info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
My Scenario - The Conclusion
96 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Feb 10, 2019, 7:53:28 PM2/10/19
to
My Scenario - The Conclusion
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.
So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?
There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.
This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.
And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.
It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.
The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Puddy's
challenge? Of course it does.
Now, I know that Puddy will whine that there's no mention of JFK's
body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see. He'll
whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine about
any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission explained
that I didn't.
But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.
For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Puddy can *CREDIBLY*
refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by citation.
Something he'll never do.
Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Puddy's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've clearly
done here.
And if Puddy DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren Commission
explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and Puddy knows
this.
Puddy made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually take the
time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no matter *WHAT*
someone posted, he would be able to criticize it - because he will
NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his challenge.
Puddy already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario that
he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and number
of citations.
PUDDY HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into the
coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.
And if Puddy cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my scenario, then
he's ADMITTING that he lost.
First - a quick review is in order. I've demonstrated that I will do
precisely what I say I will: to wit, I will match in length, detail,
and number of citations any scenario posted by a believer. I've done
so repeatedly, and invariably, believers then run away. I then
demonstrated that the Warren Commission refused to investigate prior
assassination attempts that would have shed light on the conspiracy to
murder the President. I then showed that the Warren Commission had
their "conclusions" in written form before they interviewed a single
witness... and that the Commission clearly indicated a desire **NOT**
to hold a real investigation. I then demonstrated that the evidence
from just moments after the shooting strongly supported a shooter at
the Grassy Knoll. I went on to show that the original medical opinion
within hours was for a frontal shot striking JFK. I then demonstrated
that believers deny what the Commission stated about when Connally is
seen reacting to a shot in the film, yet refuse to *explain* that
reaction. I demonstrated that the Warren Commission provably lied
about which shot struck Connally. I then demonstrated that there's
*no* evidence for transit - which is necessary to an SBT. I then
demonstrated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests contradicted the Warren
Commission's theory, and they simply ignored those facts. I then
covered evidence tending to show that the Autopsy Report isn't the
original one. I then demonstrated that CE-399 doesn't have any valid
chain of custody. In the last three posts, I showed how one of the
assassins was clearly identified by numerous witnesses as wearing a
white shirt, and was arrested - but wasn't Oswald. In the last two
posts, I've pointed out the evidence for fraudulent alteration of the
medical evidence. The last post showed provable alteration of an
original FBI signed & dated report, as well as the problems with the
alleged "paper bag." I then showed the problems of the BOH photo, and
the scientific evidence for a frontal shot. I posted the famous 16
Smoking Guns - unanswered by any believer.
So what is the scenario - boiled down into a few easily read
paragraphs?
There were multiple attempts on JFK's life in 1963, as I've cited for,
all within a few weeks of each other - and the one in Dallas
succeeded. It was a simple matter of having a security stand-down by
the Secret Service - multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza, and a
cover-up to conceal these facts by a Commission dedicated to a lone
assassin scenario before they took any testimony at all. That this
assassination was done by those connected with government is shown by
the fact that only those in government had the power to do what was
provably done, both before the assassination, and afterward.
This explanation better fits the known evidence, evidence that was
either ignored or lied about by the Warren Commission - AS I HAVE
PROVEN ABOVE - and thus is a better explanation of the facts that put
forth by the Warren Commission.
And although it's certainly possible that Lee Harvey Oswald was a
member of that conspiracy, the evidence far better supports that he
was the designated patsy for the crime... something he himself
realized and stated. That the Warren Commission simply ignored or lied
about any evidence that didn't lead to Oswald shows that the truth
wasn't the goal of the Warren Commission.
It's worth noting that the *LAST* official investigation agrees that a
conspiracy better fits the known evidence than a lone assassin. This
begs the question of why believers seem stuck in 1964 - virtually
NEVER addressing the evidence not known by the Warren Commission.
The overwhelming majority of Americans accept a conspiracy in this
case.
http://22november1963.org.uk/what-do-people-think-about-the-jfk-assassination.html
So will these facts change the minds of our forum's believers? Of
course not. But does this scenario meet, and even EXCEED Puddy's
challenge? Of course it does.
Now, I know that Puddy will whine that there's no mention of JFK's
body being stolen, or some other tidbit that he wants to see. He'll
whine that I didn't account for each bullet fired... he'll whine about
any number of things that he thinks the Warren Commission explained
that I didn't.
But what he **WON'T** do is credibly refute anything I've stated in my
scenario - and unless he can refute A MAJORITY of this information -
the Warren Commission has lost.
For once it's demonstrated that the EVIDENCE ITSELF has been altered
and that the Warren Commission LIED about their evidence - nothing
else needs to be done. My scenario stands until Puddy can *CREDIBLY*
refute it by responding POINT BY POINT, and citation by citation.
Something he'll never do.
Just as he's never offered his own scenario... and never will...
Puddy's a coward who can't answer HIS OWN CHALLENGE, as I've clearly
done here.
And if Puddy DARES to offer something he thinks the Warren Commission
explained better than I - I can QUICKLY demolish it - and Puddy knows
this.
Puddy made this challenge hoping that no-one would actually take the
time to post a reasonable scenario - and he knew that no matter *WHAT*
someone posted, he would be able to criticize it - because he will
NEVER post his example of a scenario that fulfills his challenge.
Puddy already lost when he refused repeatedly to post a scenario that
he *KNEW* beyond all doubt I could match in length, detail, and number
of citations.
PUDDY HAS ALREADY LOST... and I'm simply driving the nail into the
coffin with this 20,000+ word reply to his challenge.
And if Puddy cannot refute, STATEMENT BY STATEMENT - my scenario, then
he's ADMITTING that he lost.
borisba...@gmail.com
Feb 11, 2019, 8:58:08 AM2/11/19
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 11, 2019, 10:44:31 AM2/11/19
to
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 05:58:07 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
Puddy has already admitted that he's not going to answer these... he's
already claimed it doesn't meet his "challenge" - just as I predicted.
Puddy has lost.
wrote:
already claimed it doesn't meet his "challenge" - just as I predicted.
Puddy has lost.
healyd...@gmail.com
Feb 11, 2019, 11:17:54 AM2/11/19
to
Excellent public service.
Ben Holmes
Feb 11, 2019, 11:42:54 AM2/11/19
to
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:17:53 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anyone care to bet whether any notice is taken in the censored forum
of this scenario?
Many of them read this forum - it's frequently mentioned in the
censored forum - my bet is that not a *SINGLE* word refuting anything
I've said will appear in the censored forum.
Any takers?
wrote:
of this scenario?
Many of them read this forum - it's frequently mentioned in the
censored forum - my bet is that not a *SINGLE* word refuting anything
I've said will appear in the censored forum.
Any takers?
borisba...@gmail.com
Feb 11, 2019, 11:50:11 AM2/11/19
to
>
> Anyone care to bet whether any notice is taken in the censored forum
> of this scenario?
>
> Many of them read this forum - it's frequently mentioned in the
> censored forum - my bet is that not a *SINGLE* word refuting anything
> I've said will appear in the censored forum.
>
> Any takers?
It will be "noticed" in the context of being mocked, not refuted.
> Anyone care to bet whether any notice is taken in the censored forum
> of this scenario?
>
> Many of them read this forum - it's frequently mentioned in the
> censored forum - my bet is that not a *SINGLE* word refuting anything
> I've said will appear in the censored forum.
>
> Any takers?
BT George
Feb 11, 2019, 12:05:54 PM2/11/19
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 11, 2019, 12:15:35 PM2/11/19
to
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:50:10 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
Anyone attempting to "mock" what they themselves cannot do - is just
sad, don't you think?
wrote:
sad, don't you think?
borisba...@gmail.com
Feb 11, 2019, 12:33:31 PM2/11/19
to
>
> Anyone attempting to "mock" what they themselves cannot do - is just
> sad, don't you think?
Sure, but it's fine by me. They've segregated themselves, and left us free to swap information and share evidence. I've been enjoying the "deep cuts", like Dr. Jones's testimony and Warren's executive session.
> Anyone attempting to "mock" what they themselves cannot do - is just
> sad, don't you think?
Ben Holmes
Feb 11, 2019, 1:13:58 PM2/11/19
to
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 09:33:30 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
Puddy is now even arguing with Hoover about the evidence...
Without critics, the Warren Commission Believers would have nothing to
talk about... they even have some tame "critics" in the censored
forum.
wrote:
Without critics, the Warren Commission Believers would have nothing to
talk about... they even have some tame "critics" in the censored
forum.
borisba...@gmail.com
Feb 11, 2019, 4:00:34 PM2/11/19
to
Ben Holmes
Feb 11, 2019, 4:27:42 PM2/11/19
to
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:00:33 -0800 (PST), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:
How could they? Puddy refuses to answer them! How can a non-answer be
convincing?
Cowardice has never been even the slightest bit convincing to the
American people.
Puddy got spanked today, and he's whining about it.
wrote:
convincing?
Cowardice has never been even the slightest bit convincing to the
American people.
Puddy got spanked today, and he's whining about it.
healyd...@gmail.com
Feb 11, 2019, 6:47:30 PM2/11/19
to
BT George
Feb 12, 2019, 10:39:33 AM2/12/19
to
0 new messages