The SBT by David Von Pein... Refuted.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick Collins: Study the case for the SBT on DVP's web site - counter the points and I will respond - civily.

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

From DVP's website:

Based on the official evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case, all of the following things are true:

1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.

3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)

4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.

6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.

8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.

9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally.

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

David Von Pein doesn't like to defend his claims against critical review in public, so he posts them on a website where no-one can refute him. Patrick has claimed to be willing to defend these claims, so it's worthwhile to refute each claim to see just how truthful Patrick will be...

I predict in advance that Patrick will decide that this isn't worthwhile trying to defend...

So, one by one:

1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.

Indeed, probably the only thing that I will agree with, based on the evidence and logic. The possibility of accurate pistol fire over the distances involved would be astronomically small... It's interesting to note that of DVP's nine points, this is the only one that is logical and reasonable.
 

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.

Nope. Mere speculation that isn't supported by the evidence. DVP made a desperate attempt to refute the fact that there are no bank endorsements on the alleged money order that was presumed to have been used to pay for the rifle. Yet he failed miserably in that attempt. If Oswald didn't pay for the rifle - then the only other logical way to account for the known evidence IS THAT HE WAS FRAMED WITH FALSIFIED EVIDENCE.

There's truly no other credible explanation for that money order.

And until that money order can be explained in terms of the Warren Commission's theory, then it's simply dishonest to claim that the rifle belonged to Oswald.

And if the rifle cannot be connected to Oswald - then 99% of the case simply dissolves...

I've demonstrated quite conclusively in my posts on Bugliosi's 53 bits of evidence that there simply isn't the evidence that believers are wont to believe. So this attempt to merely presume what needs to be shown is a common tactic among believers.

 

3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)


Once again, we are looking at a wee bit of dishonesty on DVP's part. There was no chain of custody on this bullet that could have stood up in court, and DVP is well aware of that fact. It doesn't matter WHERE CE399 was found... if there's no valid chain of custody, then it's simply inadmissible evidence. DVP is also undoubtedly aware of the threatening phone call that Tomlinson described... and yet has no explanation for... Once again, the facts fit a frameup quite nicely - and is a very ill fit indeed for the Warren Commission's theory.

 

4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.


Nope. CE399 has been established with valid testimony to have been fired from the Mannlicher Carcano, C2766 - that's ALL THAT CAN BE LEGITIMATELY AND HONESTLY STATED. DVP wishes to go beyond what the evidence shows in order to defend the Warren Commission's theory.

I predict that Patrick will absolutely REFUSE to refute my statement here... and defend DVP's quite misleading assertion.

 

5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.

Again... nope.

There's been no evidence presented to show that CE399 was even fired on 11/22/63. Indeed, the weight of the testimony tends to indicate that this was part of a frameup, rather than legitimate evidence.

As well, DVP certainly knows that the ballistics tests conducted on behalf of the Warren Commission was completely unable to duplicate the pristine nature of CE399. At a velocity low enough to retain the bullet's shape - no bones will be broken... and at a velocity high enough to break bone, the bullet is also severely deformed.

 

6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.


Nope... indeed, Brennan; whom everyone will agree got the best look at the assassin, [b]ABSOLUTELY REFUSED TO IDENTIFY HIM AS LEE HARVEY OSWALD[/b] in lineups conducted that day. As well, [u]all of the witnesses[/u] described the assassin's clothing as different from Oswald's. The nonsense about no other gunmen being seen firing a weapon is sheer nonsense... and disguises the fact that DVP knows that other rifles were seen that day close to, or in Dealey Plaza.

This same argument can be used to show that Nicole Brown is really still alive, since no-one saw anyone using a knife on June 12, 1994. It's a nonsensical argument that can only be used by the faithful to help other believers.

 

7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.


Simply untrue. DVP knows quite well that the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN from dissecting the track of the wound - so there's simply no cause for him to assert that no "significant damage" was not found there - they never looked.

Indeed, it's rather silly for DVP to claim that a bullet went through a body, yet no "significant damage" attended that transit. Surely he's trying to make some other point, because his statement as is - is simply nonsense.

Presumably, DVP is trying to account for the nearly pristine nature of CE399 - yet avoiding the real place that severe damage would accrue - Connally's wrist.

 

8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.


Untrue. DVP is well aware of the disappearing bullet fragments found in Connally's wrist. Nor is it true that CE399 is the only bullet that can be connected to Connally's wounds... the attending doctor testified that up to THREE bullets could have caused Connally's wounds.

And since the limo was immediately hustled out of Dallas, and never searched by impartial investigators - there's no telling what might have been found in the way of bullets or bullet fragments.

Indeed, Secret Service Agent Kinney claims that he found CE399 in the limo. And since Patrick is fond of statements made decades later - he can't refute this on any logical grounds.

 
9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally.


Nope. The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK. DVP knows this - and glosses over it.

Nor is it true that a bullet striking Connally had to have gone through JFK first. This is a quite misleading lie. It presumes 'facts' not shown to be true, and simply presumes that the Warren Commission's theory of the shooting sequence is correct.

Yet the evidence doesn't support this - and DVP knows quite well that it doesn't. Indeed, for many years, believers used to argue a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally for the express purpose of explaining the extant Zapruder film. They no longer make that argument, deciding that they can move a presumed "reaction" on the part of Connally to a point earlier than the Warren Commission did.

Also note that DVP has repeatedly asserted a role for CE399 that he cannot demonstrate using the evidence. There's a reason that the United States Judicial system requires a chain of custody for evidence.
 
************************************************

So in conclusion - what we see here is speculation piled on speculation, and presumptions given the status of evidence.

It's worth noting the evidence... I say again, the EVIDENCE that the theory of a single bullet transiting and striking both JFK & Connally is far more credible ... and rather completely avoided by Patrick (and all other believers, for that matter). Here it is again:

1. The depth of the wound.
2. The location of the wound.
3. The missing interior chest photo.
4. The original description of the throat wound.
5. The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)
6. The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".
7. The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.
8. The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.
9. The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)

It would be truly amusing to see if DVP could address my 9 points the way I've so easily dismissed his 9 points... we already know that Patrick cannot. (Patrick has now gone nearly a week without answering)

Posted on http://conspiracyjfkforum.com

[Bud]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Patrick Collins: Study the case for the SBT on DVP's web site - counter the points and I will respond - civily.

<snicker> When pigs fly - gracefully.

> **********************************************
>
> From DVP's website:
>
> Based on the official evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case, all of the following things are true:
>
> 1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.
>
> 2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.
>
> 3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)
>
> 4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.
>
> 5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.
>
> 6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.
>
> 7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.
>
> 8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.
>
> 9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally.
>
> ******************************************************
>
> David Von Pein doesn't like to defend his claims against critical review in public, so he posts them on a website where no-one can refute him. Patrick has claimed to be willing to defend these claims, so it's worthwhile to refute each claim to see just how truthful Patrick will be...
>
> I predict in advance that Patrick will decide that this isn't worthwhile trying to defend...
>
> So, one by one:
>
> 1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.
>
> Indeed, probably the only thing that I will agree with, based on the evidence and logic. The possibility of accurate pistol fire over the distances involved would be astronomically small... It's interesting to note that of DVP's nine points, this is the only one that is logical and reasonable.
>  
>
> 2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.
>
> Nope. Mere speculation that isn't supported by the evidence. DVP made a desperate attempt to refute the fact that there are no bank endorsements on the alleged money order that was presumed to have been used to pay for the rifle. Yet he failed miserably in that attempt.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/iH-HRt35ANc/NXi5OokJDgAJ

> If Oswald didn't pay for the rifle - then the only other logical way to account for the known evidence IS THAT HE WAS FRAMED WITH FALSIFIED EVIDENCE.

This is what logic looks like to the retarded.

> There's truly no other credible explanation for that money order.

Oswald bought a rifle with it. Conspiracy types hate the truth.

> And until that money order can be explained in terms of the Warren Commission's theory, then it's simply dishonest to claim that the rifle belonged to Oswald.

Except the photograph of him holding it. His wife saying he owned it.

But the conspiracy retards like to pretend that if they question a piece of evidence then the whole case against Oswald falls apart. The fail to realize that the only logical way to explain what exists in evidence is if Oswald killed Kennedy.

> And if the rifle cannot be connected to Oswald - then 99% of the case simply dissolves...

They brought OJ to trial without the knife.

> I've demonstrated quite conclusively in my posts on Bugliosi's 53 bits of evidence that there simply isn't the evidence that believers are wont to believe. So this attempt to merely presume what needs to be shown is a common tactic among believers.
>
>  
>
> 3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)
>
>
> Once again, we are looking at a wee bit of dishonesty on DVP's part. There was no chain of custody on this bullet that could have stood up in court,

Empty claim.

> and DVP is well aware of that fact. It doesn't matter WHERE CE399 was found... if there's no valid chain of custody, then it's simply inadmissible evidence. DVP is also undoubtedly aware of the threatening phone call that Tomlinson described...

By all means, play the tape.

>and yet has no explanation for...

You assume that Tomlinson represented the call accurately.

> Once again, the facts fit a frameup quite nicely - and is a very ill fit indeed for the Warren Commission's theory.

Fits fine. Someone in an official capacity who was concerned about a bunch of rumors coming from the hospital might try to put a lid on it.

>  
>
> 4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.
>
>
> Nope. CE399 has been established with valid testimony to have been fired from the Mannlicher Carcano, C2766 -

Which was Oswald`s rifle.

> that's ALL THAT CAN BE LEGITIMATELY AND HONESTLY STATED. DVP wishes to go beyond what the evidence shows in order to defend the Warren Commission's theory.

The evidence shows that this was Oswald`s rifle. His prints were on it. Photographs of him holding it exist. Paper trail from Klein`s to his PO box.

> I predict that Patrick will absolutely REFUSE to refute my statement here... and defend DVP's quite misleading assertion.
>
>  
>
> 5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.
>
> Again... nope.
>
> There's been no evidence presented to show that CE399 was even fired on 11/22/63.

Of course there is. Victims were shot from the location the rifle was found. Victims were taken to where the bullet was found. This is evidence the bullet was fired that day.

> Indeed, the weight of the testimony tends to indicate that this was part of a frameup, rather than legitimate evidence.

There is nothing less meaningful than what a conspiracy retard thinks the evidence indicates.

> As well, DVP certainly knows that the ballistics tests conducted on behalf of the Warren Commission was completely unable to duplicate the pristine nature of CE399.

Couldn`t get Connally to sit in to get shot again. Kennedy`s body was unavailable also.

> At a velocity low enough to retain the bullet's shape - no bones will be broken... and at a velocity high enough to break bone, the bullet is also severely deformed.

"Beyond the Magic Bullet" show this to be untrue.

https://youtu.be/n-5xfTKqf1A

>  
>
> 6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.
>
>
> Nope... indeed, Brennan; whom everyone will agree got the best look at the assassin, [b]ABSOLUTELY REFUSED TO IDENTIFY HIM AS LEE HARVEY OSWALD[/b] in lineups conducted that day.

Also said he could in all honesty have selected him as the man he saw.

> As well, [u]all of the witnesses[/u] described the assassin's clothing as different from Oswald's.

Not true. Oswald had a white top on the day of the assassination. One of his co-workers said he was working in his t-shirt the day of the assassination. One of the people who saw the gunman from the outside said that gunman might have been wearing a t-shirt.

> The nonsense about no other gunmen being seen firing a weapon is sheer nonsense... and disguises the fact that DVP knows that other rifles were seen that day close to, or in Dealey Plaza.

List these credible accounts of gunman seen.

>
> This same argument can be used to show that Nicole Brown is really still alive, since no-one saw anyone using a knife on June 12, 1994. It's a nonsensical argument that can only be used by the faithful to help other believers.

It wasn`t an argument, it was an assertion of fact.

"No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd."

All you need to do is produce a credible witness who said they saw a gunman. Keep Ed Hoffman in the retard vault.

>  
>
> 7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.
>
>
> Simply untrue. DVP knows quite well that the prosectors WERE FORBIDDEN from dissecting the track of the wound - so there's simply no cause for him to assert that no "significant damage" was not found there - they never looked.

Never heard of x-rays?

> Indeed, it's rather silly for DVP to claim that a bullet went through a body, yet no "significant damage" attended that transit. Surely he's trying to make some other point, because his statement as is - is simply nonsense.

There was damage to the top tip of the lung by the passing bullet.

> Presumably, DVP is trying to account for the nearly pristine nature of CE399 - yet avoiding the real place that severe damage would accrue - Connally's wrist.

Much depends on how much energy the bullet had and how it hit.

>  
>
> 8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.
>
>
> Untrue. DVP is well aware of the disappearing bullet fragments found in Connally's wrist. Nor is it true that CE399 is the only bullet that can be connected to Connally's wounds... the attending doctor testified that up to THREE bullets could have caused Connally's wounds.

Since when are doctors experts in forensics or wound ballistics?

> And since the limo was immediately hustled out of Dallas, and never searched by impartial investigators - there's no telling what might have been found in the way of bullets or bullet fragments.

Yes, either there was a huge, complex conspiracy you can`t show or Oswald was just guilty.

> Indeed, Secret Service Agent Kinney claims that he found CE399 in the limo. And since Patrick is fond of statements made decades later - he can't refute this on any logical grounds.

You can`t support fantastic claims with weak evidence.

>  
> 9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally.
>
>
> Nope. The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK. DVP knows this - and glosses over it.

You are claiming a level of precision that the crappy home movie can`t support. Also assumes how Connally must react and when.

> Nor is it true that a bullet striking Connally had to have gone through JFK first. This is a quite misleading lie. It presumes 'facts' not shown to be true, and simply presumes that the Warren Commission's theory of the shooting sequence is correct.

We know where Oswald was seen shooting from and we know how the two victims were arranged from that vantage.

> Yet the evidence doesn't support this - and DVP knows quite well that it doesn't. Indeed, for many years, believers used to argue a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally for the express purpose of explaining the extant Zapruder film. They no longer make that argument, deciding that they can move a presumed "reaction" on the part of Connally to a point earlier than the Warren Commission did.

Critics have to latch on to the absurdity of two different very, very closely fired bullets hitting each victim.

And then try to get such an absurd proposition to fit into a very complex conspiracy that had any chance of success. They were counting on the two shots appearing as one, really?

> Also note that DVP has repeatedly asserted a role for CE399 that he cannot demonstrate using the evidence. There's a reason that the United States Judicial system requires a chain of custody for evidence.

We know who had the bullet and who that person gave it to all the way.

 
> ************************************************
>
> So in conclusion - what we see here is speculation piled on speculation, and presumptions given the status of evidence.

What you have is a conspiracy retard railing against reality, overly impressed with his ability to dispute, when this silly game has been perfected by thousands of idiots who just can`t come to grips with the fact that Oswald killed Kennedy.

> It's worth noting the evidence... I say again, the EVIDENCE that the theory of a single bullet transiting and striking both JFK & Connally is far more credible ... and rather completely avoided by Patrick (and all other believers, for that matter). Here it is again:
>
> 1. The depth of the wound.

Assumes the depth of the wound to be the depth it could be probed.

> 2. The location of the wound.

Works fine for a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. See the Magic Bullet" program.

> 3. The missing interior chest photo.

Not in evidence?

> 4. The original description of the throat wound.

Round. Just the kind of hole you`d expect a near pristine bullet to make.

> 5. The original autopsy describing a different explanation for the throat wound. (Rankin)

Before the prosectors found out that the bullet wound was obscured by the trach?

> 6. The size of the wound in comparison to it's supposed "exit".

Need some forensic support that this is unusual.

> 7. The complete lack of any metal found on the front of the shirt & tie.

Sixties technology.

> 8. The missing report & testimony of Stombaugh.

Not in evidence?

> 9. The earliest attempts to explain the frontal shot (Life Magazine, Mandel's article)

Ask Mandel.

> It would be truly amusing to see if DVP could address my 9 points the way I've so easily dismissed his 9 points... we already know that Patrick cannot. (Patrick has now gone nearly a week without answering)
>
> Posted on http://conspiracyjfkforum.com

Ben`s little irrelevant kingdom.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 12:22:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

Boy, what pathetic responses we have here by Ben Holmes. How can he not be beet-red after presenting such hollow, paper-thin arguments?

The SBT Facts:
http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

And some more:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory

[Jason Burke]

>> I predict that Patrick will absolutely REFUSE to refute my statement here.... and defend DVP's quite misleading assertion.

David,
Do you not understand that these people are idiots?

[David Von Pein]

But even an idiot can turn beet-red. :-)

[Bud]

He even tried selling this obvious falsehood...

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

The best that can honestly be said is that Kennedy shows obvious signs of being hit by a bullet a few sixteenths (or is it eighteenths?) of a second prior to Connally showing signs having been hit, using a crappy home movie to make the determination.

And the only alternative is two shooters firing at almost the same instant, an idea only a retard would entertain.

[Mark Ulrik]

Whatever Ben says, you know the opposite is true. It's like a litmus test.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 8:23:07 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> Whatever Ben says, you know the opposite is true. It's like a litmus test.

Apparently Ben did a drive-by posting before retreating back to his bastion of censorship. He can`t defend his ideas in this open forum to save his life.

[Mark Ulrik]

I actually did post in his forum for a while. A bizarre experience.

A couple of examples:

1) New members are required to pick a side: Fact-based "Critic" (CT) or faith-based "Believer" (LGT). (There might also be an "Undecided" option.) In itself, however, the notion that a conspiracy was behind the assassination is no less an article of faith than the notion that Oswald acted alone, but I guess Ben wanted to create an environment where he and his fellow CTs won't have to bother too much with defending their own ideas.

2) Its specific wording escapes me, but a certain forum rule allows you to call anyone a "liar" if you can demonstrate (with evidence) that they have made a faulty claim. You're not required to prove intent, which might seem strange, but Ben really loves the L word. An obvious problem with this policy is that the forum admin is the arbiter of whether the evidence presented is adequate. Not surprisingly, Ben gets to use the L word a lot (which seems to be a major point of the forum) while others tend to be reprimanded for the same offense.

After some lengthy and fruitless discussions, I began to make inquires about how to delete my profile - and was instantly banned without explanation. I wonder if Ben at least had the decency to delete my posts. I don't want to lend legitimacy to his forum by virtue of once having posted there.

[Bud]

You still appear as a member. It says you have 117 posts, so I assume they are still there. Ben makes it hard for non-members to navigate the site.

[Mark Ulrik]

Thank you for checking. I guess the poor slob desperately needs all the posts he can get. Ben is the kind of host who makes an extra effort to make his guests feel unwelcome. Unless you're one of his adoring lapdogs, of course. I was a little disappointed to see a semi-respected author like Larry Hancock join in the nastiness. He got miffed and refused to admit an error when it was pointed out to him. I didn't even call him a "liar".

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:52:39 AM UTC-8, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> I actually did post in his forum for a while. A bizarre experience.
>
> A couple of examples:
>
> 1) New members are required to pick a side: Fact-based "Critic" (CT) or faith-based "Believer" (LGT). (There might also be an "Undecided" option.) In itself, however, the notion that a conspiracy was behind the assassination is no less an article of faith than the notion that Oswald acted alone, but I guess Ben wanted to create an environment where he and his fellow CTs won't have to bother too much with defending their own ideas.

Rather silly... all you're asserting is that others hold a different view.

> 2) Its specific wording escapes me, but a certain forum rule allows you to call anyone a "liar" if you can demonstrate (with evidence) that they have made a faulty claim. You're not required to prove intent, which might seem strange, but Ben really loves the L word. An obvious problem with this policy is that the forum admin is the arbiter of whether the evidence presented is adequate. Not surprisingly, Ben gets to use the L word a lot (which seems to be a major point of the forum) while others tend to be reprimanded for the same offense.

I don't recall anyone being "reprimanded" for that... can you cite?

As I've pointed out time and time again, all believers are liars. You can only accept the Warren Commission Report and be honest if you don't know the evidence.

> After some lengthy and fruitless discussions, I began to make inquires about how to delete my profile - and was instantly banned without explanation. I wonder if Ben at least had the decency to delete my posts. I don't want to lend legitimacy to his forum by virtue of once having posted there.

How strange?

You asked me to delete your profile, so I did.

Now you're lying about that...

Feel free to join again at any time... but of course, you won't.

[judos...@gmail.com]

Yep... as I stated... DVP can't address the post.

Here it is again:

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 5:44:55 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>
> He even tried selling this obvious falsehood...
>
> "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

You mean all those believers who touted a "delayed reaction" for so many years were liars???

Tell us it ain't so!

[judos...@gmail.com]

Actually, I simply don't frequent this forum much... too much garbage.

And despite the fact that I post pretty much every day, you can't answer 'em.

The facts simply aren't on your side...

Embarrassing, isn't it?

[Bud]

Why are you running from supporting your words? Thats right, you`re a coward.

[Bud]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:28:55 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 11:43:06 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 8:23:07 AM UTC-5, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > > Whatever Ben says, you know the opposite is true. It's like a litmus test.
> >
> > Apparently Ben did a drive-by posting before retreating back to his bastion of censorship. He can`t defend his ideas in this open forum to save his life.
>
> Actually, I simply don't frequent this forum much... too much garbage.

I think my characterization was accurate. You can`t defend your ideas in an open forum to save your life.

> And despite the fact that I post pretty much every day, you can't answer 'em.
>
> The facts simply aren't on your side...
>
> Embarrassing, isn't it?

Still retarded, aren`t you?

[judos...@gmail.com]

Predictably, "Bud" has proven his cowardice...

He refuses to acknowledge that believers historically argued for a "delayed reaction" of Connally to the bullet alleged to have struck JFK and transited. (despite the contrary evidence from the autopsy)

"Bud" demonstrates his illiteracy or dishonesty (take your pick), by refusing to acknowledge that I did indeed support my words.

[Bud]

Still a bald-faced liar, I see. Your claim was this...

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

You offered nothing in support of that claim.

[judos...@gmail.com]

If I "offered nothing" in support of that statement, then you won't be afraid to publicly assert that Warren Commission Supporters have, in the past, argued for a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part.

But thus far, you've refused to do so.

Why is that?

(Other than dishonesty & cowardice, that is...)

[Bud]

How did these unnamed people cause you to take the position you did?

> But thus far, you've refused to do so.
>
> Why is that?

<snicker> I don`t have to do a damn thing. You made this claim...

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

You need to support your claim. We both know you can`t, so you are going into your usual dance routine. You should scurry back to your fortress of solitude and stop embarrassing yourself on unmoderated forums.

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:01:30 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:44:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:06:53 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:48:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:26:01 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 5:44:55 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He even tried selling this obvious falsehood...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You mean all those believers who touted a "delayed reaction" for so many years were liars???
> > > > >
> > > > > Why are you running from supporting your words? Thats right, you`re a coward.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Tell us it ain't so!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Predictably, "Bud" has proven his cowardice...
> > > >
> > > > He refuses to acknowledge that believers historically argued for a "delayed reaction" of Connally to the bullet alleged to have struck JFK and transited. (despite the contrary evidence from the autopsy)
> > > >
> > > > "Bud" demonstrates his illiteracy or dishonesty (take your pick), by refusing to acknowledge that I did indeed support my words.
> > >
> > > Still a bald-faced liar, I see. Your claim was this...
> > >
> > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > >
> > > You offered nothing in support of that claim.
> >
> > If I "offered nothing" in support of that statement, then you won't be afraid to publicly assert that Warren Commission Supporters have, in the past, argued for a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part.
>
> How did these unnamed people cause you to take the position you did?

Such an AMAZING coward!!!

I ask you to publicly acknowledge that Warren Commission supporters have, in the past, argued for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally... and you still can't do it.

Quite the dishonest coward, aren't you?

You're afraid to tell the truth, of course - since you know quite well that in the past, most of those who believe in the Warren Commission ACCEPTED that the extant Z-film shows evidence supporting that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally - thus coming up with the "delayed reaction" theory.

Now it's a new theory, that you can imagine a reaction earlier - but that doesn't change the facts...

Of course, the moment you acknowledge the truth, it becomes painfully obvious that I did indeed support my statement, and you're a liar.

I've stated many times that there's no question on the evidence in this case that I cannot answer, and CREDIBLY so... yet time and time again, believers demonstrate that they don't have the courage or honesty to do the same.

Tells the tale, doesn't it?

> > But thus far, you've refused to do so.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> <snicker> I don`t have to do a damn thing. You made this claim...

Yep... a claim I supported, and you lied about.

When all you have are lies, then how can you imagine that you're changing anyone's opinion?

> "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
>
> You need to support your claim. We both know you can`t, so you are going into your usual dance routine. You should scurry back to your fortress of solitude and stop embarrassing yourself on unmoderated forums.

You're lying again, "Bud".

[Bud]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 7:05:15 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:01:30 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:44:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:06:53 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:48:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:26:01 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 5:44:55 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He even tried selling this obvious falsehood...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean all those believers who touted a "delayed reaction" for so many years were liars???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why are you running from supporting your words? Thats right, you`re a coward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tell us it ain't so!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Predictably, "Bud" has proven his cowardice...
> > > > >
> > > > > He refuses to acknowledge that believers historically argued for a "delayed reaction" of Connally to the bullet alleged to have struck JFK and transited. (despite the contrary evidence from the autopsy)
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bud" demonstrates his illiteracy or dishonesty (take your pick), by refusing to acknowledge that I did indeed support my words.
> > > >
> > > > Still a bald-faced liar, I see. Your claim was this...
> > > >
> > > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > >
> > > > You offered nothing in support of that claim.
> > >
> > > If I "offered nothing" in support of that statement, then you won't be afraid to publicly assert that Warren Commission Supporters have, in the past, argued for a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part.
> >
> > How did these unnamed people cause you to take the position you did?
>
>
> Such an AMAZING coward!!!

You seem to think whatever these people had to say was somehow supportive of the claim you made. I don`t see the connection, it seemed a non sequitur to me. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how anything these unnamed people had to say was supportive of your claim.

> I ask you to publicly acknowledge that Warren Commission supporters have, in the past, argued for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally... and you still can't do it.

Again, you don`t understand the process. You make a claim, you back up the claim. You don`t get to say "Unless you stand on your head my claim is true". Unless you are retarded.

> Quite the dishonest coward, aren't you?

Instead of all this cowardly misdirection and ad hominem you should just back up your claim.

> You're afraid to tell the truth, of course - since you know quite well that in the past, most of those who believe in the Warren Commission ACCEPTED that the extant Z-film shows evidence supporting that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally - thus coming up with the "delayed reaction" theory.

I don`t know or care whether any of that is true. It doesn`t seem to impact this claim of yours...

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

> Now it's a new theory, that you can imagine a reaction earlier - but that doesn't change the facts...

The fact is that you can`t support your claim, so you are misdirecting towards irrelevancies. A common conspiracy retard tactic.

> Of course, the moment you acknowledge the truth, it becomes painfully obvious that I did indeed support my statement, and you're a liar.

I suggest you try quoting some of these unnamed sources and show how anything they`ve said is supportive of your claim.

> I've stated many times that there's no question on the evidence in this case that I cannot answer, and CREDIBLY so... yet time and time again, believers demonstrate that they don't have the courage or honesty to do the same.

<snicker> You actually believe you supported this claim...

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

How is it possible to have a discussion with someone so out of touch with reality?

> Tells the tale, doesn't it?
>
>
> > > But thus far, you've refused to do so.
> > >
> > > Why is that?
> >
> > <snicker> I don`t have to do a damn thing. You made this claim...
>
> Yep... a claim I supported, and you lied about.

You are in your own little world, aren`t you Benny?

Exactly when does JFK first show signs of being shot in the z-film and when does Connally first show signs of being shot in the z-film? You claim several seconds in between, that would be what, 36 frames? Quite a whopper, I can see why you would try to misdirect and lie, what else could you do, honesty wasn`t an option.

> When all you have are lies, then how can you imagine that you're changing anyone's opinion?

I imagine no such thing. If people can`t figure such things out for themselves they can forget about help from me. Reasonable people don`t need and my help and it is wasted on fools.

>
> > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> >
> > You need to support your claim. We both know you can`t, so you are going into your usual dance routine. You should scurry back to your fortress of solitude and stop embarrassing yourself on unmoderated forums.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud".

<snicker> One of us is. I expect it is plain which one it is.

[Jason Burke]

Well, I think you nailed ol' Bennie Boy right there. And this guy claims
to have been a pig? Or am I mistaking him for some other idiot?

>
>> Quite the dishonest coward, aren't you?
>
> Instead of all this cowardly misdirection and ad hominem you should just back up your claim.
>
>> You're afraid to tell the truth, of course - since you know quite well that in the past, most of those who believe in the Warren Commission ACCEPTED that the extant Z-film shows evidence supporting that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally - thus coming up with the "delayed reaction" theory.
>
> I don`t know or care whether any of that is true. It doesn`t seem to impact this claim of yours...
>
> "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
>
>> Now it's a new theory, that you can imagine a reaction earlier - but that doesn't change the facts...
>
> The fact is that you can`t support your claim, so you are misdirecting towards irrelevancies. A common conspiracy retard tactic.
>
>> Of course, the moment you acknowledge the truth, it becomes painfully obvious that I did indeed support my statement, and you're a liar.
>
> I suggest you try quoting some of these unnamed sources and show how anything they`ve said is supportive of your claim.
>

>> I've stated many times that there's no question on the evidence in this case that I cannot answer, and CREDIBLY so... yet time and time again, believers demonstrate that they don't have the courage or honesty to do the same..

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 5:13:58 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 7:05:15 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:01:30 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:44:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:06:53 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:48:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:26:01 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 5:44:55 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He even tried selling this obvious falsehood...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You mean all those believers who touted a "delayed reaction" for so many years were liars???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why are you running from supporting your words? Thats right, you`re a coward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tell us it ain't so!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Predictably, "Bud" has proven his cowardice...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He refuses to acknowledge that believers historically argued for a "delayed reaction" of Connally to the bullet alleged to have struck JFK and transited. (despite the contrary evidence from the autopsy)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Bud" demonstrates his illiteracy or dishonesty (take your pick), by refusing to acknowledge that I did indeed support my words.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still a bald-faced liar, I see. Your claim was this...
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > > >
> > > > > You offered nothing in support of that claim.
> > > >
> > > > If I "offered nothing" in support of that statement, then you won't be afraid to publicly assert that Warren Commission Supporters have, in the past, argued for a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part.
> > >
> > > How did these unnamed people cause you to take the position you did?
> >
> >
> > Such an AMAZING coward!!!
>
> You seem to think whatever these people had to say was somehow supportive of the claim you made. I don`t see the connection, it seemed a non sequitur to me. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how anything these unnamed people had to say was supportive of your claim.

You can't even admit that the Warren Commission - and Warren Commission supporters have historically argued for a delayed reaction.

I've already explained your cowardice.

You already know why you can't publicly admit this.

> > I ask you to publicly acknowledge that Warren Commission supporters have, in the past, argued for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally... and you still can't do it.
>
> Again, you don`t understand the process. You make a claim, you back up the claim. You don`t get to say "Unless you stand on your head my claim is true". Unless you are retarded.

I did back it up...

You're simply lying.

When you get around to telling the truth about the "delayed reaction" - then the debate can move forward.

But you don't want that, do you?

> > Quite the dishonest coward, aren't you?
>
> Instead of all this cowardly misdirection and ad hominem you should just back up your claim.

I did.

You're running.

Quite the yellow stripe down your back.

> > You're afraid to tell the truth, of course - since you know quite well that in the past, most of those who believe in the Warren Commission ACCEPTED that the extant Z-film shows evidence supporting that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally - thus coming up with the "delayed reaction" theory.
>
> I don`t know or care whether any of that is true. It doesn`t seem to impact this claim of yours...

Then you're simply too ignorant to debate. Bye!

(Let me know if your memory improves!)

[Bud]

This is merely misdirection, it has nothing to do with you supporting your claim.

> I've already explained your cowardice.

You are the one running from supporting your claim.

> You already know why you can't publicly admit this.

It isn`t about me, it is about you supporting your claim. Stop misdirecting and start supporting.

>
> > > I ask you to publicly acknowledge that Warren Commission supporters have, in the past, argued for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally... and you still can't do it.
> >
> > Again, you don`t understand the process. You make a claim, you back up the claim. You don`t get to say "Unless you stand on your head my claim is true". Unless you are retarded.
>
>
> I did back it up...

No, you didn`t. You misdirected to something that is in no way supportive of your claim.

> You're simply lying.

It is clear who is lying. If you did support your claim you could show what presented that supported your claim. You can`t show anything because you didn`t produce anything.

> When you get around to telling the truth about the "delayed reaction" - then the debate can move forward.

The debate can`t move forward because you haven`t supported your claim and you have taken to lying that you have.

Heres your claim again...

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

Not even can`t you show where you supported this claim, you can`t even show where you addressed your claim at all.

> But you don't want that, do you?

I want you to support your claim.

>
> > > Quite the dishonest coward, aren't you?
> >
> > Instead of all this cowardly misdirection and ad hominem you should just back up your claim.
>
>
> I did.

You`re a liar. Nowhere in this thread can you point to any such support.

> You're running.

I`m not doing anything but waiting for you to support this claim....

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

> Quite the yellow stripe down your back.

Projecting. Perhaps you should just scamper back to your enclave, the battlefield of ideas doesn`t suit you.

>
> > > You're afraid to tell the truth, of course - since you know quite well that in the past, most of those who believe in the Warren Commission ACCEPTED that the extant Z-film shows evidence supporting that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally - thus coming up with the "delayed reaction" theory.
> >
> > I don`t know or care whether any of that is true. It doesn`t seem to impact this claim of yours...
>
>
> Then you're simply too ignorant to debate. Bye!

Run, Benny, run!

> (Let me know if your memory improves!)

I remember all your lies.

[judos...@gmail.com]

WCR, pages 112-115.

Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?

[Bud]

What about them, retard?

> Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?

You keep posting non sequiturs and running.

The fact is that nothing you can produce is going to make this statement you made true...

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

Retract it or support it, the dancing is just boring.

[Jason Burke]

On 1/21/2017 9:42 AM, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:05:33 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:45:53 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 5:13:58 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>>>> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 7:05:15 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 11:14:31 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 1:01:30 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 8:44:46 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 10:06:53 AM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 20, 2017 at 2:48:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:26:01 AM UTC-5, judos....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 5, 2016 at 5:44:55 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He even tried selling this obvious falsehood...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean all those believers who touted a "delayed reaction" for so many years were liars???
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why are you running from supporting your words? Thats right, you`re a coward.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell us it ain't so!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Predictably, "Bud" has proven his cowardice...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He refuses to acknowledge that believers historically argued for a "delayed reaction" of Connally to the bullet alleged to have struck JFK and transited. (despite the contrary evidence from the autopsy)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bud" demonstrates his illiteracy or dishonesty (take your pick), by refusing to acknowledge that I did indeed support my words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still a bald-faced liar, I see. Your claim was this...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You offered nothing in support of that claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I "offered nothing" in support of that statement, then you won't be afraid to publicly assert that Warren Commission Supporters have, in the past, argued for a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How did these unnamed people cause you to take the position you did?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Such an AMAZING coward!!!
>>>>
>>>> You seem to think whatever these people had to say was somehow supportive of the claim you made. I don`t see the connection, it seemed a non sequitur to me. Perhaps you can enlighten me on how anything these unnamed people had to say was supportive of your claim.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't even admit that the Warren Commission - and Warren Commission supporters have historically argued for a delayed reaction.
>>
>> This is merely misdirection, it has nothing to do with you supporting your claim.
>>
>>> I've already explained your cowardice.
>>
>> You are the one running from supporting your claim.
>>
>>> You already know why you can't publicly admit this.
>>
>> It isn`t about me, it is about you supporting your claim. Stop misdirecting and start supporting.
>>
>>>

>>>>> I ask you to publicly acknowledge that Warren Commission supporters have, in the past, argued for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.... and you still can't do it.

>>>>
>>>> Again, you don`t understand the process. You make a claim, you back up the claim. You don`t get to say "Unless you stand on your head my claim is true". Unless you are retarded.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did back it up...
>>
>> No, you didn`t. You misdirected to something that is in no way supportive of your claim.
>>
>>> You're simply lying.
>>
>> It is clear who is lying. If you did support your claim you could show what presented that supported your claim. You can`t show anything because you didn`t produce anything.
>>
>>> When you get around to telling the truth about the "delayed reaction" - then the debate can move forward.
>>
>> The debate can`t move forward because you haven`t supported your claim and you have taken to lying that you have.
>>
>> Heres your claim again...
>>
>> "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
>>
>> Not even can`t you show where you supported this claim, you can`t even show where you addressed your claim at all.
>>
>>
>>> But you don't want that, do you?
>>
>> I want you to support your claim.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Quite the dishonest coward, aren't you?
>>>>
>>>> Instead of all this cowardly misdirection and ad hominem you should just back up your claim.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did.
>>

>> You`re a liar. Nowhere in this thread can you point to any such support..

>>
>>> You're running.
>>
>> I`m not doing anything but waiting for you to support this claim....
>>
>> "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
>>
>>> Quite the yellow stripe down your back.
>>
>> Projecting. Perhaps you should just scamper back to your enclave, the battlefield of ideas doesn`t suit you.
>>
>>>
>>>>> You're afraid to tell the truth, of course - since you know quite well that in the past, most of those who believe in the Warren Commission ACCEPTED that the extant Z-film shows evidence supporting that separate bullets struck JFK & Connally - thus coming up with the "delayed reaction" theory.
>>>>
>>>> I don`t know or care whether any of that is true. It doesn`t seem to impact this claim of yours...
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you're simply too ignorant to debate. Bye!
>>
>> Run, Benny, run!
>>
>>> (Let me know if your memory improves!)
>>
>> I remember all your lies.
>
>
> WCR, pages 112-115.
>
> Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?
>

Why the hell your mama missed everything but the brain with that rusty
coat hanger defies ALL logic.

[judos...@gmail.com]

Proven that you're a liar, you retreat to ad hominem.

> > Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?
>
> You keep posting non sequiturs and running.

It's only a "non sequitur" if your incapable of reading the citation.

> The fact is that nothing you can produce is going to make this statement you made true...
>
> "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
>
> Retract it or support it, the dancing is just boring.

Nope. It's the simple truth, one that I've supported with citation. Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?

[Bud]

You`ve provided no correlation on what appears on any of those pages to anything either of us has said. If anything those pages support anything you`ve said or harms anything I`ve said just write here what it is.

>
>
> > > Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?
> >
> > You keep posting non sequiturs and running.
>
>
> It's only a "non sequitur" if your incapable of reading the citation.

No, no, no. You have to explain how anything found there helps anything you`ve said or harms something I`ve said. I`m not trying to decipher what a conspiracy retard figures the words on those pages mean.

>
>
> > The fact is that nothing you can produce is going to make this statement you made true...
> >
> > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> >
> > Retract it or support it, the dancing is just boring.
>
>
> Nope. It's the simple truth, one that I've supported with citation. Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?

You need to run back to your puppet show, debating ideas in an open forum doesn`t suit you.

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:15:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:28:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > WCR, pages 112-115.
> > >
> > > What about them, retard?
> >
> >
> > Proven that you're a liar, you retreat to ad hominem.
>
> You`ve provided no correlation on what appears on any of those pages to anything either of us has said. If anything those pages support anything you`ve said or harms anything I`ve said just write here what it is.

Go ahead, "Bud"... try to deny that the Warren Commission ever referenced a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part.


But you'd merely be lying again.

> > > > Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?
> > >
> > > You keep posting non sequiturs and running.
> >
> >
> > It's only a "non sequitur" if your incapable of reading the citation.
>
> No, no, no. You have to explain how anything found there helps anything you`ve said or harms something I`ve said. I`m not trying to decipher what a conspiracy retard figures the words on those pages mean.

Run coward... RUN!!!

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:08:18 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:15:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:28:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > WCR, pages 112-115.
> > > >
> > > > What about them, retard?
> > >
> > >
> > > Proven that you're a liar, you retreat to ad hominem.
> >
> > You`ve provided no correlation on what appears on any of those pages to anything either of us has said. If anything those pages support anything you`ve said or harms anything I`ve said just write here what it is.
>
>
> Go ahead, "Bud"... try to deny that the Warren Commission ever referenced a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part.

The Warren Commission did not come here and tell this lie...

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

You did.

>
> But you'd merely be lying again.
>
>
> > > > > Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?
> > > >
> > > > You keep posting non sequiturs and running.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's only a "non sequitur" if your incapable of reading the citation.
> >
> > No, no, no. You have to explain how anything found there helps anything you`ve said or harms something I`ve said. I`m not trying to decipher what a conspiracy retard figures the words on those pages mean.
>
>
> Run coward... RUN!!!

Exactly what you did.

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:20:39 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:08:18 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:15:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:28:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > WCR, pages 112-115.
> > > > >
> > > > > What about them, retard?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Proven that you're a liar, you retreat to ad hominem.
> > >
> > > You`ve provided no correlation on what appears on any of those pages to anything either of us has said. If anything those pages support anything you`ve said or harms anything I`ve said just write here what it is.
> >
> >
> > Go ahead, "Bud"... try to deny that the Warren Commission ever referenced a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part.
>
> The Warren Commission did not come here and tell this lie...
>
> "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
>
> You did.

You're lying about what the Warren Commission said.

You're lying about what Warren Commission supporters argued for decades.

Those facts tells the tale.

> > But you'd merely be lying again.
> >
> >
> > > > > > Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?
> > > > >
> > > > > You keep posting non sequiturs and running.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's only a "non sequitur" if your incapable of reading the citation.
> > >
> > > No, no, no. You have to explain how anything found there helps anything you`ve said or harms something I`ve said. I`m not trying to decipher what a conspiracy retard figures the words on those pages mean.
> >
> >
> > Run coward... RUN!!!
>
> Exactly what you did.

I've answered all, you've denied, obfuscated, complained, whined, and blatantly lied.

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

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:10:21 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:20:39 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:08:18 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:15:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:28:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > WCR, pages 112-115.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What about them, retard?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Proven that you're a liar, you retreat to ad hominem.
> > > >
> > > > You`ve provided no correlation on what appears on any of those pages to anything either of us has said. If anything those pages support anything you`ve said or harms anything I`ve said just write here what it is.
> > >
> > >
> > > Go ahead, "Bud"... try to deny that the Warren Commission ever referenced a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part.
> >
> > The Warren Commission did not come here and tell this lie...
> >
> > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> >
> > You did.
>
>
> You're lying about what the Warren Commission said.

Stop misdirecting to the WC. This isn`t about what they said, its about what you said.

> You're lying about what Warren Commission supporters argued for decades.

Stop misdirecting towards these unnamed WC supporters. It isn`t about what they said, it is about what you said.

> Those facts tells the tale.

<snicker> You plan to dance endlessly, don`t you?

>
>
>
> > > But you'd merely be lying again.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > Quite the gutless wonder, aren't you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You keep posting non sequiturs and running.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's only a "non sequitur" if your incapable of reading the citation.
> > > >
> > > > No, no, no. You have to explain how anything found there helps anything you`ve said or harms something I`ve said. I`m not trying to decipher what a conspiracy retard figures the words on those pages mean.
> > >
> > >
> > > Run coward... RUN!!!
> >
> > Exactly what you did.
>
> I've answered all, you've denied, obfuscated, complained, whined, and blatantly lied.

The sad thing is that you probably really believe that.

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:22:33 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:10:21 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:20:39 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 3:08:18 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 11:15:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 1:05:50 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 10:28:12 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, January 21, 2017 at 12:42:20 PM UTC-5, judos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > WCR, pages 112-115.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What about them, retard?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Proven that you're a liar, you retreat to ad hominem.
> > > > >
> > > > > You`ve provided no correlation on what appears on any of those pages to anything either of us has said. If anything those pages support anything you`ve said or harms anything I`ve said just write here what it is.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Go ahead, "Bud"... try to deny that the Warren Commission ever referenced a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part.
> > >
> > > The Warren Commission did not come here and tell this lie...
> > >
> > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > >
> > > You did.
> >
> >
> > You're lying about what the Warren Commission said.
>
> Stop misdirecting to the WC. This isn`t about what they said, its about what you said.

Did the Warren Commission refer to a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part?

It's a simple question, but like the coward you are, you'll run again...

[Bud]

I tell you to stop misdirecting and you still misdirect!

It`s about what you said, Ben. What you said was a lie. Nothing you can produce is going to make what you said true.

[judos...@gmail.com]

Good to see that my crystal ball is still working just fine.

You can't admit the simple truth... I even told you what pages to read...

For the moment you admit that the Warren Commission recognized the "delayed reaction" - you understand that I've been telling nothing but the truth...

Which means that YOU are the liar.

But I presume you know that.

[Bud]

No, that is just a cowardly dodge. You have to precent the information that supports your claims. Vague references to information where I might not know what part you are using just don`t cut it.

> For the moment you admit that the Warren Commission recognized the "delayed reaction" - you understand that I've been telling nothing but the truth...

I can`t tell what a retard figures I`ve admitted.

> Which means that YOU are the liar.
>
> But I presume you know that.

You continue to dance and misdirect. You think this is impressing anyone?

[judos...@gmail.com]

If you cannot admit that the Warren Commission referenced the "delayed reaction" on Connally's part - and indeed, cannot REFUTE that this is true, then it merely demonstrates your dishonesty.

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

> > For the moment you admit that the Warren Commission recognized the "delayed reaction" - you understand that I've been telling nothing but the truth...
>
> I can`t tell what a retard figures I`ve admitted.

Ah! So you're not intelligent enough to understand.

Can't help you there...

> > Which means that YOU are the liar.
> >
> > But I presume you know that.
>
> You continue to dance and misdirect. You think this is impressing anyone?

Check with your friends, if any...

[Bud]

Shifting the burden. I don`t have to do anything, you have to support your claims.

> Quite the coward, aren't you "Bud?"
>
>
> > > For the moment you admit that the Warren Commission recognized the "delayed reaction" - you understand that I've been telling nothing but the truth...
> >
> > I can`t tell what a retard figures I`ve admitted.
>
> Ah! So you're not intelligent enough to understand.

You vaguely alluded to me admitting something. I`m not responsible for the retarded thoughts that rattle around your head.

> Can't help you there...
>
>
> > > Which means that YOU are the liar.
> > >
> > > But I presume you know that.
> >
> > You continue to dance and misdirect. You think this is impressing anyone?
>
> Check with your friends, if any...

Should I poll them, Ben?

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:33:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 12:10:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> If you cannot admit that the Warren Commission referenced the "delayed reaction" on Connally's part - and indeed, cannot REFUTE that this is true, then it merely demonstrates your dishonesty.

Shifting the burden. I don`t have to do anything, you have to support your claims.

I have.

I've cited the Warren Commission Report, and given the page numbers.

You lose!

[Jason Burke]

Your whole life has been a loss, shithead.

[Bud]

As a retard keeps score. Yet you have shown how anything that appears there is supportive of your claim.

[Ben Holmes]

"Delayed Reaction"... RUN COWARD... RUN!!!

[Bud]

You haven`t explained how those two words make the lie you told true.

You know, this lie...

[Jason Burke]

Now, Bud. You can't expect the retard to actually - you know - BACK UP
anything.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:45:50 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:08:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:51:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:33:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 12:10:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > If you cannot admit that the Warren Commission referenced the "delayed reaction" on Connally's part - and indeed, cannot REFUTE that this is true, then it merely demonstrates your dishonesty.
> > > >
> > > > Shifting the burden. I don`t have to do anything, you have to support your claims.
> > > >
> > > > I have.
> > > >
> > > > I've cited the Warren Commission Report, and given the page numbers.
> > > >
> > > > You lose!
> > >
> > > As a retard keeps score. Yet you have shown how anything that appears there is supportive of your claim.
> >
> > "Delayed Reaction"... RUN COWARD... RUN!!!
>
> You haven`t explained how those two words make the lie you told true.

Don't need to. You already know - thus your fear of those two words...

The fact that you continue to run from admitting that both the Warren Commission, and believers argued a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part shows that you know you've lost.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:36:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:45:50 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:08:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:51:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:33:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 12:10:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > If you cannot admit that the Warren Commission referenced the "delayed reaction" on Connally's part - and indeed, cannot REFUTE that this is true, then it merely demonstrates your dishonesty.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shifting the burden. I don`t have to do anything, you have to support your claims.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've cited the Warren Commission Report, and given the page numbers.
> > > > >
> > > > > You lose!
> > > >
> > > > As a retard keeps score. Yet you have shown how anything that appears there is supportive of your claim.
> > >
> > > "Delayed Reaction"... RUN COWARD... RUN!!!
> >
> > You haven`t explained how those two words make the lie you told true.
>
> Don't need to.

No, you don`t need to support your lies.

> You already know - thus your fear of those two words...
>
> The fact that you continue to run from admitting that both the Warren Commission, and believers argued a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part shows that you know you've lost.

More misdirection.

> ROTFLMAO!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 11:44:31 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:36:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:45:50 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:08:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:51:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:33:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 12:10:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > If you cannot admit that the Warren Commission referenced the "delayed reaction" on Connally's part - and indeed, cannot REFUTE that this is true, then it merely demonstrates your dishonesty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shifting the burden. I don`t have to do anything, you have to support your claims.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've cited the Warren Commission Report, and given the page numbers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You lose!
> > > > >
> > > > > As a retard keeps score. Yet you have shown how anything that appears there is supportive of your claim.
> > > >
> > > > "Delayed Reaction"... RUN COWARD... RUN!!!
> > >
> > > You haven`t explained how those two words make the lie you told true.
> >
> > Don't need to.
>
> No, you don`t need to support your lies.

I'm merely following YOUR lead.

You refuse to support your claims.

Why do you object when I don't - despite the fact that you KNOW BEYOND ALL DOUBT that I can cite for any evidence that I point to...

> > You already know - thus your fear of those two words...
> >
> > The fact that you continue to run from admitting that both the Warren Commission, and believers argued a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part shows that you know you've lost.
>
> More misdirection.

You can run, "Bud," but you can't hide.

You lost!!!


> > ROTFLMAO!!!

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:33:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 11:44:31 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:36:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:45:50 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:08:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:51:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:33:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 12:10:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > If you cannot admit that the Warren Commission referenced the "delayed reaction" on Connally's part - and indeed, cannot REFUTE that this is true, then it merely demonstrates your dishonesty.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shifting the burden. I don`t have to do anything, you have to support your claims.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've cited the Warren Commission Report, and given the page numbers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You lose!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As a retard keeps score. Yet you have shown how anything that appears there is supportive of your claim.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Delayed Reaction"... RUN COWARD... RUN!!!
> > > >
> > > > You haven`t explained how those two words make the lie you told true.
> > >
> > > Don't need to.
> >
> > No, you don`t need to support your lies.
>
> I'm merely following YOUR lead.
>
> You refuse to support your claims.
>
> Why do you object when I don't - despite the fact that you KNOW BEYOND ALL DOUBT that I can cite for any evidence that I point to...

Officially off the deep end now. And after all that huffing and puffing this statement by Ben remains a lie...

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

I expect everyone reading that that knows anything about the case recognizes that this is just untrue.

>
>
> > > You already know - thus your fear of those two words...
> > >
> > > The fact that you continue to run from admitting that both the Warren Commission, and believers argued a "delayed reaction" on Connally's part shows that you know you've lost.
> >
> > More misdirection.
>
> You can run, "Bud," but you can't hide.
>
> You lost!!!

Wow. Just wow.
>
> > > ROTFLMAO!!!

[David Von Pein]

BUD SAID:

And after all that huffing and puffing this statement by Ben remains a lie...

"The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

I expect everyone reading that that knows anything about the case recognizes that this is just untrue.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Correct, Bud. This part of Ben's statement is not only untrue, it's laughably untrue (for anybody who hasd at least one eyeball to see through):

"The Zapruder film...quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

I have yet to figure out WHY the conspiracy nuts just simply REFUSE to acknowledge all of the "reacting" that Governor John B. Connally is exhibiting between Zapruder frames 224 and circa 230 (see my site below to see just how absurd Ben Holmes' statement truly is).

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Now, I *know* the CT clowns can easily *see* the same "reactions" I'm seeing in the Z-Film, but they just will not acknowledge those reactions. Bizarre CTer behavior. But, I guess such denial is to be expected by now from the hardline anti-SBTers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:23:59 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:33:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 11:44:31 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 2:36:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:45:50 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:54:34 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:08:37 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:51:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 9:33:32 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 23, 2017 at 12:10:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > If you cannot admit that the Warren Commission referenced the "delayed reaction" on Connally's part - and indeed, cannot REFUTE that this is true, then it merely demonstrates your dishonesty.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Shifting the burden. I don`t have to do anything, you have to support your claims.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've cited the Warren Commission Report, and given the page numbers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You lose!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As a retard keeps score. Yet you have shown how anything that appears there is supportive of your claim.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Delayed Reaction"... RUN COWARD... RUN!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > You haven`t explained how those two words make the lie you told true.
> > > >
> > > > Don't need to.
> > >
> > > No, you don`t need to support your lies.
> >
> > I'm merely following YOUR lead.
> >
> > You refuse to support your claims.
> >
> > Why do you object when I don't - despite the fact that you KNOW BEYOND ALL DOUBT that I can cite for any evidence that I point to...
>
> Officially off the deep end now. And after all that huffing and puffing this statement by Ben remains a lie...

You won't, of course, quote any statement by me about the evidence that I cannot cite for...

You're afraid that each time you try to do so, I'll merely give the cite.

This statement is a perfect example - you make an assertion - AND YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO SUPPORT IT.

[Ben Holmes]

Tell us David, will you refuse to answer the same questions that "Bud" is running from?

1. Did the Warren Commission argue for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.

2. Did believers for many years follow suit, and do the same?

[David Von Pein]

1. Oh, sure. The "delayed reaction" thing has been argued by many people, including the WC. But the WC wasn't exactly sure WHEN Kennedy & Connally were hit. That's why they bracketed the SBT as being somewhere between Z210 and Z225. (You know that, of course.)

Plus, we've got better (digital) ways to examine the individual frames of the film nowadays. Those quick toggling methods of viewing the frames were not available to the WC in 1964, which made it much more difficult to examine the film and hunt for hints of any "reactions" on the part of JFK or JBC.

2. Sure they have. Including Vincent Bugliosi in his book....

"Since we know people can react to being struck by a bullet literally hundreds
of seconds after the fact, then certainly either Kennedy or Connally could have reacted a second or so after being shot." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 466 of "Reclaiming History"

But! Vince also says this just one page later....

"The essence of what I'm saying is that determining the timing and number of shots (or the validity or invalidity of the single-bullet theory) by only analyzing the Zapruder film is really like an existential discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (i.e., it's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else). Fortunately, since we have other more reliable evidence, we are not hostage to, nor bound by, whatever results this exercise produces." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 467 of "RH"

----------

I would guess that some of the people who have in the past argued in favor of a "delayed reaction" on the part of John Connally might very well have changed their minds about that (at least as far as Connally's INVOLUNTARY movements and "reactions" as seen in the Zapruder Film) after they had a chance to watch some of the isolated (repeating) clips from the film which quite clearly indicate that Governor Connally was involuntarily reacting to an external stimulus (i.e., a bullet) just an instant after Z224. I just don't see how such an involuntary reaction by Connally at that point on the film can be denied---or ignored.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:27:22 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:58:59 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:47:37 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BUD SAID:
> > >
> > > And after all that huffing and puffing this statement by Ben remains a lie...
> > >
> > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > >
> > > I expect everyone reading that that knows anything about the case recognizes that this is just untrue.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Correct, Bud. This part of Ben's statement is not only untrue, it's laughably untrue (for anybody who hasd at least one eyeball to see through):
> > >
> > > "The Zapruder film...quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > >
> > > I have yet to figure out WHY the conspiracy nuts just simply REFUSE to acknowledge all of the "reacting" that Governor John B. Connally is exhibiting between Zapruder frames 224 and circa 230 (see my site below to see just how absurd Ben Holmes' statement truly is).
> > >
> > > http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > Now, I *know* the CT clowns can easily *see* the same "reactions" I'm seeing in the Z-Film, but they just will not acknowledge those reactions. Bizarre CTer behavior. But, I guess such denial is to be expected by now from the hardline anti-SBTers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tell us David, will you refuse to answer the same questions that "Bud" is running from?
> >
> > 1. Did the Warren Commission argue for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.
> >
> > 2. Did believers for many years follow suit, and do the same?
>
> 1. Oh, sure. The "delayed reaction" thing has been argued by many people, including the WC. But the WC wasn't exactly sure WHEN Kennedy & Connally were hit. That's why they bracketed the SBT as being somewhere between Z210 and Z225. (You know that, of course.)

Darn, David, you allowed Ben to bait you into playing his game. That has nothing to do with Ben`s claim. He claimed several seconds of delay, a completely different thing. A several second delay is what, 36 z-frames? See the problem, his claim cannot be true. By addressing his strawman you are allowing him to drag the discussion away from his lie with his misdirection.

> Plus, we've got better (digital) ways to examine the individual frames of the film nowadays. Those quick toggling methods of viewing the frames were not available to the WC in 1964, which made it much more difficult to examine the film and hunt for hints of any "reactions" on the part of JFK or JBC.

You just can`t tell from that crappy home movie when the bullets enter the victims bodies. If they were both hit in the head, maybe.

I was watching Active Self Defense videos on youtube...

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw

And even with better film it is often impossible to tell the exact split second a person is shot.

[David Von Pein]

BUD SAID:

He [B. Holmes] claimed several seconds of delay...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, as I said in a previous post, that type of theory is "laughably untrue". Nobody can truly believe Connally's initial reactions are occurring "several seconds" after JFK's reactions. That is absurd.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:27:22 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:58:59 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:47:37 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BUD SAID:
> > >
> > > And after all that huffing and puffing this statement by Ben remains a lie...
> > >
> > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > >
> > > I expect everyone reading that that knows anything about the case recognizes that this is just untrue.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Correct, Bud. This part of Ben's statement is not only untrue, it's laughably untrue (for anybody who hasd at least one eyeball to see through):
> > >
> > > "The Zapruder film...quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > >
> > > I have yet to figure out WHY the conspiracy nuts just simply REFUSE to acknowledge all of the "reacting" that Governor John B. Connally is exhibiting between Zapruder frames 224 and circa 230 (see my site below to see just how absurd Ben Holmes' statement truly is).
> > >
> > > http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > Now, I *know* the CT clowns can easily *see* the same "reactions" I'm seeing in the Z-Film, but they just will not acknowledge those reactions. Bizarre CTer behavior. But, I guess such denial is to be expected by now from the hardline anti-SBTers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tell us David, will you refuse to answer the same questions that "Bud" is running from?
> >
> > 1. Did the Warren Commission argue for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.
> >
> > 2. Did believers for many years follow suit, and do the same?
>
> 1. Oh, sure. The "delayed reaction" thing has been argued by many people, including the WC. But the WC wasn't exactly sure WHEN Kennedy & Connally were hit. That's why they bracketed the SBT as being somewhere between Z210 and Z225. (You know that, of course.)

On *what* did they base their "delayed reaction" theory?

What was the EVIDENCE that they were using?

> Plus, we've got better (digital) ways to examine the individual frames of the film nowadays. Those quick toggling methods of viewing the frames were not available to the WC in 1964, which made it much more difficult to examine the film and hunt for hints of any "reactions" on the part of JFK or JBC.

Ah! Looks like you've answered...

Now all you have to do is tell "Bud" so he will accept it.

> 2. Sure they have. Including Vincent Bugliosi in his book....
>
> "Since we know people can react to being struck by a bullet literally hundreds
> of seconds after the fact, then certainly either Kennedy or Connally could have reacted a second or so after being shot." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 466 of "Reclaiming History"
>
> But! Vince also says this just one page later....
>
> "The essence of what I'm saying is that determining the timing and number of shots (or the validity or invalidity of the single-bullet theory) by only analyzing the Zapruder film is really like an existential discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (i.e., it's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else). Fortunately, since we have other more reliable evidence, we are not hostage to, nor bound by, whatever results this exercise produces." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 467 of "RH"
>
> ----------

Good of you to be honest enough to admit that both the Warren Commission, and many believers argued that there was a delayed reaction from Connally, AND DID SO ON THE BASIS OF THE EXTANT ZAPRUDER FILM.

This means, of course, that the statement you as "laughably untrue" is simply true.

Do you have enough character to go back and admit that my statement is both true, and was for decades SUPPORTED BY BOTH THE WARREN COMMISSION AND VIRTUALLY ALL BELIEVERS?

Or will you join "Bud" in a further demonstration of your dishonesty?

> I would guess that some of the people who have in the past argued in favor of a "delayed reaction" on the part of John Connally might very well have changed their minds about that (at least as far as Connally's INVOLUNTARY movements and "reactions" as seen in the Zapruder Film) after they had a chance to watch some of the isolated (repeating) clips from the film which quite clearly indicate that Governor Connally was involuntarily reacting to an external stimulus (i.e., a bullet) just an instant after Z224. I just don't see how such an involuntary reaction by Connally at that point on the film can be denied---or ignored.

There's lots of things that you can't see. Doesn't surprise me at all.

Of course, you're now on record as claiming that a major part of the Warren Commission's theory was "laughably untrue".

A statement that I suspect will never find it's way on to your website.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:41:42 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:27:22 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:58:59 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:47:37 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > BUD SAID:
> > > >
> > > > And after all that huffing and puffing this statement by Ben remains a lie...
> > > >
> > > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > >
> > > > I expect everyone reading that that knows anything about the case recognizes that this is just untrue.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > Correct, Bud. This part of Ben's statement is not only untrue, it's laughably untrue (for anybody who hasd at least one eyeball to see through):
> > > >
> > > > "The Zapruder film...quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > >
> > > > I have yet to figure out WHY the conspiracy nuts just simply REFUSE to acknowledge all of the "reacting" that Governor John B. Connally is exhibiting between Zapruder frames 224 and circa 230 (see my site below to see just how absurd Ben Holmes' statement truly is).
> > > >
> > > > http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > Now, I *know* the CT clowns can easily *see* the same "reactions" I'm seeing in the Z-Film, but they just will not acknowledge those reactions. Bizarre CTer behavior. But, I guess such denial is to be expected by now from the hardline anti-SBTers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tell us David, will you refuse to answer the same questions that "Bud" is running from?
> > >
> > > 1. Did the Warren Commission argue for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.
> > >
> > > 2. Did believers for many years follow suit, and do the same?
> >
> > 1. Oh, sure. The "delayed reaction" thing has been argued by many people, including the WC. But the WC wasn't exactly sure WHEN Kennedy & Connally were hit. That's why they bracketed the SBT as being somewhere between Z210 and Z225. (You know that, of course.)
>
> Darn, David, you allowed Ben to bait you into playing his game. That has nothing to do with Ben`s claim. He claimed several seconds of delay, a completely different thing. A several second delay is what, 36 z-frames? See the problem, his claim cannot be true. By addressing his strawman you are allowing him to drag the discussion away from his lie with his misdirection.

Too late!

David has already corrected your ignorance on the fact that both the Warren Commission & believers down through decades argued for a delayed reaction.

> > Plus, we've got better (digital) ways to examine the individual frames of the film nowadays. Those quick toggling methods of viewing the frames were not available to the WC in 1964, which made it much more difficult to examine the film and hunt for hints of any "reactions" on the part of JFK or JBC.
>
> You just can`t tell from that crappy home movie when the bullets enter the victims bodies. If they were both hit in the head, maybe.

Who cares?

You're now indicting the Warren Commission - as well as dozens of believers who will tell you PRECISELY TO THE FRAME NUMBER when bullets struck JFK & Connally.

> I was watching Active Self Defense videos on youtube...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw
>
> And even with better film it is often impossible to tell the exact split second a person is shot.

Yep... just like David... you can't see.

[Ben Holmes]

ROFLMAO!!!

Neither one of you dares to mention the actual time...

Then compare it to "several seconds."

You lose!

[David Von Pein]

Not at all. It was YOU, not the WC, who said that Connally didn't react until "several seconds" after JFK. The WC never said any such thing.

The WC was smart to BRACKET the SBT shot, utilizing a 16-frame (inclusive) timespan that the bullet could have struck both Kennedy and Connally (Z210-Z225). And they got it right too, IMO. I think the bullet struck at Z224, which is right there within that timespan the Warren Commission used. They did a fine job (without feeling any need to fine-tuning down to a single frame). I think that was excellent on their part.

But I'm now having difficulty in locating a specific reference in the Warren Report where they talk about any "delayed reaction" on Connally's part as it relates specifically to *the Zapruder Film* itself. On Page 112 of the WCR, the WC does talk about a possible "delayed reaction" by Connally, but that reference is not talking about any examination of the Z-Film. Instead, it is referring only to a possible explanation for how the first shot could have struck Connally, but JBC just didn't feel the impact, and therefore experienced a delayed reaction. But this had nothing to do with any analysis of the Zapruder Film....

WR, p.112:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0068b.htm

There might very well be *some* reference by the WC to a Connally "delayed reaction" as it relates to an analysis of the Z-Film somewhere in the WCR (or in the testimony of some of the witnesses), but I haven't found it today via a quick search.

Can you find such a reference in the WCR, Ben? If so, please post the link to it.

In any event, Ben's previous comment about there being "several seconds" between the reactions of JFK and Connally in the Z-Film remains what it was a few hours ago----absurd and untrue.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:38:47 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:41:42 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:27:22 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:58:59 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:47:37 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > BUD SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > And after all that huffing and puffing this statement by Ben remains a lie...
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > > >
> > > > > I expect everyone reading that that knows anything about the case recognizes that this is just untrue.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > Correct, Bud. This part of Ben's statement is not only untrue, it's laughably untrue (for anybody who hasd at least one eyeball to see through):
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Zapruder film...quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > > >
> > > > > I have yet to figure out WHY the conspiracy nuts just simply REFUSE to acknowledge all of the "reacting" that Governor John B. Connally is exhibiting between Zapruder frames 224 and circa 230 (see my site below to see just how absurd Ben Holmes' statement truly is).
> > > > >
> > > > > http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, I *know* the CT clowns can easily *see* the same "reactions" I'm seeing in the Z-Film, but they just will not acknowledge those reactions. Bizarre CTer behavior. But, I guess such denial is to be expected by now from the hardline anti-SBTers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tell us David, will you refuse to answer the same questions that "Bud" is running from?
> > > >
> > > > 1. Did the Warren Commission argue for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Did believers for many years follow suit, and do the same?
> > >
> > > 1. Oh, sure. The "delayed reaction" thing has been argued by many people, including the WC. But the WC wasn't exactly sure WHEN Kennedy & Connally were hit. That's why they bracketed the SBT as being somewhere between Z210 and Z225. (You know that, of course.)
> >
> > Darn, David, you allowed Ben to bait you into playing his game. That has nothing to do with Ben`s claim. He claimed several seconds of delay, a completely different thing. A several second delay is what, 36 z-frames? See the problem, his claim cannot be true. By addressing his strawman you are allowing him to drag the discussion away from his lie with his misdirection.
>
>
> Too late!

Yes, he fell for your strawman.

> David has already corrected your ignorance on the fact that both the Warren Commission & believers down through decades argued for a delayed reaction.

Which does nothing to support the lie you told.

>
>
> > > Plus, we've got better (digital) ways to examine the individual frames of the film nowadays. Those quick toggling methods of viewing the frames were not available to the WC in 1964, which made it much more difficult to examine the film and hunt for hints of any "reactions" on the part of JFK or JBC.
> >
> > You just can`t tell from that crappy home movie when the bullets enter the victims bodies. If they were both hit in the head, maybe.
>
>
> Who cares?

Yes, why care about the only relevant consideration?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:26:35 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

> > Of course, you're now on record as claiming that a major part of the Warren Commission's theory was "laughably untrue".
>
> Not at all. It was YOU, not the WC, who said that Connally didn't react until "several seconds" after JFK. The WC never said any such thing.

You refuse to state what the WC said, and compare it to my statement.

Your cowardice shows that you know you're lying.

The delay was PROVABLY more than a second, and provably LESS than 2.6 seconds.

So tell us David, why are you lying? You know these facts as well as I do.

> The WC was smart to BRACKET the SBT shot, utilizing a 16-frame (inclusive) timespan that the bullet could have struck both Kennedy and Connally (Z210-Z225). And they got it right too, IMO. I think the bullet struck at Z224, which is right there within that timespan the Warren Commission used. They did a fine job (without feeling any need to fine-tuning down to a single frame). I think that was excellent on their part.

Not addressing the questions I raised... merely subtle topic changing...

> But I'm now having difficulty in locating a specific reference in the Warren Report where they talk about any "delayed reaction" on Connally's part as it relates specifically to *the Zapruder Film* itself.

That's because you're a gutless coward.

You know FOR A FACT that the only POSSIBLE evidence that the Warren Commission had for this "delayed reaction" was the extant Zapruder film.

Yet you're willing to lie about it.

This is why I asked the specific question - to see how believers would lie about it.

> On Page 112 of the WCR, the WC does talk about a possible "delayed reaction" by Connally, but that reference is not talking about any examination of the Z-Film. Instead, it is referring only to a possible explanation for how the first shot could have struck Connally, but JBC just didn't feel the impact, and therefore experienced a delayed reaction. But this had nothing to do with any analysis of the Zapruder Film....

The Warren Commission did not commit themselves to which shot missed, which means that they had no need to refer to any specific shot that struck Connally.

I know you can't acknowledge that this is the absolute truth, since it would mean that you were lying.

Without the Zapruder film, there would have been ABSOLUTELY NO TALK WHATSOEVER ABOUT A "DELAYED REACTION," and you can't demonstrate otherwise.

> WR, p.112:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0068b.htm
>
> There might very well be *some* reference by the WC to a Connally "delayed reaction" as it relates to an analysis of the Z-Film somewhere in the WCR (or in the testimony of some of the witnesses), but I haven't found it today via a quick search.

You mean to tell everyone that the Warren Commission INTENTIONALLY obfuscated and didn't tell everyone of the evidence that Connally was struck by a separate bullet???

Because whether or not you admit it, this is PRECISELY WHAT YOU'RE DOING - accusing the Warren Commission of a lie by omission. It's quite likely that they never thought the Zapruder film would ever be viewed by the public.

> Can you find such a reference in the WCR, Ben? If so, please post the link to it.

Not my problem. I merely tell the truth, then force believers to lie about it.

> In any event, Ben's previous comment about there being "several seconds" between the reactions of JFK and Connally in the Z-Film remains what it was a few hours ago----absurd and untrue.

You're lying again, David.

> > A statement that I suspect will never find it's way on to your website.

I've started my refutation of your version of Bugliosi's 53 bits of evidence, I expect you'll never post it on your website either...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:37:39 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 10:38:47 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 5:41:42 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 8:27:22 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 7:58:59 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 4:47:37 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > BUD SAID:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And after all that huffing and puffing this statement by Ben remains a lie...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I expect everyone reading that that knows anything about the case recognizes that this is just untrue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct, Bud. This part of Ben's statement is not only untrue, it's laughably untrue (for anybody who hasd at least one eyeball to see through):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Zapruder film...quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have yet to figure out WHY the conspiracy nuts just simply REFUSE to acknowledge all of the "reacting" that Governor John B. Connally is exhibiting between Zapruder frames 224 and circa 230 (see my site below to see just how absurd Ben Holmes' statement truly is).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, I *know* the CT clowns can easily *see* the same "reactions" I'm seeing in the Z-Film, but they just will not acknowledge those reactions. Bizarre CTer behavior. But, I guess such denial is to be expected by now from the hardline anti-SBTers.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Tell us David, will you refuse to answer the same questions that "Bud" is running from?
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Did the Warren Commission argue for a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Did believers for many years follow suit, and do the same?
> > > >
> > > > 1. Oh, sure. The "delayed reaction" thing has been argued by many people, including the WC. But the WC wasn't exactly sure WHEN Kennedy & Connally were hit. That's why they bracketed the SBT as being somewhere between Z210 and Z225. (You know that, of course.)
> > >
> > > Darn, David, you allowed Ben to bait you into playing his game. That has nothing to do with Ben`s claim. He claimed several seconds of delay, a completely different thing. A several second delay is what, 36 z-frames? See the problem, his claim cannot be true. By addressing his strawman you are allowing him to drag the discussion away from his lie with his misdirection.
> >
> >
> > Too late!
>
> Yes, he fell for your strawman.

Only a liar can assert that the Warren Commission's reference of a delayed reaction on Connally's part is immaterial to my statement that "The Zapruder film does NOT show that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet. It quite clearly shows Connally reacting several seconds LATER than JFK."

But let's keep talking about it... the more you debate, the more lies you tell.

> > David has already corrected your ignorance on the fact that both the Warren Commission & believers down through decades argued for a delayed reaction.
>
> Which does nothing to support the lie you told.

It's a simple thing to prove a lie, you simply quote the lie, THEN CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIE.

Tell us "Bud," why can't you do this?

> > > > Plus, we've got better (digital) ways to examine the individual frames of the film nowadays. Those quick toggling methods of viewing the frames were not available to the WC in 1964, which made it much more difficult to examine the film and hunt for hints of any "reactions" on the part of JFK or JBC.
> > >
> > > You just can`t tell from that crappy home movie when the bullets enter the victims bodies. If they were both hit in the head, maybe.
> >
> >
> > Who cares?
>
> Yes, why care about the only relevant consideration?

ROTFLMAO!!! A "relevant consideration" that only came out after David schooled you on the fact that it *IS* found in the Warren Commission!

You STILL refuse to state any facts about this "delayed reaction"... David, to his credit, is a tad more honest, even though he's lying too.

> > You're now indicting the Warren Commission - as well as dozens of believers who will tell you PRECISELY TO THE FRAME NUMBER when bullets struck JFK & Connally.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I was watching Active Self Defense videos on youtube...
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw
> > >
> > > And even with better film it is often impossible to tell the exact split second a person is shot.
> >
> >
> > Yep... just like David... you can't see.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > 2. Sure they have. Including Vincent Bugliosi in his book....
> > > >
> > > > "Since we know people can react to being struck by a bullet literally hundreds
> > > > of seconds after the fact, then certainly either Kennedy or Connally could have reacted a second or so after being shot." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 466 of "Reclaiming History"
> > > >
> > > > But! Vince also says this just one page later....
> > > >
> > > > "The essence of what I'm saying is that determining the timing and number of shots (or the validity or invalidity of the single-bullet theory) by only analyzing the Zapruder film is really like an existential discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (i.e., it's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else). Fortunately, since we have other more reliable evidence, we are not hostage to, nor bound by, whatever results this exercise produces." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 467 of "RH"
> > > >
> > > > ----------
> > > >
> > > > I would guess that some of the people who have in the past argued in favor of a "delayed reaction" on the part of John Connally might very well have changed their minds about that (at least as far as Connally's INVOLUNTARY movements and "reactions" as seen in the Zapruder Film) after they had a chance to watch some of the isolated (repeating) clips from the film which quite clearly indicate that Governor Connally was involuntarily reacting to an external stimulus (i.e., a bullet) just an instant after Z224. I just don't see how such an involuntary reaction by Connally at that point on the film can be denied---or ignored.

Of course, the elephant in the room is the massive involuntary reaction by Connally seen starting at Z-237.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:49:01 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:26:35 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > > Of course, you're now on record as claiming that a major part of the Warren Commission's theory was "laughably untrue".
> >
> > Not at all. It was YOU, not the WC, who said that Connally didn't react until "several seconds" after JFK. The WC never said any such thing.
>
> You refuse to state what the WC said, and compare it to my statement.
>
> Your cowardice shows that you know you're lying.
>
> The delay was PROVABLY more than a second, and provably LESS than 2.6 seconds.

Correction: 2.3 seconds.

(Not that any believer in *this* forum would have caught such an error...)

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 6:49:01 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:26:35 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > > Of course, you're now on record as claiming that a major part of the Warren Commission's theory was "laughably untrue".
> >
> > Not at all. It was YOU, not the WC, who said that Connally didn't react until "several seconds" after JFK. The WC never said any such thing.
>
> You refuse to state what the WC said, and compare it to my statement.
>
> Your cowardice shows that you know you're lying.
>
> The delay was PROVABLY more than a second, and provably LESS than 2.6 seconds.

Correction: 2.3 seconds. (Not that any of the believers in this forum would have caught such an error!)

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Of course, the elephant in the room is the massive involuntary reaction by Connally seen starting at Z-237.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But there's an even bigger (and more important) elephant in the same room....and that is when John Connally is seen reacting involuntarily to an external stimulus between Z224 and about Z229.

If Ben was an honest fellow who was capable of reasonably evaluating the things we see in Abraham Zapruder's home movie (which he isn't, of course), he would just come out and admit right now that these involuntary movements on the part of John B. Connally were caused by a bullet that has just passed through his upper torso....

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

Let's hear Ben's "anti-SBT" excuses for all of that flinching and grimacing and mouth opening and arm raising and lapel flipping and necktie scrunching that we see happening with Governor Connally in those Z-Film clips presented above.

The floor is yours, oh great Judo artist....

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Of course, the elephant in the room is the massive involuntary reaction by Connally seen starting at Z-237.

And STILL David remains silent!!! What AMAZING cowardice on his part!

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> But there's an even bigger (and more important) elephant in the same room....and that is when John Connally is seen reacting involuntarily to an external stimulus between Z224 and about Z229.

This is indeed what believers have come to assert.

But the Warren Commission clearly didn't see this, nor did the first few decades of believers.

> If Ben was an honest fellow who was capable of reasonably evaluating the things we see in Abraham Zapruder's home movie (which he isn't, of course), he would just come out and admit right now that these involuntary movements on the part of John B. Connally were caused by a bullet that has just passed through his upper torso....

How can I "admit" what the Warren Commission clearly didn't believe? You're denigrating me, and giving the Warren Commission a pass... which is clear and obvious hypocrisy on your part.

How is it that *YOU* can so blatantly accuse the Warren Commission of such sloppiness in their investigation as to have not only missed this, but argue AGAINST this in their claim of a "delayed reaction?"

Dead silence coming from you on what clearly started happening at Z-237 - which, if you believe a bullet had *PREVIOUS* struck Connally - you have no explanation for.

YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION!!!

Yet critics can easily explain it, even without reference to the alteration of the extant film.

Why is it that you cannot address the obvious and clear reaction starting at Z-237?

Why is it that you can't admit that Connally himself pointed to this section of the extant Zapruder film?

Do you believe you know better than Gov Connally?

Will you again show your cowardice by evading most of these questions? Questions that are PRECISELY relevant to the topic...

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
>
> Let's hear Ben's "anti-SBT" excuses for all of that flinching and grimacing and mouth opening and arm raising and lapel flipping and necktie scrunching that we see happening with Governor Connally in those Z-Film clips presented above.

You are, of course, imagining things.

And remaining absolutely silent on what the Warren Commission clearly accepted... a reaction occurring starting at Z-237.

Run Coward... RUN!!!

> The floor is yours, oh great Judo artist....

Artist is correct... good Judo is certainly artistic. Many SoCal Judoka will remember the artistry of Ramon Rivera, at one LA tournament, where he spun his opponent around after losing a koka to an Osotogari, and threw him with an Osotogari.

Of course, only Judoka who are familiar with Judo and with Ramon will catch the artistry in that move.

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:43:53 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > Of course, the elephant in the room is the massive involuntary reaction by Connally seen starting at Z-237.
>
>
> And STILL David remains silent!!! What AMAZING cowardice on his part!
>

Do you taken lessons in being a prick? Or does it come naturally to you?

>
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > But there's an even bigger (and more important) elephant in the same room....and that is when John Connally is seen reacting involuntarily to an external stimulus between Z224 and about Z229.
>
>
> This is indeed what believers have come to assert.
>
> But the Warren Commission clearly didn't see this, nor did the first few decades of believers.
>

But the early (Z224-Z229) reactions are there nonetheless. Without a speck of a doubt. Why not just admit it?

>
>
> > If Ben was an honest fellow who was capable of reasonably evaluating the things we see in Abraham Zapruder's home movie (which he isn't, of course), he would just come out and admit right now that these involuntary movements on the part of John B. Connally were caused by a bullet that has just passed through his upper torso....
>
>
> How can I "admit" what the Warren Commission clearly didn't believe? You're denigrating me, and giving the Warren Commission a pass... which is clear and obvious hypocrisy on your part.
>
> How is it that *YOU* can so blatantly accuse the Warren Commission of such sloppiness in their investigation as to have not only missed this, but argue AGAINST this in their claim of a "delayed reaction?"
>
> Dead silence coming from you on what clearly started happening at Z-237 - which, if you believe a bullet had *PREVIOUS* struck Connally - you have no explanation for.
>
> YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION!!!
>
> Yet critics can easily explain it, even without reference to the alteration of the extant film.
>
> Why is it that you cannot address the obvious and clear reaction starting at Z-237?
>

Connally's reactions don't START at Z237. What you're seeing in Z237 is a CONTINUATION of the reactions that started back at Z224-225. And the movements we see at about Z237-238 are more accentuated and more noticeable at that time because many of those movements are becoming VOLUNTARY on Gov. Connally's behalf (vs. just being involuntary movements).

> Why is it that you can't admit that Connally himself pointed to this section of the extant Zapruder film?
>
> Do you believe you know better than Gov Connally?
>

Oh yes, I do. And that's because I'm pretty sure Governor Connally never had a chance to see the very good repeating Z-Film clips that we all have access to today.

If I could have shown Mr. Connally the clips presented on my webpage below, I'm fairly certain I could have convinced him that the Single-Bullet Theory is the truth.

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

> Will you again show your cowardice by evading most of these questions? Questions that are PRECISELY relevant to the topic...
>
>
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
> >
> > Let's hear Ben's "anti-SBT" excuses for all of that flinching and grimacing and mouth opening and arm raising and lapel flipping and necktie scrunching that we see happening with Governor Connally in those Z-Film clips presented above.
>
>
> You are, of course, imagining things.
>

Yeah, I guess Governor Connally just decided he wanted to flip his right arm in the air at Z226, which just happens to be the *same right arm/wrist* that is (amazingly) going to be hit by a bullet in another second or so. Wouldn't you call that a rather extraordinary coincidence, Ben?

> And remaining absolutely silent on what the Warren Commission clearly accepted... a reaction occurring starting at Z-237.
>

Sure, that might have been when they first saw signs of Connally reacting. But, as I said previously, the WC didn't have all the tools we have today for examining the film in a toggling frame-by-frame format. Therefore, yes, they *missed seeing the signs of Connally being hit at circa Z224*.

But, as I also mentioned previously, the Commission DID end up getting the SBT timing right --- because Z224 *does* fall within the range of Z-Film frames the Warren Commission utilized for its SBT timespan.


> Run Coward... RUN!!!
>

You aren't very pleasant to talk to, Ben. Maybe a strong laxative might help.

>
> > The floor is yours, oh great Judo artist....
>
> Artist is correct... good Judo is certainly artistic. Many SoCal Judoka will remember the artistry of Ramon Rivera, at one LA tournament, where he spun his opponent around after losing a koka to an Osotogari, and threw him with an Osotogari.
>
> Of course, only Judoka who are familiar with Judo and with Ramon will catch the artistry in that move.

Spare me this torture, Ben. I couldn't care less about your martial arts skills.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:49:01 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 9:26:35 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > > Of course, you're now on record as claiming that a major part of the Warren Commission's theory was "laughably untrue".
> >
> > Not at all. It was YOU, not the WC, who said that Connally didn't react until "several seconds" after JFK. The WC never said any such thing.
>
> You refuse to state what the WC said, and compare it to my statement.

You`ve refused to say how this information is supportive of your claim.

Everyone who read what you wrote knows it to be untrue. You are doing a great service to us by not retracting it.

[Bud]

Tell us, how did what the WC said make the untrue thing you said true?

> But let's keep talking about it... the more you debate, the more lies you tell.

Tell us when JFK first shows evidence of being shot and when Connally does and we can determine the passage of time between those two things.

>
> > > David has already corrected your ignorance on the fact that both the Warren Commission & believers down through decades argued for a delayed reaction.
> >
> > Which does nothing to support the lie you told.
>
>
> It's a simple thing to prove a lie, you simply quote the lie, THEN CITE THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIE.

I don`t anything, Ben. Anyone reading this who knows anything about this case knows your assertion is untrue.

> Tell us "Bud," why can't you do this?
>
>
> > > > > Plus, we've got better (digital) ways to examine the individual frames of the film nowadays. Those quick toggling methods of viewing the frames were not available to the WC in 1964, which made it much more difficult to examine the film and hunt for hints of any "reactions" on the part of JFK or JBC.
> > > >
> > > > You just can`t tell from that crappy home movie when the bullets enter the victims bodies. If they were both hit in the head, maybe.
> > >
> > >
> > > Who cares?
> >
> > Yes, why care about the only relevant consideration?
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! A "relevant consideration" that only came out after David schooled you on the fact that it *IS* found in the Warren Commission!

What is? Not support for your lie.

> You STILL refuse to state any facts about this "delayed reaction"...

Why would I be misdirected by your strawman?

>David, to his credit, is a tad more honest, even though he's lying too.

As explained, he fell for your strawman.

>
> > > You're now indicting the Warren Commission - as well as dozens of believers who will tell you PRECISELY TO THE FRAME NUMBER when bullets struck JFK & Connally.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I was watching Active Self Defense videos on youtube...
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw
> > > >
> > > > And even with better film it is often impossible to tell the exact split second a person is shot.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep... just like David... you can't see.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 2. Sure they have. Including Vincent Bugliosi in his book....
> > > > >
> > > > > "Since we know people can react to being struck by a bullet literally hundreds
> > > > > of seconds after the fact, then certainly either Kennedy or Connally could have reacted a second or so after being shot." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 466 of "Reclaiming History"
> > > > >
> > > > > But! Vince also says this just one page later....
> > > > >
> > > > > "The essence of what I'm saying is that determining the timing and number of shots (or the validity or invalidity of the single-bullet theory) by only analyzing the Zapruder film is really like an existential discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (i.e., it's more of an intellectual exercise than anything else). Fortunately, since we have other more reliable evidence, we are not hostage to, nor bound by, whatever results this exercise produces." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 467 of "RH"
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------
> > > > >
> > > > > I would guess that some of the people who have in the past argued in favor of a "delayed reaction" on the part of John Connally might very well have changed their minds about that (at least as far as Connally's INVOLUNTARY movements and "reactions" as seen in the Zapruder Film) after they had a chance to watch some of the isolated (repeating) clips from the film which quite clearly indicate that Governor Connally was involuntarily reacting to an external stimulus (i.e., a bullet) just an instant after Z224. I just don't see how such an involuntary reaction by Connally at that point on the film can be denied---or ignored.
>
> Of course, the elephant in the room is the massive involuntary reaction by Connally seen starting at Z-237.

<snicker> Even if this was the first time that Connally could be seen reacting it still wouldn`t be several seconds after Kennedy reacts.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:11:34 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Of course, the elephant in the room is the massive involuntary reaction by Connally seen starting at Z-237.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> But there's an even bigger (and more important) elephant in the same room....and that is when John Connally is seen reacting involuntarily to an external stimulus between Z224 and about Z229.
>
> If Ben was an honest fellow who was capable of reasonably evaluating the things we see in Abraham Zapruder's home movie (which he isn't, of course), he would just come out and admit right now that these involuntary movements on the part of John B. Connally were caused by a bullet that has just passed through his upper torso....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

Those clips make it clear that both men were struck by the same bullet. Only reatrds would dispute such a thing, and it forces them into the even more retarded position of two separate shots hit each man a split second apart.

They have been playing these retarded games for decades.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:13:27 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:43:53 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > Of course, the elephant in the room is the massive involuntary reaction by Connally seen starting at Z-237.
> >
> >
> > And STILL David remains silent!!! What AMAZING cowardice on his part!
> >
>
> Do you taken lessons in being a prick? Or does it come naturally to you?

Believers have no fear of pointing out when they think I'm evading the topic, why should I?

Have you answered it?

No.

Are you afraid to answer it?

Clearly. Because the moment you admit that YOU HAVE NO REASONABLE & CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE ACTIONS BEGINNING AT Z-237 - you've demolished your own position.

Yet you complain when I make the point that proves you wrong.

I can understand it, but an honest man isn't afraid of any evidence based questions... why would he be?

I will continue, in spite of your ad hominem attacks, to point out each and every time you run like a yellow coward from addressing the evidence I point out.

> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > But there's an even bigger (and more important) elephant in the same room....and that is when John Connally is seen reacting involuntarily to an external stimulus between Z224 and about Z229.
> >
> >
> > This is indeed what believers have come to assert.
> >
> > But the Warren Commission clearly didn't see this, nor did the first few decades of believers.
> >
>
> But the early (Z224-Z229) reactions are there nonetheless. Without a speck of a doubt. Why not just admit it?

Because what you label "reactions" is just the same tactic that I've been pointing out in Bugliosi's 53 reasons... he presumes the facts, then twists everything to support it.

You're presuming the SBT, then twisting the evidence, twisting anything and everything that you can, to support your position... you "see" what isn't there, because you've already presumed what 'must' be there.

Refusing to address any contrary evidence, regardless of how powerful it is. (I haven't even started on the eyewitnesses!)

If you cannot explain the rather obvious reactions starting at Z-237 - reactions that FAR EXCEED what you think you see earlier, then you've admitted to the public that you don't really believe your own words.

Because if your theory doesn't explain the evidence, then you know that it's wrong, don't you?

So provide a better reason, one that's credible, for your refusal to address the reactions seen starting at Z-237 - or admit that you're a rather dishonest coward.

> > > If Ben was an honest fellow who was capable of reasonably evaluating the things we see in Abraham Zapruder's home movie (which he isn't, of course), he would just come out and admit right now that these involuntary movements on the part of John B. Connally were caused by a bullet that has just passed through his upper torso....
> >
> >
> > How can I "admit" what the Warren Commission clearly didn't believe? You're denigrating me, and giving the Warren Commission a pass... which is clear and obvious hypocrisy on your part.

No answer...

> > How is it that *YOU* can so blatantly accuse the Warren Commission of such sloppiness in their investigation as to have not only missed this, but argue AGAINST this in their claim of a "delayed reaction?"

No answer... and clearly, you understand that you're on the losing side of the debate when you can't answer questions such as these.

> > Dead silence coming from you on what clearly started happening at Z-237 - which, if you believe a bullet had *PREVIOUS* struck Connally - you have no explanation for.
> >
> > YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION!!!
> >
> > Yet critics can easily explain it, even without reference to the alteration of the extant film.
> >
> > Why is it that you cannot address the obvious and clear reaction starting at Z-237?
> >
>
> Connally's reactions don't START at Z237. What you're seeing in Z237 is a CONTINUATION of the reactions that started back at Z224-225. And the movements we see at about Z237-238 are more accentuated and more noticeable at that time because many of those movements are becoming VOLUNTARY on Gov. Connally's behalf (vs. just being involuntary movements).

ROTFLMAO!!!

You're claiming what are CLEARLY involuntary reactions to be voluntary!!!?

That's certainly a new lie on your part.

You're claiming a continuation that simply doesn't exist... it's speculation on your part. When Connally's shoulder was slammed down by the bullet, that was as involuntary as you can possibly get, YET YOU'RE CLAIMING IT WAS VOLUNTARY!!!

I asked for a credible and reasonable explanation...

Care to try again?

> > Why is it that you can't admit that Connally himself pointed to this section of the extant Zapruder film?
> >
> > Do you believe you know better than Gov Connally?
> >
>
> Oh yes, I do. And that's because I'm pretty sure Governor Connally never had a chance to see the very good repeating Z-Film clips that we all have access to today.

Speculation won't change the facts.

I'm quite sure he was given every opportunity to view the film time and time again...

Yet all you can to is offer sheer opinion and speculation.

> If I could have shown Mr. Connally the clips presented on my webpage below, I'm fairly certain I could have convinced him that the Single-Bullet Theory is the truth.

Fortunately for the rest of us, your opinion isn't evidence.

And since you absolutely REFUSE to address critical reviews of your website content, it really doesn't matter, does it?

You can keep linking to your site, but it won't do any good for anyone interested in the truth, because you are freely allowed to lie with no rebuke on your website - and I'm sure you're well aware of this fact.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
>
> > Will you again show your cowardice by evading most of these questions? Questions that are PRECISELY relevant to the topic...

Clearly, the answer was yes. Coward, aren't you?

> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
> > >
> > > Let's hear Ben's "anti-SBT" excuses for all of that flinching and grimacing and mouth opening and arm raising and lapel flipping and necktie scrunching that we see happening with Governor Connally in those Z-Film clips presented above.
> >
> >
> > You are, of course, imagining things.
> >
>
> Yeah, I guess Governor Connally just decided he wanted to flip his right arm in the air at Z226, which just happens to be the *same right arm/wrist* that is (amazingly) going to be hit by a bullet in another second or so. Wouldn't you call that a rather extraordinary coincidence, Ben?

Which side of his wrist did the bullet enter? The palm side? Or the back of the hand side?

Let's see if you have the courage to defend your claim.

Be sure to cite if you try to lie about it.

> > And remaining absolutely silent on what the Warren Commission clearly accepted... a reaction occurring starting at Z-237.
> >
>
> Sure, that might have been when they first saw signs of Connally reacting. But, as I said previously, the WC didn't have all the tools we have today for examining the film in a toggling frame-by-frame format. Therefore, yes, they *missed seeing the signs of Connally being hit at circa Z224*.

So if you *really* believe this - why do you refuse to give the same labels to the Warren Commission that you give to me for merely repeating what they also accepted?

Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?

You'll refuse to answer this, of course...

> But, as I also mentioned previously, the Commission DID end up getting the SBT timing right --- because Z224 *does* fall within the range of Z-Film frames the Warren Commission utilized for its SBT timespan.

Failing to see what you now claim to see. And lying about the involuntary reaction to a bullet strike.

Nor could the "SBT" been at Z-224 - JFK's hands have already been in motion toward his throat, meaning that the shot must have occurred EARLIER.

> > Run Coward... RUN!!!
> >
>
> You aren't very pleasant to talk to, Ben. Maybe a strong laxative might help.

When you're on the wrong side of the evidence, *anyone* who tells you the truth won't be "pleasant".

You get caught lying all the time, and I'm sure that cannot be a very pleasant experience.

You're slicker in your lies than "Bud" is, but they're still there.

> > > The floor is yours, oh great Judo artist....
> >
> > Artist is correct... good Judo is certainly artistic. Many SoCal Judoka will remember the artistry of Ramon Rivera, at one LA tournament, where he spun his opponent around after losing a koka to an Osotogari, and threw him with an Osotogari.
> >
> > Of course, only Judoka who are familiar with Judo and with Ramon will catch the artistry in that move.
>
> Spare me this torture, Ben. I couldn't care less about your martial arts skills.

And yet, you brought the topic up.

Ramon Rivera was famous for one throw, and one throw only. I watched him for years ... at tournament after tournament, and he threw everyone with Uchimata. The one and only time I ever saw him using a different throw was the one time he got scored against, and it was quite artistic indeed to turn around and throw his opponent with the very same throw he came close to losing to. (well, not really close - it was either Koka, or it might have been Waza-ari, it's been too many years...) It shows true skill to be able to pick and chose a particular throw to throw someone with, at that level (he was, at the time, a Nidan, 2nd degree black belt) It was not too long after that tournament, that I watched him pick up the National title in Chicago. (I lost rather convincingly to an Hawaiian)

But amusingly, I can speak just as authoritatively on Judo as I do on the JFK case... so if you ever want a schooling, just keep bringing it up.

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut, "Bud"... let's first hear you admit that the Warren Commission, and most believers for the first few decades argued for a "delayed reaction".

Then you need to specify BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE they made that argument, then you need to specify the actual time of this "delay."

When you do that, you can demand more answers from me, but it's silly to think that you can demand what you refuse to provide.

You labeled my statement a lie, let's hear you publicly state that the Warren Commission lied about Connally's "delayed reaction".

[Bud]

Tut me no tuts, Ben.

> let's first hear you admit that the Warren Commission, and most believers for the first few decades argued for a "delayed reaction".

Why would I address that strawman?

> Then you need to specify BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE they made that argument, then you need to specify the actual time of this "delay."

*You* specified the time of the delay. You just didn`t support it.

> When you do that, you can demand more answers from me, but it's silly to think that you can demand what you refuse to provide.
>
> You labeled my statement a lie, let's hear you publicly state that the Warren Commission lied about Connally's "delayed reaction".

What does that have to do with the lie your told?

[David Von Pein]

~sigh~ I said Connally's reactions at circa Z237 were "becoming voluntary". I.E., Some of them are "voluntary" and some of them are still "involuntary" (like the puffed cheeks).

You think Connally turning sharply to his right is an INVOLUNTARY action on JBC's behalf?

> You're claiming a continuation that simply doesn't exist... it's speculation on your part. When Connally's shoulder was slammed down by the bullet, that was as involuntary as you can possibly get, YET YOU'RE CLAIMING IT WAS VOLUNTARY!!!
>
> I asked for a credible and reasonable explanation...
>
> Care to try again?
>
>
> > > Why is it that you can't admit that Connally himself pointed to this section of the extant Zapruder film?
> > >
> > > Do you believe you know better than Gov Connally?
> > >
> >
> > Oh yes, I do. And that's because I'm pretty sure Governor Connally never had a chance to see the very good repeating Z-Film clips that we all have access to today.
>
>
> Speculation won't change the facts.
>
> I'm quite sure he was given every opportunity to view the film time and time again...
>

You *really* think Connally got a chance to see the Z-Film clips in the steady, toggling, repetitive form that I display on my websites? Really? (JBC died in June of 1993, keep in mind. That was before we had PCs in all our homes.)

> Yet all you can to is offer sheer opinion and speculation.
>
>
> > If I could have shown Mr. Connally the clips presented on my webpage below, I'm fairly certain I could have convinced him that the Single-Bullet Theory is the truth.
>
>
> Fortunately for the rest of us, your opinion isn't evidence.
>
> And since you absolutely REFUSE to address critical reviews of your website content, it really doesn't matter, does it?
>
> You can keep linking to your site, but it won't do any good for anyone interested in the truth, because you are freely allowed to lie with no rebuke on your website - and I'm sure you're well aware of this fact.
>

I don't lie, Benji. Not *everything* you disagree with should be labelled as a "lie". Get that laxative. Maybe it'll help.

>
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
> >
> > > Will you again show your cowardice by evading most of these questions? Questions that are PRECISELY relevant to the topic...
>
>
> Clearly, the answer was yes. Coward, aren't you?
>
>
>
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
> > > >
> > > > Let's hear Ben's "anti-SBT" excuses for all of that flinching and grimacing and mouth opening and arm raising and lapel flipping and necktie scrunching that we see happening with Governor Connally in those Z-Film clips presented above.
> > >
> > >
> > > You are, of course, imagining things.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, I guess Governor Connally just decided he wanted to flip his right arm in the air at Z226, which just happens to be the *same right arm/wrist* that is (amazingly) going to be hit by a bullet in another second or so. Wouldn't you call that a rather extraordinary coincidence, Ben?
>
>
> Which side of his wrist did the bullet enter? The palm side? Or the back of the hand side?
>
> Let's see if you have the courage to defend your claim.
>
> Be sure to cite if you try to lie about it.
>

The WC and the HSCA had no problem at all with Connally's wrist injury being caused by CE399 after that bullet had exited JFK's throat.

So, should I believe the experts who testified for the WC and HSCA? Or should I place my faith in a prick named Ben?

Not a tough call. Sorry, Benji.

>
> > > And remaining absolutely silent on what the Warren Commission clearly accepted... a reaction occurring starting at Z-237.
> > >
> >
> > Sure, that might have been when they first saw signs of Connally reacting. But, as I said previously, the WC didn't have all the tools we have today for examining the film in a toggling frame-by-frame format. Therefore, yes, they *missed seeing the signs of Connally being hit at circa Z224*.
>
>
> So if you *really* believe this - why do you refuse to give the same labels to the Warren Commission that you give to me for merely repeating what they also accepted?
>
> Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?
>

As stated before (twice) --- we have better tools for watching the film nowadays. The WC existed in the pre-computer, "pre-GIF clip" era. They missed the Z224-229 reactions. Simple as that. And yet they STILL got it right---i.e., the SBT happened between Z210 and Z225.....just where the WC places it.

It's hard for me to scold them for getting it pretty much RIGHT, Ben?

> You'll refuse to answer this, of course...
>
>
> > But, as I also mentioned previously, the Commission DID end up getting the SBT timing right --- because Z224 *does* fall within the range of Z-Film frames the Warren Commission utilized for its SBT timespan.
>
>
> Failing to see what you now claim to see. And lying about the involuntary reaction to a bullet strike.
>
> Nor could the "SBT" been at Z-224 - JFK's hands have already been in motion toward his throat, meaning that the shot must have occurred EARLIER.
>
>
> > > Run Coward... RUN!!!
> > >
> >
> > You aren't very pleasant to talk to, Ben. Maybe a strong laxative might help.
>
>
> When you're on the wrong side of the evidence, *anyone* who tells you the truth won't be "pleasant".
>
> You get caught lying all the time, and I'm sure that cannot be a very pleasant experience.
>
> You're slicker in your lies than "Bud" is, but they're still there.
>

I haven't told a single "lie", Ben. And you know it. So why not cut the "You're a liar" crap. It got old years ago.

>
>
> > > > The floor is yours, oh great Judo artist....
> > >
> > > Artist is correct... good Judo is certainly artistic. Many SoCal Judoka will remember the artistry of Ramon Rivera, at one LA tournament, where he spun his opponent around after losing a koka to an Osotogari, and threw him with an Osotogari.
> > >
> > > Of course, only Judoka who are familiar with Judo and with Ramon will catch the artistry in that move.
> >
> > Spare me this torture, Ben. I couldn't care less about your martial arts skills.
>
> And yet, you brought the topic up.
>

~sigh~
I was mocking you, "oh great Judo artist". (Geez, I thought you'd recognize that.)

> Ramon Rivera was famous for one throw, and one throw only. I watched him for years ... at tournament after tournament, and he threw everyone with Uchimata. The one and only time I ever saw him using a different throw was the one time he got scored against, and it was quite artistic indeed to turn around and throw his opponent with the very same throw he came close to losing to. (well, not really close - it was either Koka, or it might have been Waza-ari, it's been too many years...) It shows true skill to be able to pick and chose a particular throw to throw someone with, at that level (he was, at the time, a Nidan, 2nd degree black belt) It was not too long after that tournament, that I watched him pick up the National title in Chicago. (I lost rather convincingly to an Hawaiian)
>
> But amusingly, I can speak just as authoritatively on Judo as I do on the JFK case... so if you ever want a schooling, just keep bringing it up.

I'd rather turn to Cincinnati Reds baseball instead....
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/10/cincinnati-reds-index.html

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, "Bud".

The Warren Commission argued PRECISELY THE SAME THING that you're now labeling a lie.

I don't blame you for running from that fact. David was honest enough to be partially truthful, you can't even admit the truth.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:47:23 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 2:01:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:13:27 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 12:43:53 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:11:34 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, the elephant in the room is the massive involuntary reaction by Connally seen starting at Z-237.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And STILL David remains silent!!! What AMAZING cowardice on his part!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you taken lessons in being a prick? Or does it come naturally to you?
> >
> >
> > Believers have no fear of pointing out when they think I'm evading the topic, why should I?
> >
> > Have you answered it?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Are you afraid to answer it?
> >
> > Clearly. Because the moment you admit that YOU HAVE NO REASONABLE & CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE ACTIONS BEGINNING AT Z-237 - you've demolished your own position.
> >
> > Yet you complain when I make the point that proves you wrong.
> >
> > I can understand it, but an honest man isn't afraid of any evidence based questions... why would he be?
> >
> > I will continue, in spite of your ad hominem attacks, to point out each and every time you run like a yellow coward from addressing the evidence I point out.

Dead silence...

Clearly, you either accept what I just schooled you on, or you're unwilling to try refuting me.

> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > But there's an even bigger (and more important) elephant in the same room....and that is when John Connally is seen reacting involuntarily to an external stimulus between Z224 and about Z229.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is indeed what believers have come to assert.
> > > >
> > > > But the Warren Commission clearly didn't see this, nor did the first few decades of believers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But the early (Z224-Z229) reactions are there nonetheless. Without a speck of a doubt. Why not just admit it?
> >
> > Because what you label "reactions" is just the same tactic that I've been pointing out in Bugliosi's 53 reasons... he presumes the facts, then twists everything to support it.
> >
> > You're presuming the SBT, then twisting the evidence, twisting anything and everything that you can, to support your position... you "see" what isn't there, because you've already presumed what 'must' be there.
> >
> > Refusing to address any contrary evidence, regardless of how powerful it is. (I haven't even started on the eyewitnesses!)
> >
> > If you cannot explain the rather obvious reactions starting at Z-237 - reactions that FAR EXCEED what you think you see earlier, then you've admitted to the public that you don't really believe your own words.
> >
> > Because if your theory doesn't explain the evidence, then you know that it's wrong, don't you?
> >
> > So provide a better reason, one that's credible, for your refusal to address the reactions seen starting at Z-237 - or admit that you're a rather dishonest coward.

More crickets chirping...

> > > > > If Ben was an honest fellow who was capable of reasonably evaluating the things we see in Abraham Zapruder's home movie (which he isn't, of course), he would just come out and admit right now that these involuntary movements on the part of John B. Connally were caused by a bullet that has just passed through his upper torso....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How can I "admit" what the Warren Commission clearly didn't believe? You're denigrating me, and giving the Warren Commission a pass... which is clear and obvious hypocrisy on your part.
> >
> >
> > No answer...

Still no answer... quite the hypocrite, aren't you David?

You claim not to lie, yet here you are, demonstrating precisely that dishonesty I keep pointing out.

> > > > How is it that *YOU* can so blatantly accuse the Warren Commission of such sloppiness in their investigation as to have not only missed this, but argue AGAINST this in their claim of a "delayed reaction?"
> >
> >
> > No answer... and clearly, you understand that you're on the losing side of the debate when you can't answer questions such as these.
> >
> >
> > > > Dead silence coming from you on what clearly started happening at Z-237 - which, if you believe a bullet had *PREVIOUS* struck Connally - you have no explanation for.
> > > >
> > > > YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION!!!
> > > >
> > > > Yet critics can easily explain it, even without reference to the alteration of the extant film.
> > > >
> > > > Why is it that you cannot address the obvious and clear reaction starting at Z-237?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Connally's reactions don't START at Z237. What you're seeing in Z237 is a CONTINUATION of the reactions that started back at Z224-225. And the movements we see at about Z237-238 are more accentuated and more noticeable at that time because many of those movements are becoming VOLUNTARY on Gov. Connally's behalf (vs. just being involuntary movements).
> >
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!!!
> >
> > You're claiming what are CLEARLY involuntary reactions to be voluntary!!!?
> >
> > That's certainly a new lie on your part.
> >
>
> ~sigh~ I said Connally's reactions at circa Z237 were "becoming voluntary". I.E., Some of them are "voluntary" and some of them are still "involuntary" (like the puffed cheeks).

When did this occur? What Z-frame number do you assign to this event (the puffed cheeks)

> You think Connally turning sharply to his right is an INVOLUNTARY action on JBC's behalf?

Nope... not going there.

I said no such thing, and if you think I did, then QUOTE ME SAYING IT.

If you keep trying to make ridiculous claims of what I state, then I'll be happy to start following your lead, and do the same to you.

You've been warned.

> > You're claiming a continuation that simply doesn't exist... it's speculation on your part. When Connally's shoulder was slammed down by the bullet, that was as involuntary as you can possibly get, YET YOU'RE CLAIMING IT WAS VOLUNTARY!!!

Dead silence...

Why is that, David? Cat got your tongue again?

> > I asked for a credible and reasonable explanation...
> >
> > Care to try again?
> >
> >
> > > > Why is it that you can't admit that Connally himself pointed to this section of the extant Zapruder film?
> > > >
> > > > Do you believe you know better than Gov Connally?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Oh yes, I do. And that's because I'm pretty sure Governor Connally never had a chance to see the very good repeating Z-Film clips that we all have access to today.
> >
> >
> > Speculation won't change the facts.
> >
> > I'm quite sure he was given every opportunity to view the film time and time again...
> >
>
> You *really* think Connally got a chance to see the Z-Film clips in the steady, toggling, repetitive form that I display on my websites? Really? (JBC died in June of 1993, keep in mind. That was before we had PCs in all our homes.)

Are you denying that he was afforded the opportunity to study the extant Z-film as many times as he wished?

I'm quite sure he never saw the 4K scans done of the extant Z-film frames either... but did he have the opportunity to view the film time and time again? Did he have the opportunity to view any particular frame he wanted?

> > Yet all you can to is offer sheer opinion and speculation.
> >
> >
> > > If I could have shown Mr. Connally the clips presented on my webpage below, I'm fairly certain I could have convinced him that the Single-Bullet Theory is the truth.
> >
> >
> > Fortunately for the rest of us, your opinion isn't evidence.
> >
> > And since you absolutely REFUSE to address critical reviews of your website content, it really doesn't matter, does it?
> >
> > You can keep linking to your site, but it won't do any good for anyone interested in the truth, because you are freely allowed to lie with no rebuke on your website - and I'm sure you're well aware of this fact.
> >
>
> I don't lie, Benji. Not *everything* you disagree with should be labelled as a "lie". Get that laxative. Maybe it'll help.

Yes, David, you do. Indeed, you've lied by your silence in this very post.

For another example, you're about to be nailed on a previous lie, as soon as you publicly answer two questions... the first one has already been asked, when did Connally "puff" his cheeks.

When you answer it, I'll raise the second question.

(Of course, now that you've been warned, anyone care to bet whether or not David will have the courage to answer evidence based questions?)

> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
> > >
> > > > Will you again show your cowardice by evading most of these questions? Questions that are PRECISELY relevant to the topic...
> >
> >
> > Clearly, the answer was yes. Coward, aren't you?
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's hear Ben's "anti-SBT" excuses for all of that flinching and grimacing and mouth opening and arm raising and lapel flipping and necktie scrunching that we see happening with Governor Connally in those Z-Film clips presented above.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are, of course, imagining things.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, I guess Governor Connally just decided he wanted to flip his right arm in the air at Z226, which just happens to be the *same right arm/wrist* that is (amazingly) going to be hit by a bullet in another second or so. Wouldn't you call that a rather extraordinary coincidence, Ben?
> >
> >
> > Which side of his wrist did the bullet enter? The palm side? Or the back of the hand side?
> >
> > Let's see if you have the courage to defend your claim.

Clearly, the answer is "no".

> > Be sure to cite if you try to lie about it.
>
> The WC and the HSCA had no problem at all with Connally's wrist injury being caused by CE399 after that bullet had exited JFK's throat.

That wasn't the question, David.

Surely your reading ability is good enough to determine that.

> So, should I believe the experts who testified for the WC and HSCA? Or should I place my faith in a prick named Ben?

Yes... you should. You just have a problem determining expertise.

NAME the expert that testified on this issue.

Then tell everyone publicly what he said in answer to my question.

> Not a tough call. Sorry, Benji.

The "tough call" was answering the question. I see that you were too dishonest, and too cowardly to do so.

There's two possible reasons, either you don't know, and didn't want to admit it, or you *DO* know, and realize just how big a problem this is for the traditional SBT.

Which is it David?

Dishonesty or ignorance?

> > > > And remaining absolutely silent on what the Warren Commission clearly accepted... a reaction occurring starting at Z-237.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sure, that might have been when they first saw signs of Connally reacting. But, as I said previously, the WC didn't have all the tools we have today for examining the film in a toggling frame-by-frame format. Therefore, yes, they *missed seeing the signs of Connally being hit at circa Z224*.
> >
> >
> > So if you *really* believe this - why do you refuse to give the same labels to the Warren Commission that you give to me for merely repeating what they also accepted?
> >
> > Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?
> >
>
> As stated before (twice) --- we have better tools for watching the film nowadays. The WC existed in the pre-computer, "pre-GIF clip" era. They missed the Z224-229 reactions. Simple as that. And yet they STILL got it right---i.e., the SBT happened between Z210 and Z225.....just where the WC places it.

You're lying again, David. The *PROOF* that you're lying is contained in your refusal to answer simple, basic, and totally relevant questions that if answered honestly, contradict your claim.

Which is why you simply refuse to answer...

That fact tells the tale, doesn't it David?

> It's hard for me to scold them for getting it pretty much RIGHT, Ben?

It's even harder for you to answer the questions I raise that would force you to contradict your faith, isn't it?

> > You'll refuse to answer this, of course...

And indeed, my prediction was right on the money again.

You're a provable coward, David.

> > > But, as I also mentioned previously, the Commission DID end up getting the SBT timing right --- because Z224 *does* fall within the range of Z-Film frames the Warren Commission utilized for its SBT timespan.
> >
> >
> > Failing to see what you now claim to see. And lying about the involuntary reaction to a bullet strike.
> >
> > Nor could the "SBT" been at Z-224 - JFK's hands have already been in motion toward his throat, meaning that the shot must have occurred EARLIER.

Dead silence again...

No explanation for JFK's blazingly fast reaction... or perhaps you simply believe he was really Superman in disguise... "faster than a speeding bullet" - he was able to react to the bullet striking him in LESS than an 18th of a second!

ROTFLMAO!!!

> > > > Run Coward... RUN!!!
> > > >
> > >
> > > You aren't very pleasant to talk to, Ben. Maybe a strong laxative might help.
> >
> >
> > When you're on the wrong side of the evidence, *anyone* who tells you the truth won't be "pleasant".
> >
> > You get caught lying all the time, and I'm sure that cannot be a very pleasant experience.
> >
> > You're slicker in your lies than "Bud" is, but they're still there.
> >
>
> I haven't told a single "lie", Ben. And you know it. So why not cut the "You're a liar" crap. It got old years ago.

You're lying again, David.

> > > > > The floor is yours, oh great Judo artist....
> > > >
> > > > Artist is correct... good Judo is certainly artistic. Many SoCal Judoka will remember the artistry of Ramon Rivera, at one LA tournament, where he spun his opponent around after losing a koka to an Osotogari, and threw him with an Osotogari.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, only Judoka who are familiar with Judo and with Ramon will catch the artistry in that move.
> > >
> > > Spare me this torture, Ben. I couldn't care less about your martial arts skills.
> >
> > And yet, you brought the topic up.
> >
>
> ~sigh~
> I was mocking you, "oh great Judo artist". (Geez, I thought you'd recognize that.)

Yep... and lurkers will quickly figure out that I know just as much on the topic of Judo as I do on the topic of JFK case evidence. And will realize then that you're the fool.

[Bud]

The truth is that what you wrote was untrue.

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:52:39 AM UTC-8, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> I actually did post in his forum for a while. A bizarre experience.
>
> A couple of examples:
>
> 1) New members are required to pick a side: Fact-based "Critic" (CT) or faith-based "Believer" (LGT). (There might also be an "Undecided" option.) In itself, however, the notion that a conspiracy was behind the assassination is no less an article of faith than the notion that Oswald acted alone, but I guess Ben wanted to create an environment where he and his fellow CTs won't have to bother too much with defending their own ideas.
>
> 2) Its specific wording escapes me, but a certain forum rule allows you to call anyone a "liar" if you can demonstrate (with evidence) that they have made a faulty claim. You're not required to prove intent, which might seem strange, but Ben really loves the L word. An obvious problem with this policy is that the forum admin is the arbiter of whether the evidence presented is adequate. Not surprisingly, Ben gets to use the L word a lot (which seems to be a major point of the forum) while others tend to be reprimanded for the same offense.
>
> After some lengthy and fruitless discussions, I began to make inquires about how to delete my profile - and was instantly banned without explanation. I wonder if Ben at least had the decency to delete my posts. I don't want to lend legitimacy to his forum by virtue of once having posted there.

This might prove interesting for any believers desperate to claim honesty:

http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-How-do-I-delete-my-profile

[Bud]

If you did ban someone, what would the message say when they tried to log on?

[Ben Holmes]

Have no idea. Never did it.

So tell us "Bud" - why are you defending someone who's provably lied about being "banned" on ConspiracyJFKForum.com?

He asked about removing his profile, I did it for him... it's a blatant lie to suggest anything else happened.

P.S. One of your statements has now appeared there...

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:28:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 8:57:07 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:30:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:52:39 AM UTC-8, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > > > I actually did post in his forum for a while. A bizarre experience.
> > > >
> > > > A couple of examples:
> > > >
> > > > 1) New members are required to pick a side: Fact-based "Critic" (CT) or faith-based "Believer" (LGT). (There might also be an "Undecided" option.) In itself, however, the notion that a conspiracy was behind the assassination is no less an article of faith than the notion that Oswald acted alone, but I guess Ben wanted to create an environment where he and his fellow CTs won't have to bother too much with defending their own ideas.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Its specific wording escapes me, but a certain forum rule allows you to call anyone a "liar" if you can demonstrate (with evidence) that they have made a faulty claim. You're not required to prove intent, which might seem strange, but Ben really loves the L word. An obvious problem with this policy is that the forum admin is the arbiter of whether the evidence presented is adequate. Not surprisingly, Ben gets to use the L word a lot (which seems to be a major point of the forum) while others tend to be reprimanded for the same offense.
> > > >
> > > > After some lengthy and fruitless discussions, I began to make inquires about how to delete my profile - and was instantly banned without explanation. I wonder if Ben at least had the decency to delete my posts. I don't want to lend legitimacy to his forum by virtue of once having posted there.
> > >
> > > This might prove interesting for any believers desperate to claim honesty:
> > >
> > > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-How-do-I-delete-my-profile
> >
> > If you did ban someone, what would the message say when they tried to log on?
>
> Have no idea. Never did it.

Seems an easy enough thing to look into. Create an account. Ban the account. Try to log on using the account. See what message appears.

> So tell us "Bud" - why are you defending someone who's provably lied about being "banned" on ConspiracyJFKForum.com?

How does the question I asked defend Mark Urlik?

> He asked about removing his profile, I did it for him... it's a blatant lie to suggest anything else happened.

You have a weird way with the English language. How do you suggest a blatant lie?

> P.S. One of your statements has now appeared there...

Is it the one about you being retarded?

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:05:02 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:28:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 8:57:07 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:30:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:52:39 AM UTC-8, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > > > > I actually did post in his forum for a while. A bizarre experience.
> > > > >
> > > > > A couple of examples:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) New members are required to pick a side: Fact-based "Critic" (CT) or faith-based "Believer" (LGT). (There might also be an "Undecided" option.) In itself, however, the notion that a conspiracy was behind the assassination is no less an article of faith than the notion that Oswald acted alone, but I guess Ben wanted to create an environment where he and his fellow CTs won't have to bother too much with defending their own ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) Its specific wording escapes me, but a certain forum rule allows you to call anyone a "liar" if you can demonstrate (with evidence) that they have made a faulty claim. You're not required to prove intent, which might seem strange, but Ben really loves the L word. An obvious problem with this policy is that the forum admin is the arbiter of whether the evidence presented is adequate. Not surprisingly, Ben gets to use the L word a lot (which seems to be a major point of the forum) while others tend to be reprimanded for the same offense.
> > > > >
> > > > > After some lengthy and fruitless discussions, I began to make inquires about how to delete my profile - and was instantly banned without explanation. I wonder if Ben at least had the decency to delete my posts. I don't want to lend legitimacy to his forum by virtue of once having posted there.
> > > >
> > > > This might prove interesting for any believers desperate to claim honesty:
> > > >
> > > > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-How-do-I-delete-my-profile
> > >
> > > If you did ban someone, what would the message say when they tried to log on?
> >
> > Have no idea. Never did it.
>
> Seems an easy enough thing to look into. Create an account. Ban the account. Try to log on using the account. See what message appears.

And since I've never banned anyone, it wouldn't be of interest to anyone.

Let's hear you admit that Mark Ulrik lied about me banning him...

But you won't... you're simply too dishonest.

(and too much the coward to simply come over to http://ConspiracyJFKForum.com and post.)

[Bud]

I`m interested.

> Let's hear you admit that Mark Ulrik lied about me banning him...

Get back to me with the information I requested, that would help me to make a determination.

> But you won't... you're simply too dishonest.
>
> (and too much the coward to simply come over to http://ConspiracyJFKForum.com and post.)

Why would I do that?

[Ben Holmes]

No need, I referenced the post where he requested profile removal.

HE REQUESTED IT!!!

So tell us "Bud" - why can't you publicly admit that Mark Ulrik isn't banned?

For that matter, all you need to do is create a temporary email account somewhere, login to http://ConspiracyJFKForum.com - and say that your name is "Mark Ulrik".

But implying that I'm not telling the truth is more important to you than actually finding out the truth, isn't it?

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:57:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:38:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:05:02 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:28:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 8:57:07 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:30:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:52:39 AM UTC-8, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > > > > > > > I actually did post in his forum for a while. A bizarre experience.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A couple of examples:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) New members are required to pick a side: Fact-based "Critic" (CT) or faith-based "Believer" (LGT). (There might also be an "Undecided" option.) In itself, however, the notion that a conspiracy was behind the assassination is no less an article of faith than the notion that Oswald acted alone, but I guess Ben wanted to create an environment where he and his fellow CTs won't have to bother too much with defending their own ideas.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) Its specific wording escapes me, but a certain forum rule allows you to call anyone a "liar" if you can demonstrate (with evidence) that they have made a faulty claim. You're not required to prove intent, which might seem strange, but Ben really loves the L word. An obvious problem with this policy is that the forum admin is the arbiter of whether the evidence presented is adequate. Not surprisingly, Ben gets to use the L word a lot (which seems to be a major point of the forum) while others tend to be reprimanded for the same offense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > After some lengthy and fruitless discussions, I began to make inquires about how to delete my profile - and was instantly banned without explanation. I wonder if Ben at least had the decency to delete my posts. I don't want to lend legitimacy to his forum by virtue of once having posted there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This might prove interesting for any believers desperate to claim honesty:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-How-do-I-delete-my-profile
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you did ban someone, what would the message say when they tried to log on?
> > > > >
> > > > > Have no idea. Never did it.
> > > >
> > > > Seems an easy enough thing to look into. Create an account. Ban the account. Try to log on using the account. See what message appears.
> > >
> > > And since I've never banned anyone, it wouldn't be of interest to anyone.
> >
> > I`m interested.
> >
> > > Let's hear you admit that Mark Ulrik lied about me banning him...
> >
> > Get back to me with the information I requested, that would help me to make a determination.
>
>
> No need,

It would help me determine who was being truthful.

> I referenced the post where he requested profile removal.
>
> HE REQUESTED IT!!!
>
> So tell us "Bud" - why can't you publicly admit that Mark Ulrik isn't banned?
>
> For that matter, all you need to do is create a temporary email account somewhere, login to http://ConspiracyJFKForum.com - and say that your name is "Mark Ulrik".

Assumes the situation is the same now as it was before.

> But implying that I'm not telling the truth is more important to you than actually finding out the truth, isn't it?

I`m am trying to determine the truth. I asked you for information you could easily supply.

You do have the ability to ban people, correct? If they are banned when they attempt to log on a message will be displayed informing them that they are banned, correct? What does the message say?

[Mark Ulrik]

Den lørdag den 28. januar 2017 kl. 22.57.51 UTC+1 skrev Ben Holmes:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:40:39 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:38:32 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:05:02 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:28:02 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 8:57:07 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 11:30:13 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:52:39 AM UTC-8, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> > > > > > > > I actually did post in his forum for a while. A bizarre experience.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A couple of examples:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) New members are required to pick a side: Fact-based "Critic" (CT) or faith-based "Believer" (LGT). (There might also be an "Undecided" option.) In itself, however, the notion that a conspiracy was behind the assassination is no less an article of faith than the notion that Oswald acted alone, but I guess Ben wanted to create an environment where he and his fellow CTs won't have to bother too much with defending their own ideas.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2) Its specific wording escapes me, but a certain forum rule allows you to call anyone a "liar" if you can demonstrate (with evidence) that they have made a faulty claim. You're not required to prove intent, which might seem strange, but Ben really loves the L word. An obvious problem with this policy is that the forum admin is the arbiter of whether the evidence presented is adequate. Not surprisingly, Ben gets to use the L word a lot (which seems to be a major point of the forum) while others tend to be reprimanded for the same offense.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > After some lengthy and fruitless discussions, I began to make inquires about how to delete my profile - and was instantly banned without explanation. I wonder if Ben at least had the decency to delete my posts. I don't want to lend legitimacy to his forum by virtue of once having posted there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This might prove interesting for any believers desperate to claim honesty:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-How-do-I-delete-my-profile
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you did ban someone, what would the message say when they tried to log on?
> > > > >
> > > > > Have no idea. Never did it.
> > > >
> > > > Seems an easy enough thing to look into. Create an account. Ban the account. Try to log on using the account. See what message appears.
> > >
> > > And since I've never banned anyone, it wouldn't be of interest to anyone.
> >
> > I`m interested.
> >
> > > Let's hear you admit that Mark Ulrik lied about me banning him...
> >
> > Get back to me with the information I requested, that would help me to make a determination.
>
>
> No need, I referenced the post where he requested profile removal.
>
> HE REQUESTED IT!!!

That's a lie. I asked for information on how to do it myself.

> So tell us "Bud" - why can't you publicly admit that Mark Ulrik isn't banned?

Shortly after I posted the request, the following message began to appear whenever I attempted to access your forum.

"I'm sorry, but you are banned. You may not post, read threads, or access the forum. Please contact your forum administrator should you have any questions."

> For that matter, all you need to do is create a temporary email account somewhere, login to http://ConspiracyJFKForum.com - and say that your name is "Mark Ulrik".
>
> But implying that I'm not telling the truth is more important to you than actually finding out the truth, isn't it?

The truth is that you banned me. You're just too dishonest to admit it.

> > > But you won't... you're simply too dishonest.
> > >
> > > (and too much the coward to simply come over to http://ConspiracyJFKForum.com and post.)
> >
> > Why would I do that?

Indeed. Why honor slime?

[Ben Holmes]

Can't be done. That's an administrator function.

Now you're whining because I removed you from the forum AS YOU REQUESTED... not only whining, but LYING ABOUT IT.

Of course, believers always end up running away...

[muc...@gmail.com]

You just can't stop lying, can you? I requested INFORMATION on how to do it myself, and then you BANNED me.

> Of course, believers always end up running away...

Yes, banning me was an act of running away. Typical of some conspiracy believers.

[Ben Holmes]

I just told you, you cannot remove yourself, that's an administrator function.

Feel free to download the forum software yourself, it's free... it's easy to install.

Now, instead of constantly whining about something you asked for, why don't you help David & "Bud" out here?

Tell everyone what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray is... then stick around to debate the topic.

Or you can whine some more...

[Bud]

So, did you ban him?

[Mark Ulrik]

Yes, you're telling me NOW, idiot. When I asked, months ago, you banned me.

> Feel free to download the forum software yourself, it's free... it's easy to install.

More idiocy. Not interested.

> Now, instead of constantly whining about something you asked for, why don't you help David & "Bud" out here?
>
> Tell everyone what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray is... then stick around to debate the topic.
>
> Or you can whine some more...

Just pointing out your lies, Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

Whenever Ben gets caught lying he does this repetitious thing.

[Ben Holmes]

You mean when a believer ignores my statement, I help him out by repeating it.

I can't force a kook to answer it, but I *can* do my best to ensure that they read it.

Don't you *want* Mark's help to answer the question?

[Bud]

So, did you ban him?

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 2:32:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:

> So, did you ban him?

If you couldn't understand my answer the first few times I answered this, why would anyone think you'd understand it if I answered it yet again?

What a kook!

[Mark Ulrik]

It's like politely asking where the exit is and in reply being thrown out the window. Perhaps that's considered helpful where Ben comes from. I don't know why he can't just admit he banned me and move on.