lurkers, Ben is too stupid to realize that what he produced was not a stated position of the WC`s.

>
> So you're lying right now, aren't you "Bud?"
>
>
> > > > > Again, rather silly of you, isn't it "Bud?"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Now, to my eyes the clip DVP provided shows the two men reacting to being shot at the same or nearly the same instant.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Then all you have to do is explain the SECOND reaction nearly a second later...
> > > >
> > > > Lurkers, why?
> > >
> > >
> > > Run Coward... RUN!!!
> > >
> > > Believers are DEATHLY AFRAID of the evidence in this case, because time and time again, it fails to support their faith.
> >
> > Lurkers, did you see where Ben showed there was a second reaction? Me neither.
>
>
> Yep... been there, done that... Z-238, as I recall.
>
> You *ran* from the questions that would have established it.

Lurkers, why does Ben constantly try to shift the burden? He brings something up, and when someone asks him about what he brings up he runs.

Lurkers, if Ben would merely say "These are my idea and this is the support for my ideas" things would be much easier. But he know that if he puts his ideas and the support for his ideas on the table myself and other would explain ti him why his ideas suck. Ben doesn`t want to hear that, so he keeps his ideas to himself, or give cryptic hints he can`t be held accountable to. If he had the truth on his side he wouldn`t need to show his hole cards one corner at a time. And he keeps trying to make it about me, as if it is my fault he has adopted this shitty approach.

> > > And they can't admit that simple truth.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > You know, the place that CONNALLY HIMSELF says is where he was reacting to being shot.
> > > >
> > > > Lurkers, we can allow witnesses to be off by a second, can`t we?
> > >
> > >
> > > How does *your* opinion have more credibility than the Warren Commission or the person who was shot?
> >
> > Lurkers, being off by a second is no big deal. It takes longer than a second to say "big deal". Has anyone ever heard of a murder case where it had to be established by the victim the exact second they were hit?
>
> I asked: How does *your* opinion have more credibility than the Warren Commission or the person who was shot?
>
> And rather than admit honestly that your opinion can't be compared to the Warren Commission or to Connally - you sputtered off on something else.

Lurkers, where was it established that my opinion can`t compare with Connally`s or the WC`s?

And note Connally thought he was hit before the headshot.

> Quite a coward, aren't you "Bud?"
>
>
>
> > > > > >Two shots fired at almost the same instant is an absurd possibility that is really unnecessary to explain what is seen.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is it "absurd?" Eyewitness testimony time and time again stated how close two of the shots were.
> > > >
> > > > Lurkers, besides the difficulties in the mechanics, see if Ben can explain such a thing in terms of pre-planning by the conspiracy. Or, if the extreme closeness of the shots was coincidental. In other words, make sense of it.
> > >
> > >
> > > You yourself provided a cite to a Youtube video where there were, what; 7? shooters who all fired in LESS THAN ONE SECOND.
> >
> > Lurkers, even with an order given when to fire there was staggered shooting.
>
> Yep... in less than a single second.
>
>
> > But what was the plan Ben is suggesting (but will never say). Two gunman, one trained on JFK and one trained on Connally, both with headsets and a command to fire given to both at the same time?
>
>
> This is a common logical fallacy known as the "strawman".

Lurkers, if Ben put his ideas on the table I wouldn`t have to guess at them.

>
> > What would be the point of going down this path of stupidity?
>
>
> Only you can answer it.

>

> > Much simpler to accept what the clip DVP produced clearly shows, both men hit by the same bullet.

>
>
> Nope... not true.
>
>
> > And you can ask yourself, where was a shooter seen. Sixth floor of the TSBD. How were these victims situated in regards to that position. One in front of the other. Kepp those things in mind while you watch DVP`s clip and the truth becomes inescapable. Ben is retarded.
>
>
> And once again "Bud" admits he lost.
>
>
>
> > > So what difficulty was there?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > You merely HATE that possibility because you know that the Mannlicher Carcano could not be reloaded and fired any quicker than 2.3 seconds apart.
> > > >
> > > > Lurkers, I don`t know how fast Oswald could operate his gun in the condition it was in when he was shooting. Neither does Ben.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure I do. 2.3 seconds.
> >
> > Lurkers, Ben can say anything he likes. He can`t support that claim in any meaningful way.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
>
>
> > And it is interesting that Ben trusts the FBI on this.
>
>
> Yep... I have good reason to do so here.

Lurkers, this is cherry picking. If the FBI says something useful to conspiracy retard ideas it is ok.

>
> > > "Bud" wants to pretend that the rifle sustained untold damage & injury during the time it was laid in a hole of boxes... and the time the FBI tested it.
> >
> > Lurkers, I`m pretending nothing.
>
>
> You're LYING again, "Bud."

Lurkers, I raised possibilities.

> > Oswald may very well have had that rifle in better working condition than it was when the FBI tested it.
>
> Sheer speculation not supported by ANYTHING AT ALL.

Lurkers, of course this is supported. The shell fragments in the limo support it.

> You lose!
>
>
>
> > Day had to partially disassemble it to get prints. It was dusted with powder both by Day and the FBI.
>
> Yep... fingerprint powder is notoriously difficult to remove, and hampers correct and speedy operation of the bolt... everyone knows that... NOT!

Lurkers, was the weapon cleaned and oiled before the operation of the bolt was tested?

> > And it was Oswald`s weapon, so he may just have been better at operating it, knowing it`s idiosyncrasies.
>
> Then your truly a moron.
>
> The shooters for the FBI, as well as the shooters that shot the rifle for the Warren Commission were so far above Oswald's level that no real comparison can even be made.

Lurkers, this is apples and oranges. Frazier was the one who tried to operate the weapon for speed...

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. I would say from 4.8 to 5 seconds, in that area 4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.

This is where the 2.3 seconds comes from. Looking at the testimony, it looks like Frazier had fired three shots prior to the speed test. Who knows how many shots Oswald fired through this weapon. And who knows if the weapon was in the same condition when Frazier tested it as it was when Oswald used it to kill Kennedy.

> Sorta like my knowledge of the evidence in this case compared to you or David.

Lurkers, Ben still can`t figure out this simple crime. And looking at the critiques he had against Bugliosi`s list I can see why. This man has zero aptitude for investigation. None.

> > All this, plus the unknown damage it might has incurred post assassination, and you can see that Ben`s claim is just hot air.
>
>
> Speculation doesn't trump evidence... never has, never will.

Lurkers, it is only speculation what condition Oswald`s rifle was in when he used it to shoot Kennedy.

> > > With *ZERO* evidence, other than his wild imagination.
> >
> > Lurkers, was it dusted for prints twice, or is that my imagination? Could powder have an impact on it`s operation?
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!
>
> The answer to your question is no.

Lurkers, that is why when my front door lock gets sticky I apply baby powder rather than oil. el oh el...

And mt front door has a tricky operation, I insert the key and then have to pull it back a bit to make it work. Even a locksmith wouldn`t know the idiosyncrasies of my lock.

> > Watch Jesse Ventura try to shoot a Carcano that looks like it hasn`t been oiled since WWII at 1:20 of this video...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/qSWSgcuYqDo
>
>
> Again, speculation takes the place of evidence.
>
>
> > Even he was getting close with no finesse and a dry gun.
>
>
> Yet FAR SUPERIOR shooters, far superior even to Jesse Ventura's qualifications,

Lurkers, it didn`t look like Jesse ever fired a bolt action rifle in his life.

> failed with the ACTUAL Mannlicher Carcano.

Lurkers, "failed" is nonsense. A few outshot Oswald. getting a kill shot on their first shot.

> And nothing you can say or do can evade that FACT.
>
>
> > Check this video to see how fast Carcanos are capable of shooting...
> >
> > https://youtu.be/LcjKYBccoqs
>
>
> That has absolutely NOTHING to do with CE-139, and you're a cowardly liar to even HINT that the Mannlicher Carcano alleged to have shot JFK was EVER capable of such smooth action.

Lurker, there is no reason to believe that a well oiled Carcano in the hands of the gun`s owner cannot be operated faster the speed Frazier achieved. Carcanos do sometimes have tricky operations, but the gun`s owner might know that just the right amount of pressure to hit that sweet spot and make that bolt fly.

> Indeed, by referencing the video, you're showing just how desperate you're getting.

Lurker, I will always supply context if I think it is relevant.

>
> > Conspiracy hobbyist want to pretend Oswald`s Carcano was slow. The bullet fragments in the limo say otherwise.
>
>
> Logical fallacy.

Lurkers, this is just silly. The fragments show the bullets were delivered. If the gun needed to be operated in a certain time frame to deliver them than their existence in the limo speaks loudly to that time.

>
> > > And the fact that once again, the evidence doesn't support his faith.
> >
> > Lurkers, the totality of the evidence certainly does support my conclusions. Ben couldn`t figure out that Hinckley shot Reagan if you put him on that case.
>
>
> You haven't listed ANY relevant evidence.

Lurkers, I`m making the points I want to make, and will continue to do so.

> Quite the coward, aren't you "Bud?"
>
>
> > > > > So shots closer spaced than that PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THERE WERE MULTIPLE SHOOTERS - and thus, a conspiracy.
> > > >
> > > > Lurkers, this is what happens when you work off of information as if it is a factual when it isn`t. The pertinent information is unattainable, how fact could Oswald be operated when he operated it.
> > >
> > >
> > > The rifle was tested by real experts - people FAR superior in rifle knowledge & skill to Oswald.
> >
> > Lurkers, perhaps they were over-qualified for such easy shooting.
>
>
> Kook!

Lurkers, that fucking retard Ben has taken to throwing hurtful insults my way.

> > And many of the experts outshot Oswald, getting kill shots on their very first shot.
>
>
> That's simply not true.
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

Lurkers, Ben has to specify his charge.

[Ben Holmes]

There's no "shifting of the burden" when you refuse to defend YOUR OWN STATEMENTS.

"Bud" clearly has a problem reading...