Caught In Another Lie - David Von Pein

[Ben Holmes]

>> CTer -- The wounds on Connally were inconsistent with the condition of
CE399, which again leads us to believe that CE399 was a planted
bullet.
>
> DVP -- An assumption on your (CT) part. And NOT supported by the known
facts regarding CE399, and by further (later) tests done to see if the
SBT was possible (utilizing MC/WCC 6.5mm bullets just like Oswald's).
Such tests (in 2004) proved beyond a REASONABLE person's doubt that a
bullet COULD, indeed, have done even MORE damage to a mock (but
realistic) body double like that of John Connally and emerge in very
good condition.

The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399.

David is lying by omission here, because he can't tell you this fact.

Indeed, virtually *ALL* the witnesses (and witnesses that the Warren Commission refused to take testimony from) denied that CE399 could have done what was claimed.

These are FACTS.

And as such, will be lied about, or evaded.

P.S. The evidence doesn't show that CE399 was planted, it shows that it was swapped for the actual bullet found at Parkland. David won't address that evidence either.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:04:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> CTer -- The wounds on Connally were inconsistent with the condition of
> CE399, which again leads us to believe that CE399 was a planted
> bullet.
> >
> > DVP -- An assumption on your (CT) part. And NOT supported by the known
> facts regarding CE399, and by further (later) tests done to see if the
> SBT was possible (utilizing MC/WCC 6.5mm bullets just like Oswald's).
> Such tests (in 2004) proved beyond a REASONABLE person's doubt that a
> bullet COULD, indeed, have done even MORE damage to a mock (but
> realistic) body double like that of John Connally and emerge in very
> good condition.
>
> The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399.

Did this testing consist of shooting bullets through JFK first?

> David is lying by omission here, because he can't tell you this fact.

You omit the fact that LNers don`t think a shot hit directly onto Connally`s wrist.

> Indeed, virtually *ALL* the witnesses (and witnesses that the Warren Commission refused to take testimony from) denied that CE399 could have done what was claimed.

Any wound ballistic experts in that group?

> These are FACTS.
>
> And as such, will be lied about, or evaded.
>
> P.S. The evidence doesn't show that CE399 was planted, it shows that it was swapped for the actual bullet found at Parkland. David won't address that evidence either.

A conspiracy retard goes to the "fantastic" well once more. They think it never goes dry.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:33:01 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:04:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> CTer -- The wounds on Connally were inconsistent with the condition of
> > CE399, which again leads us to believe that CE399 was a planted
> > bullet.
> > >
> > > DVP -- An assumption on your (CT) part. And NOT supported by the known
> > facts regarding CE399, and by further (later) tests done to see if the
> > SBT was possible (utilizing MC/WCC 6.5mm bullets just like Oswald's).
> > Such tests (in 2004) proved beyond a REASONABLE person's doubt that a
> > bullet COULD, indeed, have done even MORE damage to a mock (but
> > realistic) body double like that of John Connally and emerge in very
> > good condition.
> >
> > The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399.
>
> Did this testing consist of shooting bullets through JFK first?

What a kook!!!

[Bud]

Testing would have to recreate that actual event. The actual event had a bullet pass through Kennedy and Connally`s bodies before hitting Connally`s wrist. The bullet that actually did that looked exactly like CE399.

[Ben Holmes]

What a kook!!!

[Bud]

Just trying to help the handicapped.

[Ben Holmes]

I don't consider "kooks" to be handicapped... merely morons.

[David Von Pein]

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 2:33:01 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:04:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> CTer -- The wounds on Connally were inconsistent with the condition of
> > CE399, which again leads us to believe that CE399 was a planted
> > bullet.
> > >
> > > DVP -- An assumption on your (CT) part. And NOT supported by the known
> > facts regarding CE399, and by further (later) tests done to see if the
> > SBT was possible (utilizing MC/WCC 6.5mm bullets just like Oswald's).
> > Such tests (in 2004) proved beyond a REASONABLE person's doubt that a
> > bullet COULD, indeed, have done even MORE damage to a mock (but
> > realistic) body double like that of John Connally and emerge in very
> > good condition.
> >
> > The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399.
>
> Did this testing consist of shooting bullets through JFK first?
>

And not only didn't the WC "wrist" test bullet NOT go through a mock JFK body first, it also didn't go through a "mock Connally torso" either! So that bullet most certainly cannot be used by Ben Holmes or by Dr. Wecht or by anybody else to support this false statement uttered earlier by B. Holmes:

"The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399." -- Ben Holmes

The above quote is just a flat-out lie, and Holmes HAS to know it.

http://bugliosi-vs-wecht.blogspot.com

[David Von Pein]

Addendum to the above posts re: bullet damage after striking a human wrist....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1140.html

[Jason Burke]

Homie-boy doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, David.

Here, for example, are a few of those bullets that were fired through a human cadaver's wrist bone:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=35

You cannot cite ANY bullet test performed for the Warren Commission that produced a bullet looking anything like CE399.

*YOU* are the liar here.

But is that surprising?

No, not at all - you've been lying for years, and despite many examples of your lies being PROVEN - you just keep right on lying.

Now, you claimed that my statement: "The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399." was a lie.

The *ONLY POSSIBLE PROOF* that it's a lie would be to cite the bullet that the Edgewood Arsenal fired through a wrist, that looks anything similar to CE399.

But you won't.

You're a PROVEN liar.

[David Von Pein]

None of those test bullets came even close to duplicating the MULTI-BODY flight path that CE399 took on 11/22/63---and you know it. So why deny that fact? The WC didn't even ATTEMPT to duplicate the SBT with a fired bullet. They only fired bullets into SEPARATE objects (wrist bones or goat ribs).

You think those type of tests are going to produce the same results that would be produced if the bullets had gone through TWO human bodies?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 8:58:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 3:32:44 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 2:33:01 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:04:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > >> CTer -- The wounds on Connally were inconsistent with the condition of
> > > > CE399, which again leads us to believe that CE399 was a planted
> > > > bullet.
> > > > >
> > > > > DVP -- An assumption on your (CT) part. And NOT supported by the known
> > > > facts regarding CE399, and by further (later) tests done to see if the
> > > > SBT was possible (utilizing MC/WCC 6.5mm bullets just like Oswald's).
> > > > Such tests (in 2004) proved beyond a REASONABLE person's doubt that a
> > > > bullet COULD, indeed, have done even MORE damage to a mock (but
> > > > realistic) body double like that of John Connally and emerge in very
> > > > good condition.
> > > >
> > > > The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399.
> > >
> > > Did this testing consist of shooting bullets through JFK first?
> > >
> >
> > And not only didn't the WC "wrist" test bullet NOT go through a mock JFK body first, it also didn't go through a "mock Connally torso" either! So that bullet most certainly cannot be used by Ben Holmes or by Dr. Wecht or by anybody else to support this false statement uttered earlier by B. Holmes:
> >
> > "The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399." -- Ben Holmes
> >
> > The above quote is just a flat-out lie, and Holmes HAS to know it.
> >
> > http://bugliosi-vs-wecht.blogspot.com
>
> You're lying again, David.
>
> Here, for example, are a few of those bullets that were fired through a human cadaver's wrist bone:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=35
>
> You cannot cite ANY bullet test performed for the Warren Commission that produced a bullet looking anything like CE399.

Thats a strawman. That isn`t his argument. Why are you afraid to address the actual argument? Nobody on our side believe that a bullet hit his wrist directly. The testing done for the WC was bullets fired directly at the wrist.

But even if you were correct, the photo doesn`t prove anything unless the get the angle of the bullets flight and the exact location on the wrist the bullet hit exactly right, and even then you might not get identical results.

> *YOU* are the liar here.
>
> But is that surprising?
>
> No, not at all - you've been lying for years, and despite many examples of your lies being PROVEN - you just keep right on lying.
>
> Now, you claimed that my statement: "The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399." was a lie.
>
> The *ONLY POSSIBLE PROOF* that it's a lie would be to cite the bullet that the Edgewood Arsenal fired through a wrist, that looks anything similar to CE399.

Wrong. You assertion is a lie because no testing was done that replicated the event.

[Ben Holmes]

CITE FOR IT - OR ADMIT THAT YOU LIED!!!

[Ben Holmes]

Yes it is.

He claimed I lied when I stated: "The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399."

That's *STILL* a fact, and no lie you tell can refute it.

[Bud]

Well, it is untrue. Would you prefer that he said that it was an empty claim that you couldn`t support if your life depended on it?

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, "Bud."

[Bud]

First let me remind the reader of the point that Ben is running from..

"Well, it is untrue. Would you prefer that he said that it was an empty claim that you couldn`t support if your life depended on it?"

Did the lurkers see any support offered to back up the claim. It was a stupid thing to say and a stupid way to say it.

Here is Ben`s claim again...

"The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399."

Has Ben seen a bullet fired with half the gunpowder removed fired into a cadaver`s wrist? How about a bullet fired through ten phone books into a cadaver`s wrist? Unless Ben has seen the results of every set of circumstances imaginable then the claim is an empty one.

[Ben Holmes]

Sure, here it is again: "The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399."

You've claimed this to be a lie... as has David Von Pein.

Yet you can't cite for it.

You lose!

[Bud]

Snipping and running from your own words only establishes your cowardice.

Here is the statement Ben made that he is running from supporting....

[Ben Holmes]

I've cited... you refuse to.

Keep running coward!!!

[Bud]

You have to cite something that supports your words. Showing how one bullet performed under one specific set of circumstances does nothing to establish how all bullets would react under every other set of circumstances.

> Keep running coward!!!

[Ben Holmes]

Been there, done that, here it is again:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=35

[Bud]

How does what one bullet did establish what all bullets will do under all circumstances?

[Ben Holmes]

You can only count one bullet in that cite?

No *wonder* you're a kook!

[Bud]

Your claim is that this cite addresses all bullets under all circumstances.

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, molester...

[Bud]

Heres you quote again, retard...

"The ballistics tests performed for the Warren Commission show that no bullet could have struck Connally's wrist, and come out looking like CE399."

You made a blanket statement with no parameters. "no bullet" could do this is your position. But you neglected to show where or how you took into account all circumstances.

[Ben Holmes]