Lying or Mistaken?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

“Mistaken” witnesses are much more likely to exist than a boatload of “Lying” witnesses. - David Von Pein

Over two dozen people have claimed their testimony was altered or outright
changed. So the question for LNers is....were those people lying, or mistaken?

Here are a couple of examples...

*******************
DP witness Phil Willis: “I’d tell [the WC] YES and they’d put down NO”

Lying, or mistaken?

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

DP witnesses Wayne and Edna Hartman.

When the shots rang out, they ran through the Plaza and encountered a policeman on the grassy knoll. Edna Hartman later recalled, “He pointed to some bushes near the railroad tracks on the north side of the street and said that’s where the shots came from. Then I noticed these two parallel marks on the ground that looked like mounds made by a mole. I asked,‘What are these, mole hills?” and the policeman said, ‘Oh no, ma’am, that’s where the bullets struck the ground’” (Marrs, Crossfire, 315-16). Photographer Hugh Betzner noticed “police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet.” The Hartmans claimed the bullet markings ran parallel to the GK, but the FBI report stated they claimed the markings lined up with the TSBD. The Hartmans insisted this is not what they claimed.

Lying, or mistaken?

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

DP witness James Simmons

From the FBI Report to WC, on 3/17/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
By Special Agent THOMAS T. TRETTIS JR. and E.J. ROBERTSON Date Dictated
3/17/64:

JAMES L. SIMMONS, 1325 Rosemont Street, Mesquite Texas, was interviewed at
the Union Terminal Company, 500 South Houston Street, Dallas, Texas. SIMMONS
advised that he is a car inspector and on November 22, 1963, he was standing on the Elm Street viaduct with some fellow employees waiting for President JOHN F. KENNEDY’s motorcade to come into view. SIMMONS stated when the President’s car started down Elm Street he heard three shots ring out. President KENNEDY slumped forward in his seat and appeared to have been hit by a bullet. SIMMONS said that he recalled that a motorcycle policeman drove up the grassy slope toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, jumped off his motorcycle and then ran up the hill toward the Memorial Arches. SIMMONS said he thought he saw exhaust fumes of smoke near the embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building. SIMMONS then ran toward the Texas School Book Depository Buildidg [sic] with a policeman. He stopped at a fence near the Memorial Arches and could not find anyone.
SIMMONS *******advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building.****** [asterisks mine]

But....

This is what James Leon Simmons ACTUALLY says.....

SIMMONS - “As the presidential limousine was rounding the curve on Elm Street there was a loud explosion. At the time I didn’t know what it was, but it sounded like a loud firecracker or a gunshot. ******And it sounded like it came from the left and in front of us, towards the wooden fence.****** [asterisks mine]

When asked if he told the FBI what he told the Dallas Police, Simmons answered directly: Yes, I did.

Lying, or mistaken?

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

DP witness Thomas Murphy

From the FBI Report to WC, on 3/17/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
By Special Agent THOMAS T. TRETTIS JR. Date Dictated 3/20/64:

THOMAS J. MURPHY, 8615 San Benito Way, Dallas, Texas, advised he is employed
as a rail foreman, Union Terminal Company, 500 South Houston Street, Dallas.
MURPHY said he was so employed on the morning of November 22, 1963 when he
and some of his co-workers stood on the Elm Street overpass to watch President JOHN F. KENNEDY’s Motorcade drive by. MURPHY said that they watched President KENNEDY’s limousine turn down Elm Street past the Texas School Book Depository building and start towards them. *****He stated he then heard what sounded like two shots***** [asterisks mine] and he saw President KENNEDY and Governor CONNALLY slump in their seats.

But....

This is what Thomas Murphy ACTUALLY says...

LANE - Could you tell me how many shots you heard?
MURPHY - More than three.
LANE - Do you know where these shots came from?
MURPHY - Yeah, they come from a tree to the left [of the overpass].

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

Lying?

Or mistaken?

[lazu...@gmail.com]

They were right. people know what they heard,saw and did. To think the Belin's,Liebeler's etc know better than the witnesses who were there is as ridiculous as any knowledgeable person still believing Oswald acted alone.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> They were right. people know what they heard,saw and did. To think the Belin's,Liebeler's etc know better than the witnesses who were there is as ridiculous as any knowledgeable person still believing Oswald acted alone.

And "Brain Dead Bud" has been polluting the forum all day, yet steers completely clear from this thread like kryptonite. Silence speaks volumes.

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 7:11:21 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > They were right. people know what they heard,saw and did. To think the Belin's,Liebeler's etc know better than the witnesses who were there is as ridiculous as any knowledgeable person still believing Oswald acted alone.
>
> And "Brain Dead Bud" has been polluting the forum all day, yet steers completely clear from this thread like kryptonite. Silence speaks volumes.

<snicker> This guy runs from every response I make but thinks I owe him a response to every post he makes. I don`t get paid to research and correct everything every retard says here. I looked at it, started looking a few things up since it lacked some sources, lacked context, lacked links, but it seemed too much work for too little reward. I`ll make some off the cuff comments on some things I noticed so poor Boris doesn`t feel neglected.

[Bud]

On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 12:16:17 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> “Mistaken” witnesses are much more likely to exist than a boatload of “Lying” witnesses. - David Von Pein
>
> Over two dozen people have claimed their testimony was altered or outright
> changed. So the question for LNers is....were those people lying, or mistaken?
>
> Here are a couple of examples...
>
> *******************
> DP witness Phil Willis: “I’d tell [the WC] YES and they’d put down NO”

Source? Context?

> Lying, or mistaken?
>
> *******************
>
> DP witnesses Wayne and Edna Hartman.
>
> When the shots rang out, they ran through the Plaza and encountered a policeman on the grassy knoll. Edna Hartman later recalled, “He pointed to some bushes near the railroad tracks on the north side of the street and said that’s where the shots came from. Then I noticed these two parallel marks on the ground that looked like mounds made by a mole. I asked,‘What are these, mole hills?” and the policeman said, ‘Oh no, ma’am, that’s where the bullets struck the ground’” (Marrs, Crossfire, 315-16). Photographer Hugh Betzner noticed “police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet.” The Hartmans claimed the bullet markings ran parallel to the GK, but the FBI report stated they claimed the markings lined up with the TSBD.

Bullet furrows that lined up from the TSBD would run parallel to the grassy knoll.

> The Hartmans insisted this is not what they claimed.
>
> Lying, or mistaken?
>
> *******************
>
> DP witness James Simmons
>
> From the FBI Report to WC, on 3/17/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
> By Special Agent THOMAS T. TRETTIS JR. and E.J. ROBERTSON Date Dictated
> 3/17/64:
>
> JAMES L. SIMMONS, 1325 Rosemont Street, Mesquite Texas, was interviewed at
> the Union Terminal Company, 500 South Houston Street, Dallas, Texas. SIMMONS
> advised that he is a car inspector and on November 22, 1963, he was standing on the Elm Street viaduct with some fellow employees waiting for President JOHN F. KENNEDY’s motorcade to come into view. SIMMONS stated when the President’s car started down Elm Street he heard three shots ring out. President KENNEDY slumped forward in his seat and appeared to have been hit by a bullet. SIMMONS said that he recalled that a motorcycle policeman drove up the grassy slope toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, jumped off his motorcycle and then ran up the hill toward the Memorial Arches. SIMMONS said he thought he saw exhaust fumes of smoke near the embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building. SIMMONS then ran toward the Texas School Book Depository Buildidg [sic] with a policeman. He stopped at a fence near the Memorial Arches and could not find anyone.
> SIMMONS *******advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building.****** [asterisks mine]
>
> But....
>
> This is what James Leon Simmons ACTUALLY says.....
>
> SIMMONS - “As the presidential limousine was rounding the curve on Elm Street there was a loud explosion. At the time I didn’t know what it was, but it sounded like a loud firecracker or a gunshot. ******And it sounded like it came from the left and in front of us, towards the wooden fence.****** [asterisks mine]

Source?

> When asked if he told the FBI what he told the Dallas Police, Simmons answered directly: Yes, I did.
>
> Lying, or mistaken?
>
> *******************
>
> DP witness Thomas Murphy
>
> From the FBI Report to WC, on 3/17/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
> By Special Agent THOMAS T. TRETTIS JR. Date Dictated 3/20/64:
>
> THOMAS J. MURPHY, 8615 San Benito Way, Dallas, Texas, advised he is employed
> as a rail foreman, Union Terminal Company, 500 South Houston Street, Dallas.
> MURPHY said he was so employed on the morning of November 22, 1963 when he
> and some of his co-workers stood on the Elm Street overpass to watch President JOHN F. KENNEDY’s Motorcade drive by. MURPHY said that they watched President KENNEDY’s limousine turn down Elm Street past the Texas School Book Depository building and start towards them. *****He stated he then heard what sounded like two shots***** [asterisks mine] and he saw President KENNEDY and Governor CONNALLY slump in their seats.

If the FBI was going to change the number of shots he told them wouldn`t they make it three?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

As usual, "Bud" is rendered helpless but to whine about sources. As if that would make any difference to him! The proof that statements were altered is now undeniable. And all he can counter in response is laconic one-word whimpers. Very pleasing.

>
> If the FBI was going to change the number of shots he told them wouldn`t they make it three?

Not necessarily. An answer of three shots or less is perfectly non-threatening to the official narrative. An answer of "two shots" can be easily written off as he was mistaken, as even the WC acknowledges three shots.

Anything MORE than that threatens the Cause. And Murphy not only establishes more than three shots, he even reckons where they originated...and THAT doesn't help you either.

Lying? Or mistaken?

[Bud]

On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:13:42 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> As usual, "Bud" is rendered helpless but to whine about sources.

Once more a conspiracy retard refuses to support his claims.

And of course likely the reason Boris doesn`t give the source is because he doesn`t know what it is because he lifted these things from somewhere else. They had the look of retard trading cards to me, the kind the tards have collected to whip on rational people and say "what about this, huh, huh?"

> As if that would make any difference to him! The proof that statements were altered is now undeniable. And all he can counter in response is laconic one-word whimpers. Very pleasing.

Which answers the question "What kind of pussy runs from a whimper?" Why, "Boris" does.

> >
> > If the FBI was going to change the number of shots he told them wouldn`t they make it three?
>
> Not necessarily. An answer of three shots or less is perfectly non-threatening to the official narrative. An answer of "two shots" can be easily written off as he was mistaken, as even the WC acknowledges three shots.
>
> Anything MORE than that threatens the Cause.

There are other witnesses who indicated more than 3 shots, what impact did they have on the findings of the WC? How is this outlier information a threat to the bulk of the witnesses who said they heard three?

These retards always assume some information is crushing when it really has no foreseeable impact. Ben does it with Chaney, Don does it with the guys on the 5th floor seeing the stairway, "Boris" does it here with the number of shots. Information that has no discernible impact is portrayed as so devastating that it requires intervention.

> And Murphy not only establishes more than three shots, he even reckons where they originated...and THAT doesn't help you either.

What is Murphy`s reckoning worth?

> Lying? Or mistaken?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 28, 2018 at 11:16:17 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> “Mistaken” witnesses are much more likely to exist than a boatload of “Lying” witnesses. - David Von Pein
>
> Over two dozen people have claimed their testimony was altered or outright
> changed. So the question for LNers is....were those people lying, or mistaken?

False Choice Dilemma Fallacy.

>
> Here are a couple of examples...
>
> *******************
> DP witness Phil Willis: “I’d tell [the WC] YES and they’d put down NO”

To what Yes/No question(s)?
>
> Lying, or mistaken?

Or "Boris on the Case" figuring?

>
> *******************
>
> DP witnesses Wayne and Edna Hartman.
>
> When the shots rang out, they ran through the Plaza and encountered a policeman on the grassy knoll. Edna Hartman later recalled, “He pointed to some bushes near the railroad tracks on the north side of the street and said that’s where the shots came from. Then I noticed these two parallel marks on the ground that looked like mounds made by a mole.

Were they firing cannon balls that furrowed into the earth like something from a Bugs Bunny cartoon? What ammo leaves mounds that look like molehills? And why were your highly trained snipers firing into the dirt?

I asked,‘What are these, mole hills?”

Careful, but apparently Boris is going to expand the Who Killed JFK conspiracy to include CIA trained moles or gophers.

and the policeman said, ‘Oh no, ma’am, that’s where the bullets struck the ground’” (Marrs, Crossfire, 315-16).

So mere seconds after the assassination an unknown policeman had already conducted a forensic examination of the molehills and determined two bullets left tracks in the dirt.

Photographer Hugh Betzner noticed “police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet.”

And someone on 9-11 said the streaking airliner that hit the Pentagon flashed by him "like a missile" and the Truthers latched on to that innocent analogy to build an entire case around a missile striking the Pentagon. Truthers do what Truthers do.

The Hartmans claimed the bullet markings ran parallel to the GK, but the FBI report stated they claimed the markings lined up with the TSBD. The Hartmans insisted this is not what they claimed.

So the FBI actually put this in the report. If this was so damning, why put it in there at all? You're up to at least six bullets: three from the TSBD, two "parallel" molehill tracks in the dirt fired by a sniper with extremely poor aim, and one from the grassy knoll that nearly EVERY CT believes struck JFK at Z 313. Ben tacks on even more bullets, fired from some super-secret location OPPOSITE the grassy knoll.
>
> Lying, or mistaken?

Or False Choice Fallacy?

>
> *******************
>
> DP witness James Simmons
>
> From the FBI Report to WC, on 3/17/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
> By Special Agent THOMAS T. TRETTIS JR. and E.J. ROBERTSON Date Dictated
> 3/17/64:
>
> JAMES L. SIMMONS, 1325 Rosemont Street, Mesquite Texas, was interviewed at
> the Union Terminal Company, 500 South Houston Street, Dallas, Texas. SIMMONS
> advised that he is a car inspector and on November 22, 1963, he was standing on the Elm Street viaduct with some fellow employees waiting for President JOHN F. KENNEDY’s motorcade to come into view. SIMMONS stated when the President’s car started down Elm Street he heard three shots ring out.

Boris the Truther, by the examples he's posting, has at least six shots. Did Simmons have really, really poor hearing?

President KENNEDY slumped forward in his seat and appeared to have been hit by a bullet. SIMMONS said that he recalled that a motorcycle policeman drove up the grassy slope toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, jumped off his motorcycle and then ran up the hill toward the Memorial Arches. SIMMONS said he thought he saw exhaust fumes of smoke near the embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building. SIMMONS then ran toward the Texas School Book Depository Buildidg [sic] with a policeman. He stopped at a fence near the Memorial Arches and could not find anyone.
> SIMMONS *******advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building.****** [asterisks mine]
>
> But....
>
> This is what James Leon Simmons ACTUALLY says.....
>
> SIMMONS - “As the presidential limousine was rounding the curve on Elm Street there was a loud explosion. At the time I didn’t know what it was, but it sounded like a loud firecracker or a gunshot. ******And it sounded like it came from the left and in front of us, towards the wooden fence.****** [asterisks mine]
>
> When asked if he told the FBI what he told the Dallas Police, Simmons answered directly: Yes, I did.
>
> Lying, or mistaken?

False Choice Fallacy. Did he say the FBI lied about the number of shots he thought were fired?

>
> *******************
>
> DP witness Thomas Murphy
>
> From the FBI Report to WC, on 3/17/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
> By Special Agent THOMAS T. TRETTIS JR. Date Dictated 3/20/64:
>
> THOMAS J. MURPHY, 8615 San Benito Way, Dallas, Texas, advised he is employed
> as a rail foreman, Union Terminal Company, 500 South Houston Street, Dallas.
> MURPHY said he was so employed on the morning of November 22, 1963 when he
> and some of his co-workers stood on the Elm Street overpass to watch President JOHN F. KENNEDY’s Motorcade drive by. MURPHY said that they watched President KENNEDY’s limousine turn down Elm Street past the Texas School Book Depository building and start towards them. *****He stated he then heard what sounded like two shots***** [asterisks mine] and he saw President KENNEDY and Governor CONNALLY slump in their seats.
>
> But....
>
> This is what Thomas Murphy ACTUALLY says...
>
> LANE - Could you tell me how many shots you heard?
> MURPHY - More than three.
> LANE - Do you know where these shots came from?
> MURPHY - Yeah, they come from a tree to the left [of the overpass].
>
> *******************
>
> Lying?
>
> Or mistaken?

False Choice Fallacy.

Since this interview was apparently conducted by Mark Lane, who knows? And yes, some witnesses heard more than three shots, and some reported only two. Most, however, heard three shots, which squares up with the three spent shells found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, where Oswald's rifle was fired that those shells are a match to, where witnesses saw a man firing or a gun barrel protruding, and where earwitnesses one floor below reported shots being fired from.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 May 2018 07:26:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> Ben tacks on even more bullets, fired from some super-secret
> location OPPOSITE the grassy knoll.

Not "secret" at all. I've provided a photo of it.

Why are you lying, Chucky?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:58:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:13:42 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> As usual, "Bud" is rendered helpless but to whine about sources.
>
> Once more a conspiracy retard refuses to support his claims.
>
> And of course likely the reason Boris doesn`t give the source is
> because he doesn`t know what it is because he lifted these things from
> somewhere else.

And... as usual, dufus ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly deny that these
are facts.

He knows he'll get slapped with the citations every single time.

What a COWARD stump is!

He doesn't have the strength of his own convictions...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2018 16:51:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Sunday, April 29, 2018 at 7:11:21 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > They were right. people know what they heard,saw and did. To think the Belin's,Liebeler's etc know better than the witnesses who were there is as ridiculous as any knowledgeable person still believing Oswald acted alone.
>>
>> And "Brain Dead Bud" has been polluting the forum all day, yet steers completely clear from this thread like kryptonite. Silence speaks volumes.
>
> <snicker> This guy runs from every response I make but thinks I

> owe him a response to every post he makes. I too retarded to correct
> everything someone says here. I looked at it, started looking a few

> things up since it lacked some sources, lacked context, lacked links,
> but it seemed too much work for too little reward. I`ll make some off
> the cuff comments on some things I noticed so poor Boris doesn`t feel
> neglected.

Dufus can *always* be forced to react... he's a moron that way...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

So the question for LNers is....were those people lying, or mistaken?
>
> False Choice Dilemma Fallacy.

Hilarious! According to every LN troll I’ve talked to, ALL the witnesses they’ve seen cause to refute were either lying kooks or mistaken at one point or another. Is there a third option I don’t know about?

> > DP witness Phil Willis: “I’d tell [the WC] YES and they’d put down NO”
>
> To what Yes/No question(s)?

If the question was “does one plus one equal three” and he said YES and they Put NO, that is still obstruction and could not or would not be done in any honest criminal investigation. But you’re not concerned with witness’s answers being subtly swapped to reflect the LITERAL OPPOSITE of what they said.

> Were they firing cannon balls that furrowed into the earth like something from a Bugs Bunny cartoon? What ammo leaves mounds that look like molehills? And why were your highly trained snipers firing into the dirt?

Are you saying James Tague was not hit? Why were highly trained snipers aiming at a nearby curb?

> So mere seconds after the assassination an unknown policeman had already conducted a forensic examination of the molehills and determined two bullets left tracks in the dirt.

Ask the investigators, they saw fit to search for one. And remove a piece of the curb for some reason you likely can’t explain.

> Photographer Hugh Betzner noticed “police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet.”
>
> And someone on 9-11 said the streaking airliner that hit the Pentagon flashed by him "like a missile" and the Truthers latched on to that innocent analogy to build an entire case around a missile striking the Pentagon. Truthers do what Truthers do.

You must be confusing me with Major General Albert Stubblebine. That’s what he believed. He was the United States Intelligence and Security commanding general.

> > This is what James Leon Simmons ACTUALLY says.....
> >
> > SIMMONS - “As the presidential limousine was rounding the curve on Elm Street there was a loud explosion. At the time I didn’t know what it was, but it sounded like a loud firecracker or a gunshot. ******And it sounded like it came from the left and in front of us, towards the wooden fence.****** [asterisks mine]
> >
> > When asked if he told the FBI what he told the Dallas Police, Simmons answered directly: Yes, I did.
> >
> > Lying, or mistaken?
>
> False Choice Fallacy. Did he say the FBI lied about the number of shots he thought were fired?

It's not about what he heard, troll. It's about WHERE he said the shots came from...even if they didn’t come from there. But I can see you are trying to deflect by questioning the number of shots he heard, when you KNOW the key piece of his statement which was changed is WHERE he heard the shots being fired. And as usual, you can’t explain why ANY official statement would be altered, let alone an important detail such as shot location.

> > LANE - Could you tell me how many shots you heard?
> > MURPHY - More than three.
> > LANE - Do you know where these shots came from?
> > MURPHY - Yeah, they come from a tree to the left [of the overpass].
> >
> > *******************
> >
> > Lying?
> >
> > Or mistaken?
>
> False Choice Fallacy.
>
> Since this interview was apparently conducted by Mark Lane, who knows?

Calling Mark Lane a liar without substance isn't going to fare well for you. I know Ben will take you to task on that one. So get the epithets ready, and RUN from that evidence.

> And yes, some witnesses heard more than three shots, and some reported only two. Most, however, heard three shots, which squares up with the three spent shells found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, where Oswald's rifle was fired that those shells are a match to, where witnesses saw a man firing or a gun barrel protruding, and where earwitnesses one floor below reported shots being fired from.

Ha! You don't BELIEVE earwitnesses, troll. You'd be in a world of shit if you did.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 May 2018 08:34:28 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>So the question for LNers is....were those people lying, or mistaken?
>>
>> False Choice Dilemma Fallacy.
>
> Hilarious! According to every LN troll I’ve talked to, ALL the
> witnesses they’ve seen cause to refute were either lying kooks or
> mistaken at one point or another. Is there a third option I don’t know
> about?

If it *were* a "false choice dilemma fallacy" - the morons would be
able to supply another possibility.

They can't.

This *PROVES* them liars.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:08:51 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:58:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 1:13:42 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> As usual, "Bud" is rendered helpless but to whine about sources.
> >
> > Once more a conspiracy retard refuses to support his claims.
> >
> > And of course likely the reason Boris doesn`t give the source is
> > because he doesn`t know what it is because he lifted these things from
> > somewhere else.
>
> And... as usual, dufus ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to publicly deny that these
> are facts.

Conspiracy retards refuse to establish them as such, lurkers.

> He knows he'll get slapped with the citations every single time.

Yet I asked "Source?" and not one of these idiots has provided the source. They make the empty claim that they can support their words but never do.

> What a COWARD stump is!

Boris posted this crap, lurkers. He demanded my take on it and I gave it. I pointed out where it was weak and where it needed supporting. I`m only trying to help them come up with better bullshit stories in the future.

> He doesn't have the strength of his own convictions...

These idiots shoot more blanks than a Civil War reenactment, lurkers.

[Bud]

They beg for a spanking but hate the paddling, lurkers, they are retarded that way.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> They beg for a spanking but hate the paddling, lurkers, they are retarded that way.

And that's the sound of someone with absolutely ZERO comeback. Especially once you consider there isn't a scholar alive who would say anything so stupid. Even Posner has dignity. He's a known liar and a plagiarist...but at least he's no "Bud"

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 4:55:27 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > They beg for a spanking but hate the paddling, lurkers, they are retarded that way.
>
> And that's the sound of someone with absolutely ZERO comeback.

How do you explain the fact that you and Ben have been asking for my responses and you both run from the points I make when I respond to you?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> How do you explain the fact that you and Ben have been asking for my responses and you both run from the points I make when I respond to you?

How do you explain the fact that you are unable to cite a single one of these so-called responses to prove they actually exist? It's because they don't. This is just more of your bluff and bluster. Your dialogue with Don is the ONLY place where you make any civil counter-arguments. And although you're getting spanked proper there too, I will absolutely give you credit for that. Good dog.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:44:50 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>>
>> How do you explain the fact that you and Ben have been asking
>> for my responses and you both run from the points I make when I
>> respond to you?
>
> How do you explain the fact that you are unable to cite a single one
> of these so-called responses to prove they actually exist?

Anthony Marsh was the believer who first made this tactic famous...
the "I've done it before somewhere ..." tactic.

Everytime these morons claim I've not posted a scenario, I simply
*REPOST* it.

But dufus can't do this... he's simply lying.

> It's because they don't. This is just more of your bluff and bluster. Your
> dialogue with Don is the ONLY place where you make any civil
> counter-arguments. And although you're getting spanked proper there
> too, I will absolutely give you credit for that. Good dog.

Don is too polite to point out where dufus is flat lying.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 10:14:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:44:50 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> How do you explain the fact that you and Ben have been asking
> >> for my responses and you both run from the points I make when I
> >> respond to you?
> >
> > How do you explain the fact that you are unable to cite a single one
> > of these so-called responses to prove they actually exist?
>
> Anthony Marsh was the believer who first made this tactic famous...
> the "I've done it before somewhere ..." tactic.
>
> Everytime these morons claim I've not posted a scenario, I simply
> *REPOST* it.

You've been asked to post your scenario that supplants the null hypothesis that is historically accepted. You haven't done that. All you morons post are your "scenarios" which matters not a hill of beans. Here's yours: Elements of the Mob, CIA, FBI, etc. planted snipers in Dealey Plaza and shot him from multiple angles and later snatched his bloody corpse through a super-secret commando-style action and performed a secret autopsy to remove bullets and put together a secret team of film experts to alter the Zapruder film and hide the conspiracy. Another team over the years has intimidated witnesses, altered testimony, conspired with friendly agents within the media to cover-up the Crime of the Century that altered AmeriKKKa forever and launched the Vietnam War, etc.

Your pal Boris the Truther, of course, thinks something different occurred.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 2 May 2018 10:24:59 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 2, 2018 at 10:14:18 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 17:44:50 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> How do you explain the fact that you and Ben have been asking
>> >> for my responses and you both run from the points I make when I
>> >> respond to you?
>> >
>> > How do you explain the fact that you are unable to cite a single one
>> > of these so-called responses to prove they actually exist?
>>
>> Anthony Marsh was the believer who first made this tactic famous...
>> the "I've done it before somewhere ..." tactic.
>>
>> Everytime these morons claim I've not posted a scenario, I simply
>> *REPOST* it.
>
>You've been asked to post your scenario

Been there, done that, you snipped it and RAN AWAY.

You can't deny this fact, because you **KNOW** I'll merely cite the
post where you did this.

> that supplants the null hypothesis

What's the p-value of your "null hypothesis?"

You keep using words you don't understand... and think that somehow
that makes you sound intelligent.


> that is historically accepted.

By who?

You keep making these meaningless claims that you can't cite for.

I'll just label you a cowardly liar, and move on...

> You haven't done that.

And you're a despicable liar.

What was it that you snipped and refused to answer?

> All you morons post are your "scenarios" which matters not a hill of beans.

You just *DENIED* that I'd posted one.

How stupid are you, Chucky?

> Here's yours: Elements of the Mob, CIA, FBI, etc. planted snipers
> in Dealey Plaza and shot him from multiple angles and later snatched
> his bloody corpse through a super-secret commando-style action and
> performed a secret autopsy to remove bullets and put together a secret
> team of film experts to alter the Zapruder film and hide the
> conspiracy. Another team over the years has intimidated witnesses,
> altered testimony, conspired with friendly agents within the media to
> cover-up the Crime of the Century that altered AmeriKKKa forever and
> launched the Vietnam War, etc.

Does your boyfriend know that you've been emailing details of your
child molestation to total strangers?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 8:44:51 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > How do you explain the fact that you and Ben have been asking for my responses and you both run from the points I make when I respond to you?
>
> How do you explain the fact that you are unable to cite a single one of these so-called responses to prove they actually exist?

For you kids out there, this is why you never tell lies. Because you are forced to tell one lie after another to cover your last lie.

>It's because they don't.

Who am I to prove anything to a retard?

Make it worth my while, "Boris" if I can show that I`ve made points that you have run from you won`t post here any more.

> This is just more of your bluff and bluster.

Call my bluff then. You haven`t even been here that long and I could easily produce a dozen points that I`ve made that you have run from. Ben has been here longer, so the points I`ve made that that intellectual cowards has run from numbers in the hundreds. I have him so afraid of the things I write that he actually removes them.

> Your dialogue with Don is the ONLY place where you make any civil counter-arguments.

<snicker> You haven`t been reading that very closely.

>And although you're getting spanked proper there too, I will absolutely give you credit for that. Good dog.

I don`t usually bother to play the crooked games you retards so enjoy, my goal is to take away as much of the enjoyment you derive from this retarded hobby as I can.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Make it worth my while, "Boris" if I can show that I`ve made points that you have run from you won`t post here any more.
>
> > This is just more of your bluff and bluster.
>
> Call my bluff then. You haven`t even been here that long and I could easily produce a dozen points that I`ve made that you have run from.

I call your bluff, asshole. Now show all the lurkers the "points you've made" that no one can respond to. Better yet, when you show them, PROVIDE THE LINKS where you got them from. That way we'll see the entire thread in context, including all your inadequate or oftentimes nonexistent responses. I'm sure that's not your intended consequence. But that's why it's ironic.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:57:47 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Make it worth my while, "Boris" if I can show that I`ve made points that you have run from you won`t post here any more.
> >
> > > This is just more of your bluff and bluster.
> >
> > Call my bluff then. You haven`t even been here that long and I could easily produce a dozen points that I`ve made that you have run from.
>
> I call your bluff, asshole. Now show all the lurkers the "points you've made" that no one can respond to.

Look at those goalposts move! The challenge was not whether anyone could respond to the points I made, it was whether I could produce points I made in responses to you that you ran from.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:10:27 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:57:47 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Make it worth my while, "Boris" if I can show that I`ve made points that you have run from you won`t post here any more.
> > >
> > > > This is just more of your bluff and bluster.
> > >
> > > Call my bluff then. You haven`t even been here that long and I could easily produce a dozen points that I`ve made that you have run from.
> >
> > I call your bluff, asshole. Now show all the lurkers the "points you've made" that no one can respond to.
>
> Look at those goalposts move! The challenge was not whether anyone could respond to the points I made, it was whether I could produce points I made in responses to you that you ran from.

Bluff called. "Dud" shows the 7-2 off-suit. Boris takes the pot.

Thanks for playing, useless LN dipshit.

[Jason Burke]

Are you fucks HONESTLY this stupid?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

A troll starts sobbing hysterically:

>
> Are you fucks HONESTLY this stupid?

Your friend needs help, Gayson. Aren't you going to do anything about it?

heh heh heh

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:16:12 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 6:10:27 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 5:57:47 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Make it worth my while, "Boris" if I can show that I`ve made points that you have run from you won`t post here any more.
> > > >
> > > > > This is just more of your bluff and bluster.
> > > >
> > > > Call my bluff then. You haven`t even been here that long and I could easily produce a dozen points that I`ve made that you have run from.
> > >
> > > I call your bluff, asshole. Now show all the lurkers the "points you've made" that no one can respond to.
> >
> > Look at those goalposts move! The challenge was not whether anyone could respond to the points I made, it was whether I could produce points I made in responses to you that you ran from.
>
> Bluff called.

Afraid to take the actual challenge, eh "Boris"?

[Bud]

Hard to tell, they aren`t honest. Some combination of stupidity and dishonesty.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Did the best part of you run down your father's leg. I AM TAKING THE CHALLENGE. Now go, PRODUCE YOUR POSTS!!!!

And provide links.

Prediction is you'll do neither.

[Bud]

No, you misrepresented the challenge. Are you willing to stipulate that if I produce posts where I made points that you ran from you will stop posting in this forum?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> No, you misrepresented the challenge.

You're an utter coward. And now everyone can see it. You have no balls. None.

>
> Are you willing to stipulate that if I produce posts where I made points that you ran from you will stop posting in this forum?

Speaking of moving the goalposts, I never agreed to stop posting. And if I ever did stop posting, it wouldn't be because of some asshole like you. But I bet you'd like me to go away, wouldn't you? You need the truth silenced, just like your WC idols. Whereas I would *never* demand you leave...your display of ignorance only strengthens my position. I *looove* when you're here. And if I was as big a retard as you always say, you'd love me being here too, because it would only make you look better.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:14:23 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

That's an easy prediction to make. And **VERY** likely to be accurate.

I've challenged dufus to produce these points he's claimed he's made
that I've "run" from... but he never does.

He's a provable coward.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> That's an easy prediction to make. And **VERY** likely to be accurate.
>
> I've challenged dufus to produce these points he's claimed he's made
> that I've "run" from... but he never does.
>
> He's a provable coward.

As Jack Reacher would say, a buck gets ten the troll will *still* look back on this thread as yet another of his victories. He's THAT delusional.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:29:11 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>
>>

I don't think dufus realizes that people are laughing at him. (Chucky
too, come to think of it.)

Most believers hang out in the censored forum, where they can't be
called on their obvious lies and stupidities.

I've stated time and time again that there's **NOTHING** of an
evidential nature in this case that I can't answer or explain... in a
*REASONABLE* and credible manner.

But the opposite simply isn't true.

Believers run from the *SIMPLEST* of questions about the evidence in
this case. The truth is simply alien to them.

For example, what time did the casket enter Bethesda?

It's a simple question, and there are easy answers... but they CANNOT
BE EXPLAINED by those who believe in the simplistic Warren Commission
coverup - so they simply put their heads in the sand and ignore the
question each time it comes up.

Another one... what Z-frame did the SBT happen in?

Can't get a *SINGLE* believer to step up to the plate and state this
most obvious of facts.

That's because that Z-frame depends on which believer you're talking
to... and it's HERESY to admit that believers don't accept one
monolithic theory of the case.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:14:23 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > No, you misrepresented the challenge.
>
> You're an utter coward. And now everyone can see it. You have no balls. None.
>
> >
> > Are you willing to stipulate that if I produce posts where I made points that you ran from you will stop posting in this forum?
>
> Speaking of moving the goalposts, I never agreed to stop posting.

You realize your responses are saved, right?

You: How do you explain the fact that you are unable to cite a single one of these so-called responses to prove they actually exist?

Me: For you kids out there, this is why you never tell lies. Because you are forced to tell one lie after another to cover your last lie.

You: It's because they don't.

Me: Who am I to prove anything to a retard?

Make it worth my while, "Boris" if I can show that I`ve made points that you have run from you won`t post here any more.

You: This is just more of your bluff and bluster.

Me: Call my bluff then. You haven`t even been here that long and I could easily produce a dozen points that I`ve made that you have run from. Ben has been here longer, so the points I`ve made that that intellectual cowards has run from numbers in the hundreds. I have him so afraid of the things I write that he actually removes them.

You: I call your bluff, asshole

Now, what did I stipulate as the challenge, stupid? Here, let me isolate it for you, that how you idiots like your information...

"Make it worth my while, "Boris" if I can show that I`ve made points that you have run from you won`t post here any more."

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:14:23 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > No, you misrepresented the challenge.
>>
>> You're an utter coward. And now everyone can see it. You have no balls. None.
>>
>> >
>> > Are you willing to stipulate that if I produce posts where I made points that you ran from you will stop posting in this forum?
>>
>> Speaking of moving the goalposts, I never agreed to stop posting.

...
> Now, what did I stipulate as the challenge...

Stump admits that *HE* was the one who brought up the "stop posting"
bit...

End of story.

dufus will never back up his words...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Good dog, now we see how DESPERATE YOU ARE to be rid of me. Twice. And still you can't produce a single point you've made, after I called your bluff. Twice. You've got nothing. I once debated a JFK disinformationalist named Henry. I saved EIGHT PAGES worth of points I made which he refused to address. I saved them in the off chance he started swinging his tiny dick around, like you're doing now, so that I could produce those points IMMEDIATELY.

Funny thing about Henry though....he never came back.

[Bud]

Where did I deny it, lurkers? Where would these idiots be without strawmen to fight? I made the challenge. "Boris" responded "I AM TAKING THE CHALLENGE." But just because a retard puts it all in caps doesn`t mean they aren`t lying.

> End of story.
>
> dufus will never back up his words...

I posted the exchanges, lurkers. I can`t make them understand them.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Stump admits that *HE* was the one who brought up the "stop posting"
> bit...
>
> End of story.
>
> dufus will never back up his words...

And in case the coward attempts that "moving the goalpost" shit again, I should state right now that I won't respond to any example he cites unless he provides a link to the thread, proving that his "points" went ignored by critics.

Wanna bet the troll thinks one of his "valid points" is "these retards need to be spanked with a paddle"?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:58:46 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

Yep... good ole Henry Sienzant, aka another name or two... (believers
often post under multiple names)

Ironically, it was Henry that proved Potts viewpoint, that believers
still lie about. I don't think Henry ever forgave himself.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:58:47 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:47:26 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 7:14:23 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No, you misrepresented the challenge.
> > >
> > > You're an utter coward. And now everyone can see it. You have no balls. None.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you willing to stipulate that if I produce posts where I made points that you ran from you will stop posting in this forum?
> > >
> > > Speaking of moving the goalposts, I never agreed to stop posting.
> >
> > You realize your responses are saved, right?
> >
> > You: How do you explain the fact that you are unable to cite a single one of these so-called responses to prove they actually exist?
> >
> > Me: For you kids out there, this is why you never tell lies. Because you are forced to tell one lie after another to cover your last lie.
> >
> > You: It's because they don't.
> >
> > Me: Who am I to prove anything to a retard?
> >
> > Make it worth my while, "Boris" if I can show that I`ve made points that you have run from you won`t post here any more.
> >
> > You: This is just more of your bluff and bluster.
> >
> > Me: Call my bluff then. You haven`t even been here that long and I could easily produce a dozen points that I`ve made that you have run from. Ben has been here longer, so the points I`ve made that that intellectual cowards has run from numbers in the hundreds. I have him so afraid of the things I write that he actually removes them.
> >
> > You: I call your bluff, asshole
> >
> > Now, what did I stipulate as the challenge, stupid? Here, let me isolate it for you, that how you idiots like your information...
> >
> > "Make it worth my while, "Boris" if I can show that I`ve made points that you have run from you won`t post here any more."
> >
> > > And if I ever did stop posting, it wouldn't be because of some asshole like you. But I bet you'd like me to go away, wouldn't you? You need the truth silenced, just like your WC idols. Whereas I would *never* demand you leave...your display of ignorance only strengthens my position. I *looove* when you're here. And if I was as big a retard as you always say, you'd love me being here too, because it would only make you look better.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Now go, PRODUCE YOUR POSTS!!!! And provide links.
> > >
> > > Prediction is you'll do neither.
>
> Good dog, now we see how DESPERATE YOU ARE to be rid of me. Twice. And still you can't produce a single point you've made, after I called your bluff.

I`ve stipulated the challenge. Nothing to do now but watch you dance.

> Twice. You've got nothing. I once debated a JFK disinformationalist named Henry. I saved EIGHT PAGES worth of points I made which he refused to address. I saved them in the off chance he started swinging his tiny dick around, like you're doing now,

You seem pretty preoccupied with other men`s dicks.

> so that I could produce those points IMMEDIATELY.
>
> Funny thing about Henry though....he never came back.

This is the House of Bud. I`ve seen you kind come and go, they never last.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Yep... good ole Henry Sienzant, aka another name or two... (believers
> often post under multiple names)
>
> Ironically, it was Henry that proved Potts viewpoint, that believers
> still lie about. I don't think Henry ever forgave himself.

LOL, wait, what happened with Henry and Potts? I must have missed that. Sounds juicy. We can talk about it while we wait for Bud the Asshole to post one of his many "points" that we've been running from.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 17:04:05 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Ironically, it's *EASY* to produce points and posts that believers
simply ran from.

dufus refuses to answer **MANY** evidential questions... such as where
the larger bullet fragments in the "trail" seen in JFK's X-ray are
at... he **KNOWS** that they're in the rear of JFK's head, but
absolutely REFUSES to publicly state that fact.

Because he *KNOWS* that science demonstrates that trail to be from a
bullet traveling from front to rear. (Heavier particles have more
total energy, and will travel *further*)

stump's a provable coward. (as are *ALL* believers!)

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 17:10:34 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Ah! Correction... Potter.

Here's Henry's cite:
http://simfootball.net/JFK/NPotter.jpg

The frequent claim from believers is that since Potter described smoke
"in front of the TSBD" - that he wasn't corroborative with others who
described smoke from the Grassy Knoll.

But, as even a moron can see, you *CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE* the TSBD from
the Grassy Knoll from Potter's viewpoint.

Here was the most recent spanking that believers got on this issue:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/xIiMn9zUJ8w/p42Osk1hAQAJ

Henry ran when this was pointed out too.

Yet *HE* provided the cite that proved him wrong!!!

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > Good dog, now we see how DESPERATE YOU ARE to be rid of me. Twice. And still you can't produce a single point you've made, after I called your bluff.
>
> I`ve stipulated the challenge. Nothing to do now but watch you dance.

Yeah, I'm doing a dance called the sleepwalk while I wait for you to produce ANYTHING that supports your "bluff and bluster."

I am now calling your bluff for a third time. This is a direct challenge.

>
> You seem pretty preoccupied with other men`s dicks.

I'm more preoccupied with large occipital-parietal traumas.

> > so that I could produce those points IMMEDIATELY.
> >
> > Funny thing about Henry though....he never came back.
>
> This is the House of Bud. I`ve seen you kind come and go, they never last.

The House of Bud? Jesus, what a fucking nerd.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

On the topic of Nolan Potter, here's another thread Henry started but couldn't finish...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/TXHnttBV-XM

It's strange for Henry to argue this at all, because if I recall correctly when a CTer pointed out smoke was sighted behind the GK fence, it was Henry himself who whined that rifles don't produce smoke. Or maybe it was macadams who whined it. I forget who...all LNers are the same to me.

[Mark Ulrik]

fredag den 4. maj 2018 kl. 01.36.43 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:29:11 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> That's an easy prediction to make. And **VERY** likely to be accurate.
> >>
> >> I've challenged dufus to produce these points he's claimed he's made
> >> that I've "run" from... but he never does.
> >>
> >> He's a provable coward.
> >
> > As Jack Reacher would say, a buck gets ten the troll will *still*
> > look back on this thread as yet another of his victories. He's THAT
> > delusional.
>
> I don't think dufus realizes that people are laughing at him. (Chucky
> too, come to think of it.)
>
> Most believers hang out in the censored forum, where they can't be
> called on their obvious lies and stupidities.
>
> I've stated time and time again that there's **NOTHING** of an
> evidential nature in this case that I can't answer or explain... in a
> *REASONABLE* and credible manner.

Explain your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 4 May 2018 04:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

>fredag den 4. maj 2018 kl. 01.36.43 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:29:11 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> That's an easy prediction to make. And **VERY** likely to be accurate.
>> >>
>> >> I've challenged dufus to produce these points he's claimed he's made
>> >> that I've "run" from... but he never does.
>> >>
>> >> He's a provable coward.
>> >
>> > As Jack Reacher would say, a buck gets ten the troll will *still*
>> > look back on this thread as yet another of his victories. He's THAT
>> > delusional.
>>
>> I don't think dufus realizes that people are laughing at him. (Chucky
>> too, come to think of it.)
>>
>> Most believers hang out in the censored forum, where they can't be
>> called on their obvious lies and stupidities.
>>
>> I've stated time and time again that there's **NOTHING** of an
>> evidential nature in this case that I can't answer or explain... in a
>> *REASONABLE* and credible manner.
>
>Explain your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.

Been there, done that, you ran.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 3 May 2018 17:32:34 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> >> Yep... good ole Henry Sienzant, aka another name or two... (believers
>> >> often post under multiple names)
>> >>
>> >> Ironically, it was Henry that proved Potts viewpoint, that believers
>> >> still lie about. I don't think Henry ever forgave himself.
>> >
>> > LOL, wait, what happened with Henry and Potts? I must have missed
>> > that. Sounds juicy. We can talk about it while we wait for Bud the
>> > Asshole to post one of his many "points" that we've been running from.
>>
>> Ah! Correction... Potter.
>>
>> Here's Henry's cite:
>> http://simfootball.net/JFK/NPotter.jpg
>>
>> The frequent claim from believers is that since Potter described smoke
>> "in front of the TSBD" - that he wasn't corroborative with others who
>> described smoke from the Grassy Knoll.
>>
>> But, as even a moron can see, you *CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE* the TSBD from
>> the Grassy Knoll from Potter's viewpoint.
>>
>> Here was the most recent spanking that believers got on this issue:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/xIiMn9zUJ8w/p42Osk1hAQAJ
>>
>> Henry ran when this was pointed out too.
>>
>> Yet *HE* provided the cite that proved him wrong!!!
>
>
> On the topic of Nolan Potter, here's another thread Henry started
> but couldn't finish...
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/TXHnttBV-XM

It's true that believers often simply run away... they ABSOLUTELY
REFUSE to acknowledge facts in this case that don't support their
faith.

> It's strange for Henry to argue this at all, because if I recall
> correctly when a CTer pointed out smoke was sighted behind the GK
> fence, it was Henry himself who whined that rifles don't produce
> smoke. Or maybe it was macadams who whined it. I forget who...all
> LNers are the same to me.

I seem to recall dufus making the same argument recently.

[Mark Ulrik]

fredag den 4. maj 2018 kl. 16.53.40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> On Fri, 4 May 2018 04:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >fredag den 4. maj 2018 kl. 01.36.43 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> >> On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:29:11 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That's an easy prediction to make. And **VERY** likely to be accurate.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've challenged dufus to produce these points he's claimed he's made
> >> >> that I've "run" from... but he never does.
> >> >>
> >> >> He's a provable coward.
> >> >
> >> > As Jack Reacher would say, a buck gets ten the troll will *still*
> >> > look back on this thread as yet another of his victories. He's THAT
> >> > delusional.
> >>
> >> I don't think dufus realizes that people are laughing at him. (Chucky
> >> too, come to think of it.)
> >>
> >> Most believers hang out in the censored forum, where they can't be
> >> called on their obvious lies and stupidities.
> >>
> >> I've stated time and time again that there's **NOTHING** of an
> >> evidential nature in this case that I can't answer or explain... in a
> >> *REASONABLE* and credible manner.
> >
> >Explain your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.
>
> Been there, done that, you ran.

Your fondness for little girls is even more inappropriate and disturbing than I previously thought. What a monster you are.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:53:40 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> >Explain your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.
>
>
> Been there, done that, you ran.

Since Ben is sooo big on re-posting his responses to questions he says others have run from, perhaps Tony Marsh, er, Ben will honor us with the post(s) that explain his Lady in Yellow Pants theory.

On second thought, nah. Tony Marsh, er, Ben, will simply CLAIM he's posted a theory explaining the Lady in Yellow Pants.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 4 May 2018 08:49:47 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>

wrote:

>fredag den 4. maj 2018 kl. 16.53.40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2018 04:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >fredag den 4. maj 2018 kl. 01.36.43 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> >> On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:29:11 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's an easy prediction to make. And **VERY** likely to be accurate.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've challenged dufus to produce these points he's claimed he's made
>> >> >> that I've "run" from... but he never does.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He's a provable coward.
>> >> >
>> >> > As Jack Reacher would say, a buck gets ten the troll will *still*
>> >> > look back on this thread as yet another of his victories. He's THAT
>> >> > delusional.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think dufus realizes that people are laughing at him. (Chucky
>> >> too, come to think of it.)
>> >>
>> >> Most believers hang out in the censored forum, where they can't be
>> >> called on their obvious lies and stupidities.
>> >>
>> >> I've stated time and time again that there's **NOTHING** of an
>> >> evidential nature in this case that I can't answer or explain... in a
>> >> *REASONABLE* and credible manner.
>> >
>> >Explain your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.
>>
>> Been there, done that, you ran.
>

> My fondness for little girls is even more inappropriate and
> disturbing than I previously thought. What a monster I are.


Sick.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 4 May 2018 09:11:43 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:53:40 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> >Explain your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.
>>
>>
>> Been there, done that, you ran.
>
> Since Ben is sooo big on re-posting his responses to questions he
> says others have run from, perhaps Tony Marsh, er, Ben will honor us
> with the post(s) that explain his Lady in Yellow Pants theory.

You'd only snip it and run away... then claim you haven't snipped it.

WHAT A COWARD YOU ARE, CHUCKY!!!


> On second thought, nah. Tony Marsh, will simply CLAIM he's

> posted a theory explaining the Lady in Yellow Pants.

Believers are like that... liars all.

[Bud]

I told you under what conditions I would, stupid.

[Bud]

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:10:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 3 May 2018 17:04:05 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> Stump admits that *HE* was the one who brought up the "stop posting"
> >> bit...
> >>
> >> End of story.
> >>
> >> dufus will never back up his words...
> >
> > And in case the coward attempts that "moving the goalpost" shit
> > again, I should state right now that I won't respond to any example he
> > cites unless he provides a link to the thread, proving that his
> > "points" went ignored by critics.
> >
> > Wanna bet the troll thinks one of his "valid points" is "these
> > retards need to be spanked with a paddle"?
>
>
> Ironically, it's *EASY* to produce points and posts that believers
> simply ran from.
>
> dufus refuses to answer **MANY** evidential questions...

Otherwise know to sane people as loaded questions, lurkers.

> such as where
> the larger bullet fragments in the "trail" seen in JFK's X-ray are
> at... he **KNOWS** that they're in the rear of JFK's head, but
> absolutely REFUSES to publicly state that fact.

Let Ben produce an expert how says that the size of the fragments can be used to determine the path of a bullet, lurkers. The only claims he makes are empty ones, and the lamest trick is claim your opponent agrees with you.

> Because he *KNOWS* that science demonstrates that trail to be from a
> bullet traveling from front to rear. (Heavier particles have more
> total energy, and will travel *further*)

Let Ben produce a wound ballistics expert who will stipulate to what he just wrote, lurkers. You`ll never see it.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > LOL, wait, what happened with Henry and Potts? I must have missed that. Sounds juicy. We can talk about it while we wait for Bud the Asshole to post one of his many "points" that we've been running from.
>
> I told you under what conditions I would, stupid.

The condition is YOU CAN’T DO IT. Simple as that. I gave you three opportunities to prove me a total liar, and you refuse to do it because the conditions aren’t right?? ROTFLMAO!!! Well...I suppose that’s nice of you. Thanks.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > dufus refuses to answer **MANY** evidential questions...
>
> Otherwise know to sane people as loaded questions, lurkers.

There is no such thing as a loaded question when the truth is on your side. If Oswald *was* the lone assassin, there would be no wrong way to answer any questions posed by critics. You’re just not smart enough to bullshit your way out of defending your faith against the evidence. That’s your problem.

> > such as where
> > the larger bullet fragments in the "trail" seen in JFK's X-ray are
> > at... he **KNOWS** that they're in the rear of JFK's head, but
> > absolutely REFUSES to publicly state that fact.
>
> Let Ben produce an expert how says that the size of the fragments can be used to determine the path of a bullet, lurkers. The only claims he makes are empty ones, and the lamest trick is claim your opponent agrees with you.

Let Bud produce an expert who says ANYTHING contrary to the official story whom he believes, lurkers. The troll can barely reconcile with Alvarez’s jet effect theory, now that LNers have started whining Kennedy’s head goes FORWARD rather than back after all. And Alvarez has the Nobel Prize in Physics. The back-pedalling of believers is always amusing.

> > Because he *KNOWS* that science demonstrates that trail to be from a
> > bullet traveling from front to rear. (Heavier particles have more
> > total energy, and will travel *further*)
>
> Let Ben produce a wound ballistics expert who will stipulate to what he just wrote, lurkers. You`ll never see it.

Translation: "science is not enough to sway my faith."

Astounding. You are not unlike the Biblical literalists you enjoy insulting.

[Bud]

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 4:05:24 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > dufus refuses to answer **MANY** evidential questions...
> >
> > Otherwise know to sane people as loaded questions, lurkers.
>
> There is no such thing as a loaded question when the truth is on your side.

Not only a stupid thing to say but a circular argument as well.

> If Oswald *was* the lone assassin, there would be no wrong way to answer any questions posed by critics.

This is the crooked game the retards desperately want to play.

> You’re just not smart enough to bullshit your way out of defending your faith against the evidence. That’s your problem.

I don`t have a problem, my case was over 50 years ago. Wheres yours?

> > > such as where
> > > the larger bullet fragments in the "trail" seen in JFK's X-ray are
> > > at... he **KNOWS** that they're in the rear of JFK's head, but
> > > absolutely REFUSES to publicly state that fact.
> >
> > Let Ben produce an expert how says that the size of the fragments can be used to determine the path of a bullet, lurkers. The only claims he makes are empty ones, and the lamest trick is claim your opponent agrees with you.
>
> Let Bud produce an expert who says ANYTHING contrary to the official story whom he believes, lurkers. The troll can barely reconcile with Alvarez’s jet effect theory, now that LNers have started whining Kennedy’s head goes FORWARD rather than back after all.

Watch. Learn.

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/9/9f/Anim_essay_BedrockEvidence_Z308-317AnimF.gif

> And Alvarez has the Nobel Prize in Physics. The back-pedalling of believers is always amusing.
>
> > > Because he *KNOWS* that science demonstrates that trail to be from a
> > > bullet traveling from front to rear. (Heavier particles have more
> > > total energy, and will travel *further*)
> >
> > Let Ben produce a wound ballistics expert who will stipulate to what he just wrote, lurkers. You`ll never see it.
>
> Translation: "science is not enough to sway my faith."

"Boris" translated what I said into retard.

> Astounding. You are not unlike the Biblical literalists you enjoy insulting.

You`re boring already.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

I respond with scientific evidence proving a conspiracy to assassinate JFK


Bud responds with "Stupid", "crooked", "retard" and "boring." And misuse of a logical fallacy.

And that says it all.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Further discussion on the "lead snowstorm" x-ray.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/_NG8jHwZA90

It's mostly critics defending their position with evidence, with Jason Burke occasionally piping up with his useless bitching, and .john macadams whining about how you shouldn't believe what experts say, especially when we have experts to tell us otherwise.

Amusing.

[Bud]

And then "Boris" demands that I produce evidence of him running from the points I make.

[Bud]

Never trust a conspiracy retard to represent or characterize an argument made by someone fairly, honestly or accurately.

> Amusing.

I missed this, claviger does find good case related information sometimes. What he is posting here is no help to the ideas of you and Ben. His first source has this...

Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic ...
By Vincent J.M. DiMaio, M.D.

Wounds from Centerfire Rifles

X-rays

X-rays of individuals shot with hunting ammunition usually show a
characteristic radiological picture that is seen almost seen exclusively
with this form of rifle ammunition---the-so-called "lead snowstorm." As
the expanding hunting bullet moves through the body, fragments of lead
break off the lead core and are hurled out into the surrounding tissues.
An x-ray shows scores, if not hundreds, of small radiopaque buller
fragments scattered along the wound track (the lead snowstorm) (Figure
7.16; see also Figure 11.4). These fragments very from dust-like to large
irregular pieces of metal. Occasional pieces of jacket may be seen. A
rifle bullet does not have to his bone for this phenomenon to occur.
This picture is not seen with handgun bullets, nor, with are exception,
with full metal-jacketed rifle bullets. Virtually, the sole exception
with military bullets are the M-193 and M-885 5.56 x 45 mm cartridges with
their 55- and 62-gr. bullets, whose propensity to fragment has been
previously discussed (see Figure 7.6).


With a few rare exception FMJ bullets don`t make lead snow storms.

His second source had this...

GUNSHOT WOUNDS
Practical Aspects of Firearms,
Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques
SECOND ADDITION
Vincent J.M. Di Maio

Centerfire Rifle Bullets

Military bullets, by virtue of their full metal jackets, tend to pass through the body intact, thus producing less extensive injuries than hunting ammunition. Military bullets usually do not fragment in the body or shed fragments of lead in their paths. Because of the high velocity of such military rounds as well as their tough construction, it is possible for such bullets to pass through more than one individual before coming to rest. These bullets may be almost virginal in appearance after recovery from the body.

Sound familiar?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Wow Bud, even *I'm* impressed by your stupidity. Despite cherry picking only a few select paragraphs from that thread, you STILL manage to bury yourself. Likely you don't even see where.

[Bud]

On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 11:27:09 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wow Bud, even *I'm* impressed by your stupidity. Despite cherry picking only a few select paragraphs from that thread,

I selected specific portions to make specific points. This baffles you.

> you STILL manage to bury yourself.

How so? Yes, that is me challenging you actually advance an idea instead of just making an empty claim.

> Likely you don't even see where.

I don`t see any of the points I made included in your response, you cut and ran from everything I wrote.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I selected specific portions to make specific points.

Translation: you cherry pick.

>
> This baffles you.

It baffles me you cherry pick so poorly.

>
> How so? Yes, that is me challenging you actually advance an idea instead of just making an empty claim.

To make a long post really, really short...the MC fired FMJ bullets. This is presuming the official narrative.

> I don`t see any of the points I made included in your response, you cut and ran from everything I wrote.

You didn't make any points. As usual. And certainly none you can cite that anyone has "run from." I'm sure you would have cited by now, but I guess once again the conditions aren't right, or some such thing. Such an asshole.

[Bud]

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 7:03:39 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I selected specific portions to make specific points.
>
> Translation: you cherry pick.

What I said didn`t need to be translated into retard, it was fine how I wrote it.

> >
> > This baffles you.
>
> It baffles me you cherry pick so poorly.

It confirms my low opinion of you that you don`t understand how to correctly cite for an idea. Probably because like Ben and Tony Marsh you have never done so.

> > How so? Yes, that is me challenging you actually advance an idea instead of just making an empty claim.
>
> To make a long post really, really short...the MC fired FMJ bullets. This is presuming the official narrative.

Then make the case that what is seen is a non-FMJ lead snowstorm. Do something, for crying out loud. Here, I`ll help you, here is a definition for a lead snowstorm...

lead snowstorm A fanciful term for the “sprayed” radiologic appearance of fragments of high-velocity centre-fire rifle ammunition which came to rest in a decedent. The finding of a lead snowstorm excludes full-metal jacketed bullets and lead slugs.

So if you can establish that this is an actual lead snowstorm and not a broken up FMJ you will have destroyed the WC`s case. But we`ll never see anything but a bunch of empty claims about this, right?

And here are some lead snowstorms...

https://www.bevfitchett.us/gunshot-wounds/images/3072_159_220-lead-snow-storm-xray.jpg

https://www.bevfitchett.us/gunshot-wounds/images/3072_92_148-lead-snowstorm-xray-rifle.jpg

https://www.fws.gov/lab/mysteryphotos/44A.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSs7slJel_SV97cBQlXsAO6BXqD2h6Wfa5PYNnIroc3_PTx3vZE

It would be interesting to see you and Ben tell us where the bullets entered in these x-rays and which way the bullet was travelling, since you both seem to think this is something anyone can do.

> > I don`t see any of the points I made included in your response, you cut and ran from everything I wrote.
>
> You didn't make any points. As usual. And certainly none you can cite that anyone has "run from." I'm sure you would have cited by now, but I guess once again the conditions aren't right, or some such thing. Such an asshole.

Any time you want to take the challenge, let me know "Boris".

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > Translation: you cherry pick.
>
> What I said didn`t need to be translated into retard, it was fine how I wrote it.

Translation: you don't even DENY you cherry pick.

> > To make a long post really, really short...the MC fired FMJ bullets. This is presuming the official narrative.
>

> Then make the case that what is seen is a non-FMJ lead snowstorm...so if you can establish that this is an actual lead snowstorm and not a broken up FMJ you will have destroyed the WC`s case. But we`ll never see anything but a bunch of empty claims about this, right?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17282-jim-f-if-the-bullet-exploded-after-hitting-the-temple/

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiographics.19.5.g99se171358

While I'm certain you won't read the contents, I can assure they will ruin your evening.

> > > I don`t see any of the points I made included in your response, you cut and ran from everything I wrote.
> >
> > You didn't make any points. As usual. And certainly none you can cite that anyone has "run from." I'm sure you would have cited by now, but I guess once again the conditions aren't right, or some such thing. Such an asshole.
>
> Any time you want to take the challenge, let me know "Boris".

Challenge accepted. A fourth time.

[Bud]

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:39:28 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Translation: you cherry pick.
> >
> > What I said didn`t need to be translated into retard, it was fine how I wrote it.
>
> Translation: you don't even DENY you cherry pick.

I think I`ll continue to ignore the retard spin you are desperately trying to put on it. What I wrote speaks for itself, and certainly you won`t speak to the points made.

> > > To make a long post really, really short...the MC fired FMJ bullets. This is presuming the official narrative.
> >
> > Then make the case that what is seen is a non-FMJ lead snowstorm...so if you can establish that this is an actual lead snowstorm and not a broken up FMJ you will have destroyed the WC`s case. But we`ll never see anything but a bunch of empty claims about this, right?
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17282-jim-f-if-the-bullet-exploded-after-hitting-the-temple/
>
> https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiographics.19.5.g99se171358
>
> While I'm certain you won't read the contents, I can assure they will ruin your evening.

Use anything you like from there to make an argument.

> > > > I don`t see any of the points I made included in your response, you cut and ran from everything I wrote.
> > >
> > > You didn't make any points. As usual. And certainly none you can cite that anyone has "run from." I'm sure you would have cited by now, but I guess once again the conditions aren't right, or some such thing. Such an asshole.
> >
> > Any time you want to take the challenge, let me know "Boris".
>
> Challenge accepted. A fourth time.

Stipulate that if I show that you ran from points I made that you will never post here again and I will be glad to.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> I think I`ll continue to ignore the retard spin you are desperately trying to put on it. What I wrote speaks for itself, and certainly you won`t speak to the points made.

Translation: you'll continue to ignore the points I make, while whining that I ignore the points you make.

>
> > > > To make a long post really, really short...the MC fired FMJ bullets. This is presuming the official narrative.
> > >
> > > Then make the case that what is seen is a non-FMJ lead snowstorm...so if you can establish that this is an actual lead snowstorm and not a broken up FMJ you will have destroyed the WC`s case. But we`ll never see anything but a bunch of empty claims about this, right?
> >
> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17282-jim-f-if-the-bullet-exploded-after-hitting-the-temple/
> >
> > https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiographics.19.5.g99se171358
> >
> > While I'm certain you won't read the contents, I can assure they will ruin your evening.
>
> Use anything you like from there to make an argument.

Translation: I'm a piss-poor researcher and don't feel like reading anything that would betray my faith, even when it is SPOONFED to me.

As Chucky the drunk slurred in one of his posts today: Get off your lazy ass and INVESTIGATE instead of shooting your mouth off.

You won't be criticizing Chuck for that comment anytime soon. But you'll mock me for it. And that's an ironclad guarantee.

> > > Any time you want to take the challenge, let me know "Boris".
> >
> > Challenge accepted. A fourth time.
>
> Stipulate that if I show that you ran from points I made that you will never post here again and I will be glad to.

Why? I'm getting so much more joy out of watching you tap-dance through your excuse Rolodex, waiting for the "conditions" to be right before you can expose me as a liar. In the meanwhile, your five-time refusal to cite a single example of this more or less stipulates your inability to stand by your convictions.

[Bud]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 2:28:16 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I think I`ll continue to ignore the retard spin you are desperately trying to put on it. What I wrote speaks for itself, and certainly you won`t speak to the points made.
>
> Translation: you'll continue to ignore the points I make, while whining that I ignore the points you make.

Conspiracy retards always interpret information into some form they are comfortable with that bears little resemblance to reality.

> >
> > > > > To make a long post really, really short...the MC fired FMJ bullets. This is presuming the official narrative.
> > > >
> > > > Then make the case that what is seen is a non-FMJ lead snowstorm...so if you can establish that this is an actual lead snowstorm and not a broken up FMJ you will have destroyed the WC`s case. But we`ll never see anything but a bunch of empty claims about this, right?
> > >
> > > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17282-jim-f-if-the-bullet-exploded-after-hitting-the-temple/
> > >
> > > https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiographics.19.5.g99se171358
> > >
> > > While I'm certain you won't read the contents, I can assure they will ruin your evening.
> >
> > Use anything you like from there to make an argument.
>
> Translation: I'm a piss-poor researcher and don't feel like reading anything that would betray my faith, even when it is SPOONFED to me.

Apparently you can`t make arguments any better than Ben can.

> As Chucky the drunk slurred in one of his posts today: Get off your lazy ass and INVESTIGATE instead of shooting your mouth off.
>
> You won't be criticizing Chuck for that comment anytime soon. But you'll mock me for it. And that's an ironclad guarantee.
>
> > > > Any time you want to take the challenge, let me know "Boris".
> > >
> > > Challenge accepted. A fourth time.
> >
> > Stipulate that if I show that you ran from points I made that you will never post here again and I will be glad to.
>
> Why?

Because that was the condition I set, stupid.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale.

An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll.

The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle.

Massad Ayoob [JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993].

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

The autopsy report says he was struck once in the head from behind. The HSCA determined the same thing, so have other panels.

Got anything else?

[Bud]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 4:51:39 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less.

Empty claim.

> It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale.

"far more consistent" are just weasel words. Either you can show that the wounds to Kennedy`s head could not have been caused by a FMJ bullet or you can`t.

> An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll.

A lot of talking but no showing. You need experts in the proper fields says this wound to Kennedy`s head could not be achieved with a FMJ bullet.

Here, I help you, this is the report on this ammunition...

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=1

These are fragments recovered from human skulls filled with gelatin and shot with 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=30

This is the massive damage to the gelatin filled human skulls when shot by 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=33

> The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle.

Empty claims. This person is just shooting blanks.

> Massad Ayoob [JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob

No expertise in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics. None.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Now now, since the title of this thread is “lying or mistaken?”, you’ll first need to explicitly state which of the two you think Massad Ayoob falls under. It would *have* to be one or the other, for the sake of your faith. You are forbidden to agree with his assessment. Is he lying, or mistaken?

As for you, I can assess which one you are: you’re lying. Because the autopsy results suggest multiple shots. And you *know* the HSCA’s conclusions. And I don’t suppose you’ll be quoting either anytime soon. Like the part of the report which indicates an entry wound at the third thoracic vertebrae. Or how did a single shot from an FMJ manage to create three separate lacerations to the brain? Or why the greatest loss of brain matter occurred in the parietal lobe. Or that you know what the parietal lobe is, and what that means.

So when you say "got anything else?" what you really mean is, "I hope he hasn't got anything else."

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> > The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less.
>
> Empty claim.

No, they are most certainly NOT empty claims. They are assessments of ballistic behavior from a firearms and ballistics expert, who has appeared as an expert witness in that capacity several times in a court of law. And you calling them empty claims doesn’t make it so “just because.” This is unbelievably astounding ignorance on your part. It also gives me permission to toss in a lazy “empty claims” rebuttal next time you say anything of importance (which is seldom to never). Are you really THAT terrified of the evidence?

> A lot of talking but no showing.

What kind of “showing” of ballistics behavior would you like over a computer?

>
> You need experts in the proper fields says this wound to Kennedy`s head could not be achieved with a FMJ bullet.

That would have been the OTHER link you didn’t bother to read.

>
> Here, I help you, this is the report on this ammunition...
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=1
>
> These are fragments recovered from human skulls filled with gelatin and shot with 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition.

Wait, what? This completely contradicts your previous C&P job....

Military bullets, by virtue of their full metal jackets, tend to pass through the body intact, thus producing less extensive injuries than hunting ammunition. Military bullets usually do not fragment in the body or shed fragments of lead in their paths. Because of the high velocity of such military rounds as well as their tough construction, it is possible for such bullets to pass through more than one individual before coming to rest. These bullets may be almost virginal in appearance after recovery from the body.

So which is it? Virginal or not?

Never fear, I can help you...

Since you are suggesting military ammo was used, it's worth noting military ammo does not expand like civilian ammo, so it does not generate the same large wounds as civilian.

[From Robert Prudhomme] When hollow point bullets travel through flesh or liquid, the hollow (cavity) of the HP bullet actually fills with this liquid material. As it continues travelling through, additional liquid encountered applies pressure to the liquid already in the cavity and, with the bullet being made of soft lead, it succumbs to this pressure and begins opening outward. The more it opens, the more liquid is applying pressure to the internal cavity of the hollow point and the faster it opens; eventually opening completely outwards and, in some cases, depending on bullet construction, completely breaking apart into tiny fragments. Of course, this effect is magnified as the speed of the bullet is increased.

And that is why JFK was not shot in the head with a full metal jacket bullet travelling 2200 fps.

>
> > The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle.
>
> Empty claims. This person is just shooting blanks.

By saying something so ignorant, you are effectively saying you know MORE than Ayoob, and can therefore challenge the above statement with your own knowledge and expertise. So show us how and why these are "empty claims." You won't, of course.

>
> No expertise in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics. None.

That’s completely false, like everything else you say. But it doesn’t matter; you don’t even trust Alvarez, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. Any expert who contradicts your faith poses a bigger problem than you can deal with. So you have to attack them. Then you try to damage-control the problem with a meaningless throwaway line designed to make it look like you refuted something. In this case: empty claim. Which we all know are...what did you call them? "Weasel words."

Along with "retard".

[donald willis]

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 7:03:39 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I selected specific portions to make specific points.
> >
> > Translation: you cherry pick.
>
> What I said didn`t need to be translated into retard, it was fine how I wrote it.

You mean, "translated FROM retard"

[donald willis]

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 6:15:17 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 8:39:28 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Translation: you cherry pick.
> > >
> > > What I said didn`t need to be translated into retard, it was fine how I wrote it.
> >
> > Translation: you don't even DENY you cherry pick.
>
> I think I`ll continue to ignore the

Shameful slander by Bud deleted

[donald willis]

On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 12:39:57 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 2:28:16 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I think I`ll continue to ignore the retard spin you are desperately trying to put on it. What I wrote speaks for itself, and certainly you won`t speak to the points made.
> >
> > Translation: you'll continue to ignore the points I make, while whining that I ignore the points you make.
>
> Conspiracy

Low blow by Bud deleted

always interpret information into some form they are comfortable with that bears little resemblance to reality.
>
> > >
> > > > > > To make a long post really, really short...the MC fired FMJ bullets. This is presuming the official narrative.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then make the case that what is seen is a non-FMJ lead snowstorm...so if you can establish that this is an actual lead snowstorm and not a broken up FMJ you will have destroyed the WC`s case. But we`ll never see anything but a bunch of empty claims about this, right?
> > > >
> > > > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17282-jim-f-if-the-bullet-exploded-after-hitting-the-temple/
> > > >
> > > > https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/radiographics.19.5.g99se171358
> > > >
> > > > While I'm certain you won't read the contents, I can assure they will ruin your evening.
> > >
> > > Use anything you like from there to make an argument.
> >
> > Translation: I'm a piss-poor researcher and don't feel like reading anything that would betray my faith, even when it is SPOONFED to me.
>
> Apparently you can`t make arguments any better than Ben can.
>
> > As Chucky the drunk slurred in one of his posts today: Get off your lazy ass and INVESTIGATE instead of shooting your mouth off.
> >
> > You won't be criticizing Chuck for that comment anytime soon. But you'll mock me for it. And that's an ironclad guarantee.
> >
> > > > > Any time you want to take the challenge, let me know "Boris".
> > > >
> > > > Challenge accepted. A fourth time.
> > >
> > > Stipulate that if I show that you ran from points I made that you will never post here again and I will be glad to.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because that was the condition I set,

Ad hominem attack by Bud deleted

.
>
> > I'm getting so much more joy out of watching you tap-dance through your excuse Rolodex, waiting for the "conditions" to be right before you can expose me as a liar. In the meanwhile, your five-time refusal to cite a single example of this more or less stipulates your inability to stand by your convictions.

Here's Bud at his finest:

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 1:10:19 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 7:03:39 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I selected specific portions to make specific points.
> > >
> > > Translation: you cherry pick.
> >
> > What I said didn`t need to be translated into retard, it was fine how I wrote it.
>
> You mean, "translated FROM retard"

You think it is retarded to select specific portions of information to make specific points?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:24:09 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:10:49 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:51:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale.
> >
> > >
> > > An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll.
> >
> > >
> > > The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle.
> > >
> > > Massad Ayoob [JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993].
> >
> > The autopsy report says he was struck once in the head from behind. The HSCA determined the same thing, so have other panels.
> >
> > Got anything else?
>
> Now now, since the title of this thread is “lying or mistaken?”, you’ll first need to explicitly state which of the two you think Massad Ayoob falls under.

Thats retarded. Topics often evolve in usenet discussions. You are running.

> It would *have* to be one or the other, for the sake of your faith.

False dilemma fallacy. Also a false construct, I never took the position that their weren`t people out there desperately looking for justifications for their silly conspiracy ideas.

> You are forbidden to agree with his assessment. Is he lying, or mistaken?

False dilemma fallacy.

> As for you, I can assess which one you are: you’re lying. Because the autopsy results suggest multiple shots.

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

> And you *know* the HSCA’s conclusions.

Yes, that Oswald alone fired all the shots that killed or injured people in the limo.

> And I don’t suppose you’ll be quoting either anytime soon. Like the part of the report which indicates an entry wound at the third thoracic vertebrae.

Nothing less meaningful than what a conspiracy retard thinks the evidence indicates. After 50 years this is what you have, shooting off endless blanks?

> Or how did a single shot from an FMJ manage to create three separate lacerations to the brain?

Produce an expert with the proper credentials who says the wounds in Kennedy`s head cannot be explained by a single FMJ bullet. Until you can do that you are blowing hot air.

>Or why the greatest loss of brain matter occurred in the parietal lobe. Or that you know what the parietal lobe is, and what that means.

Bluff and bluster but you aren`t showing anything.

> So when you say "got anything else?" what you really mean is, "I hope he hasn't got anything else."

Do you have *anything*?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 7 May 2018 14:10:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

The autopsy report also shows the large head wound to be in the BACK
of JFK's head.

Yet you don't believe that.

The X-rays show one shot from the FRONT.

Yet you don't believe that.

The Warren Commission provably *LIED*, as did the HSCA.

Yet you can't defend that.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:32:41 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:24:09 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:10:49 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:51:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle.
> > > >
> > > > Massad Ayoob [JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993].
> > >
> > > The autopsy report says he was struck once in the head from behind. The HSCA determined the same thing, so have other panels.
> > >
> > > Got anything else?
> >
> > Now now, since the title of this thread is “lying or mistaken?”, you’ll first need to explicitly state which of the two you think Massad Ayoob falls under.
>

Following is a sterling example of a self-destructing phrase by Ben:

> Thats retarded.

What does it say about someone who uses "Thats" as a word? Answer: See the other half of the phrase....

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 8 May 2018 09:47:36 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
<dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:32:41 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:24:09 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 5:10:49 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 3:51:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle.
>> > > >
>> > > > Massad Ayoob [JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993].
>> > >
>> > > The autopsy report says he was struck once in the head from behind. The HSCA determined the same thing, so have other panels.
>> > >
>> > > Got anything else?
>> >
>> > Now now, since the title of this thread is “lying or mistaken?”, you’ll first need to explicitly state which of the two you think Massad Ayoob falls under.
>>
>Following is a sterling example of a self-destructing phrase by Ben:

I've got *my* coffee... get your coffee order before you confuse an
'u" for an 'e" ... you're embarrassing me, Don! :)

>> Thats retarded.
>
>What does it say about someone who uses "Thats" as a word? Answer: See the other half of the phrase....

Dufus tells the tale when he is forced to call all his opponents with
ad hominem attacks on their intelligence.

He simply has no answer that doesn't shoot down his own faith.

And *that* tells the tale.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:32:41 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

Weren't Bluff and Bluster a vaudeville team?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Weren't Bluff and Bluster a vaudeville team?
>

Yeah, they played at the Empty Claim Theater in Chicago.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:41:02 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less.
> >
> > Empty claim.
>
> No, they are most certainly NOT empty claims. They are assessments of ballistic behavior from a firearms and ballistics expert, who has appeared as an expert witness in that capacity several times in a court of law.

That is also an empty claim.

And being a firearms expert does not make him an expert on the wounds bullets make.

> And you calling them empty claims doesn’t make it so “just because.”

They are empty claims because they don`t support the claims being made.

> This is unbelievably astounding ignorance on your part. It also gives me permission to toss in a lazy “empty claims” rebuttal next time you say anything of importance (which is seldom to never). Are you really THAT terrified of the evidence?

This is evidence of your bluff and bluster, nothing more. Lets see you actually support this, show that Massad Ayoob has the necessary credentials to speak on the wounds to Kennedy`s head as shown in the x-rays.

> > A lot of talking but no showing.
>
> What kind of “showing” of ballistics behavior would you like over a computer?

Since you`ve never done it you have no idea how to support your claims.

> >
> > You need experts in the proper fields says this wound to Kennedy`s head could not be achieved with a FMJ bullet.
>
> That would have been the OTHER link you didn’t bother to read.

Make any arguments you like using any source you like, stupid.

> >
> > Here, I help you, this is the report on this ammunition...
> >
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=1
> >
> > These are fragments recovered from human skulls filled with gelatin and shot with 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition.
>
> Wait, what? This completely contradicts your previous C&P job....
>
> Military bullets, by virtue of their full metal jackets, tend to pass through the body intact, thus producing less extensive injuries than hunting ammunition. Military bullets usually do not fragment in the body or shed fragments of lead in their paths. Because of the high velocity of such military rounds as well as their tough construction, it is possible for such bullets to pass through more than one individual before coming to rest. These bullets may be almost virginal in appearance after recovery from the body.
>
> So which is it? Virginal or not?

Are you this stupid that you need this explained to you? This is why I say that conspiracy retards can`t make distinctions. Does this source say that FMJ ammunition cannot break up? No. The demonstration performed by the US Army *shows* that FMJ ammunition breaks up. Everything you need is right there and you can`t put it together.

> Never fear, I can help you...
>
> Since you are suggesting military ammo was used, it's worth noting military ammo does not expand like civilian ammo, so it does not generate the same large wounds as civilian.
>
> [From Robert Prudhomme] When hollow point bullets travel through flesh or liquid, the hollow (cavity) of the HP bullet actually fills with this liquid material. As it continues travelling through, additional liquid encountered applies pressure to the liquid already in the cavity and, with the bullet being made of soft lead, it succumbs to this pressure and begins opening outward. The more it opens, the more liquid is applying pressure to the internal cavity of the hollow point and the faster it opens; eventually opening completely outwards and, in some cases, depending on bullet construction, completely breaking apart into tiny fragments. Of course, this effect is magnified as the speed of the bullet is increased.

This doesn`t get you any closer to establishing Kennedy wounds were inflicted by anything other than Carcano FMJ ammunition.

> And that is why JFK was not shot in the head with a full metal jacket bullet travelling 2200 fps.

Retard figuring doesn`t count for anything.

> >
> > > The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle.
> >
> > Empty claims. This person is just shooting blanks.
>
> By saying something so ignorant, you are effectively saying you know MORE than Ayoob,

Show his expertise in wound ballistics.

> and can therefore challenge the above statement with your own knowledge and expertise. So show us how and why these are "empty claims." You won't, of course.
>
>
> >
> > No expertise in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics. None.
>
> That’s completely false, like everything else you say.

Show his credentials in these fields, then. You`ll make more posts on this but you will never be able to establish his credentials to speak on Kennedy`s head wound(s).

> But it doesn’t matter;

You don`t think it matters whether he has the expertise necessary to speak on the head wounds Kennedy suffered. Then why did you bring this guy up.

> you don’t even trust Alvarez, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist.

Look at the retard misdirecting.

> Any expert who contradicts your faith poses a bigger problem than you can deal with. So you have to attack them. Then you try to damage-control the problem with a meaningless throwaway line designed to make it look like you refuted something. In this case: empty claim. Which we all know are...what did you call them? "Weasel words."

You quoted someone but you couldn`t support that the person had the credentials to speak on the subject you were quoting him on.

And you are still no closer to showing that Kennedy was struck by anything other than Carcano FMJ ammunition. And you won`t be any closer after your next post, either.


> Along with "retard".

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 11:33:35 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:41:02 AM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less.
> > >
> > > Empty claim.
> >
> > No, they are most certainly NOT empty claims. They are assessments of ballistic behavior from a firearms and ballistics expert, who has appeared as an expert witness in that capacity several times in a court of law.
>
> That is also an empty claim.
>
> And being a firearms expert does not make him an expert on the wounds bullets make.
>
> > And you calling them empty claims doesn’t make it so “just because.”
>
> They are empty claims because they don`t support the claims being made.
>
> > This is unbelievably astounding ignorance on your part. It also gives me permission to toss in a lazy “empty claims” rebuttal next time you say anything of importance (which is seldom to never). Are you really THAT terrified of the evidence?
>
> This is evidence of your bluff and bluster, nothing more. Lets see you actually support this, show that Massad Ayoob has the necessary credentials to speak on the wounds to Kennedy`s head as shown in the x-rays.
>
> > > A lot of talking but no showing.
> >
> > What kind of “showing” of ballistics behavior would you like over a computer?
>
> Since you`ve never done it you have no idea how to support your claims.
>
> > >
> > > You need experts in the proper fields says this wound to Kennedy`s head could not be achieved with a FMJ bullet.
> >
> > That would have been the OTHER link you didn’t bother to read.
>
> Make any arguments you like using any source you like,

Comically unnecessary insult by Bud deleted

.
>
> > >
> > > Here, I help you, this is the report on this ammunition...
> > >
> > > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=1
> > >
> > > These are fragments recovered from human skulls filled with gelatin and shot with 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition.
> >
> > Wait, what? This completely contradicts your previous C&P job....
> >
> > Military bullets, by virtue of their full metal jackets, tend to pass through the body intact, thus producing less extensive injuries than hunting ammunition. Military bullets usually do not fragment in the body or shed fragments of lead in their paths. Because of the high velocity of such military rounds as well as their tough construction, it is possible for such bullets to pass through more than one individual before coming to rest. These bullets may be almost virginal in appearance after recovery from the body.
> >
> > So which is it? Virginal or not?
>
> Are you this stupid that you need this explained to you? This is why I say that conspiracy

Collective pejorative by Bud deleted

can`t make distinctions. Does this source say that FMJ ammunition cannot break up? No. The demonstration performed by the US Army *shows* that FMJ ammunition breaks up. Everything you need is right there and you can`t put it together.
>
> > Never fear, I can help you...
> >
> > Since you are suggesting military ammo was used, it's worth noting military ammo does not expand like civilian ammo, so it does not generate the same large wounds as civilian.
> >
> > [From Robert Prudhomme] When hollow point bullets travel through flesh or liquid, the hollow (cavity) of the HP bullet actually fills with this liquid material. As it continues travelling through, additional liquid encountered applies pressure to the liquid already in the cavity and, with the bullet being made of soft lead, it succumbs to this pressure and begins opening outward. The more it opens, the more liquid is applying pressure to the internal cavity of the hollow point and the faster it opens; eventually opening completely outwards and, in some cases, depending on bullet construction, completely breaking apart into tiny fragments. Of course, this effect is magnified as the speed of the bullet is increased.
>
> This doesn`t get you any closer to establishing Kennedy wounds were inflicted by anything other than Carcano FMJ ammunition.
>
> > And that is why JFK was not shot in the head with a full metal jacket bullet travelling 2200 fps.
>
>

Lazy insult by Bud deleted

figuring doesn`t count for anything.
>
> > >
> > > > The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle.
> > >
> > > Empty claims. This person is just shooting blanks.
> >
> > By saying something so ignorant, you are effectively saying you know MORE than Ayoob,
>
> Show his expertise in wound ballistics.
>
> > and can therefore challenge the above statement with your own knowledge and expertise. So show us how and why these are "empty claims." You won't, of course.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > No expertise in the relevant fields of wound ballistics or forensics. None.
> >
> > That’s completely false, like everything else you say.
>
> Show his credentials in these fields, then. You`ll make more posts on this but you will never be able to establish his credentials to speak on Kennedy`s head wound(s).
>
> > But it doesn’t matter;
>
> You don`t think it matters whether he has the expertise necessary to speak on the head wounds Kennedy suffered. Then why did you bring this guy up.
>
> > you don’t even trust Alvarez, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist.
>
> Look at the

Ibid or Ibud

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> >
> Lazy insult by Bud deleted
>

You delete those, you silence the troll permanent. More than ever it's obvious the troll doesn't know what it's talking about. Experts are anathema to their cause. And autopsy reports are only credible in certain parts, but not in others. The troll's response to the third thoracic vertebrae problem in particular shows a willful ignorance that is staggering.

If they were human I might try the feel/felt/found approach to placate them...

I understand how you feel about Oswald's sole guilt. I felt the same way.
But this is what I found....

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 7:11:42 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > Lazy insult by Bud deleted
> >
>
> You delete those, you silence the troll permanent. More than ever it's obvious the troll doesn't know what it's talking about. Experts are anathema to their cause.

You quoted a person you represented as an expert on the damage to Kennedy`s head. What is the compelling reason to give any weight to what this individual says on that subject?

> And autopsy reports are only credible in certain parts, but not in others. The troll's response to the third thoracic vertebrae problem in particular shows a willful ignorance that is staggering.

Perhaps if there was a photo showing where the bullet entered Kennedy`s back this could help you. Naw...

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You quoted a person you represented as an expert on the damage to Kennedy`s head.

No, I quoted a ballistics and weapons expert who knows precisely how bullets behave upon impact with different surfaces, not excluding bones and flesh. YOU cited Ayoob's bio, which in that very citation identifies him as an expert witness in the capacity of firearms and ballistics in court. And if he said anything to support your faith, you would DO ANYTHING to preserve his integrity as an expert. Next time check your own citations, and make sure there’s nothing in there that will make you look like an even bigger asshole than you are.

>
> What is the compelling reason to give any weight to what this individual says on that subject?

Good question. Glad you finally asked. Because now that you’ve done your little troll best to discredit the man, we are free to examine his conclusions further.

Ayoob believes the same bullet hit both JFK and Connally.

Ayoob points out that Oswald was left-handed, which would have enabled him to actually shoot faster and better.

Ayoob does not discount the LN narrative....

Bullets like those fired in Oswald's rifle just don't do what we've been told they do. They just don't send pieces of skull flying across the sky when fired from a distance. This is so clear to Ayoob in fact that, even in the conclusion to his article, where he postulates that Oswald quite possibly acted alone, he does so only under the proviso that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 ****"for unexplainable reasons did damage out of all proportion to its ballistic capability****

So now that the imbecile "Bud" has done exactly what I wanted him to do, let's watch him backtrack on his whiny bullshit about "empty claims" and "no expertise" and "why should we give any weight to what he says."

>
> Perhaps if there was a photo showing where the bullet entered Kennedy`s back this could help you. Naw...

Those are a dime a dozen. But you don't believe pictures. Remember?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 8:49:48 AM UTC-7, Mark Ulrik wrote:
> fredag den 4. maj 2018 kl. 16.53.40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> > On Fri, 4 May 2018 04:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >fredag den 4. maj 2018 kl. 01.36.43 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
> > >> On Thu, 3 May 2018 16:29:11 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> That's an easy prediction to make. And **VERY** likely to be accurate.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I've challenged dufus to produce these points he's claimed he's made
> > >> >> that I've "run" from... but he never does.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> He's a provable coward.
> > >> >
> > >> > As Jack Reacher would say, a buck gets ten the troll will *still*
> > >> > look back on this thread as yet another of his victories. He's THAT
> > >> > delusional.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think dufus realizes that people are laughing at him. (Chucky
> > >> too, come to think of it.)
> > >>
> > >> Most believers hang out in the censored forum, where they can't be
> > >> called on their obvious lies and stupidities.
> > >>
> > >> I've stated time and time again that there's **NOTHING** of an
> > >> evidential nature in this case that I can't answer or explain... in a
> > >> *REASONABLE* and credible manner.
> > >
> > >Explain your "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory.
> >
> > Been there, done that, you ran.
>
> Your fondness for little girls is even more inappropriate and disturbing than I previously thought. What a monster you are.
>
> > >> But the opposite simply isn't true.
> > >>
> > >> Believers run from the *SIMPLEST* of questions about the evidence in
> > >> this case. The truth is simply alien to them.
> > >>
> > >> For example, what time did the casket enter Bethesda?
> > >>
> > >> It's a simple question, and there are easy answers... but they CANNOT
> > >> BE EXPLAINED by those who believe in the simplistic Warren Commission
> > >> coverup - so they simply put their heads in the sand and ignore the
> > >> question each time it comes up.
> > >>
> > >> Another one... what Z-frame did the SBT happen in?
> > >>
> > >> Can't get a *SINGLE* believer to step up to the plate and state this
> > >> most obvious of facts.
> > >>
> > >> That's because that Z-frame depends on which believer you're talking
> > >> to... and it's HERESY to admit that believers don't accept one
> > >> monolithic theory of the case.

ahhh, .john's senior *left nut* shows up once again... The Catholics ex-communicate you yet, Spanky?

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:20:27 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You quoted a person you represented as an expert on the damage to Kennedy`s head.
>
> No, I quoted a ballistics and weapons expert who knows precisely how bullets behave upon impact with different surfaces, not excluding bones and flesh.

Now you`re just saying stuff. Look, if you think it will help you, I can link to photos of firearms and photos of bullet wounds and I expect even a retard such as yourself might be able to make a distinction between the two completely different things.

> YOU cited Ayoob's bio, which in that very citation identifies him as an expert witness in the capacity of firearms and ballistics in court.

Actually, it didn`t say that but we can`t expect accuracy from you, can we?

Now, can you show he would be able to testify as an expert on wounds caused by bullets? Note I said "show*, not just *say*.

> And if he said anything to support your faith, you would DO ANYTHING to preserve his integrity as an expert.

I would be smart enough not to cite a plumber when the subject is electricity.

And why are you being a retard and trying to misdirect back to me? *You* cited this guy. *You* represented him as an expert on this topic. As soon as you are called on to show that what this guy has to say about the damage to Kennedy`s head should carry weight you go into this retard dance.

> Next time check your own citations, and make sure there’s nothing in there that will make you look like an even bigger asshole than you are.

Perhaps next post you will offer some reason what this guy had to say about the damage to Kennedy`s head should be given weight.

> >
> > What is the compelling reason to give any weight to what this individual says on that subject?
>
> Good question. Glad you finally asked. Because now that you’ve done your little troll best to discredit the man, we are free to examine his conclusions further.

You say it was a good question but then you answer a completely different one.

Focus, stupid, we need to establish his credentials before we can give weight to his opinions. Now, with that in mind, answer the following question...

"What is the compelling reason to give any weight to what this individual says on that subject?"

> Ayoob believes the same bullet hit both JFK and Connally.
>
> Ayoob points out that Oswald was left-handed, which would have enabled him to actually shoot faster and better.
>
> Ayoob does not discount the LN narrative....

What does any of this have to do with what was being discussed?

> Bullets like those fired in Oswald's rifle just don't do what we've been told they do.

Support that.

>They just don't send pieces of skull flying across the sky when fired from a distance.

Support that.

> This is so clear to Ayoob in fact that, even in the conclusion to his article, where he postulates that Oswald quite possibly acted alone, he does so only under the proviso that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 ****"for unexplainable reasons did damage out of all proportion to its ballistic capability****

What are his qualifications for making this determination?

> So now that the imbecile "Bud" has done exactly what I wanted him to do, let's watch him backtrack on his whiny bullshit about "empty claims" and "no expertise" and "why should we give any weight to what he says."

Nothing has changed, you might as well not have responded at all as you merely repeated things when you should have been supporting them.

> >
> > Perhaps if there was a photo showing where the bullet entered Kennedy`s back this could help you. Naw...
>
> Those are a dime a dozen.

There is that "willful ignorance" you were talking about. As soon as the evidence conflicts with your silly ideas, rather than discard your silly ideas you discard the evidence.

> But you don't believe pictures. Remember?

I remember you`re retarded. Hard to forget when you keep reminding me.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

An 8-year old begins crying:

>
> Now you`re just saying stuff.

I like this. Evidence is "stuff". That's good.

>
> Look, if you think it will help you, I can link to photos of firearms and photos of bullet wounds and I expect even a retard such as yourself might be able to make a distinction between the two completely different things.

You can try. But then you'd have to explain it. Which you can't do.

>
> Actually, it didn`t say that but we can`t expect accuracy from you, can we?

It did, and we can.

>
> I would be smart enough not to cite a plumber when the subject is electricity.

So if a plumber told you not to stick a fork in an outlet, you'd ask him what his expertise on the matter is, and then do it anyway. You've probably done it before...and that's why you're you. :-)

>
> And why are you being a retard and trying to misdirect back to me? *You* cited this guy.

"This guy." It's so obvious you don't even really know who he is.

> Focus, stupid, we need to establish his credentials before we can give weight to his opinions. Now, with that in mind, answer the following question...
>
> "What is the compelling reason to give any weight to what this individual says on that subject?"
>
> > Ayoob believes the same bullet hit both JFK and Connally.
> >
> > Ayoob points out that Oswald was left-handed, which would have enabled him to actually shoot faster and better.
> >
> > Ayoob does not discount the LN narrative....
>
> What does any of this have to do with what was being discussed?

You asked, why should we give any weight to what he has to say on the subject? Well, you've been giving weight to all of the above probably your whole homunculus life. Why pay any credence to you?

> > Bullets like those fired in Oswald's rifle just don't do what we've been told they do.
>
> Support that.
>
> >They just don't send pieces of skull flying across the sky when fired from a distance.
>
> Support that.

I'll be happy to support both, BUT you've been way under-contributing with the quid pro quo. So since we're on the topic of bullets and targets, I want you to support the SBT. Support it. *Show* it. You take a turn for once. If you can do that, I will post the citations I've found to support Ayoob. If you can't, we can assume you're a know-nothing coward who cannot defend his position.

Let's see what you do.

>
> > > Perhaps if there was a photo showing where the bullet entered Kennedy`s back this could help you. Naw...
> >
> > Those are a dime a dozen.
>
> There is that "willful ignorance" you were talking about. As soon as the evidence conflicts with your silly ideas, rather than discard your silly ideas you discard the evidence.

Dummy, I mean those photos are everywhere on the Internet. Google "jfk back wound." You can even do it like that, with "jfk" all lowercase, since the right way is too much work for an asshole like yourself.

Don't forget to support your local SBT!!!

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 6:51:24 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:20:27 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > You quoted a person you represented as an expert on the damage to Kennedy`s head.
> >
> > No, I quoted a ballistics and weapons expert who knows precisely how bullets behave upon impact with different surfaces, not excluding bones and flesh.
>
> Now you`re just saying stuff. Look, if you think it will help you, I can link to photos of firearms and photos of bullet wounds and I expect even a

Objectionable language by Bud delightfully deleted

such as yourself might be able to make a distinction between the two completely different things.
>
> > YOU cited Ayoob's bio, which in that very citation identifies him as an expert witness in the capacity of firearms and ballistics in court.
>
> Actually, it didn`t say that but we can`t expect accuracy from you, can we?
>
> Now, can you show he would be able to testify as an expert on wounds caused by bullets? Note I said "show*, not just *say*.
>
> > And if he said anything to support your faith, you would DO ANYTHING to preserve his integrity as an expert.
>
> I would be smart enough not to cite a plumber when the subject is electricity.
>
> And why are you being a

There's that word again. Deleted!

and trying to misdirect back to me? *You* cited this guy. *You* represented him as an expert on this topic. As soon as you are called on to show that what this guy has to say about the damage to Kennedy`s head should carry weight you go into this

Shame, shame, Bud! And boring

dance.
>
> > Next time check your own citations, and make sure there’s nothing in there that will make you look like an even bigger asshole than you are.
>
> Perhaps next post you will offer some reason what this guy had to say about the damage to Kennedy`s head should be given weight.
>
> > >
> > > What is the compelling reason to give any weight to what this individual says on that subject?
> >
> > Good question. Glad you finally asked. Because now that you’ve done your little troll best to discredit the man, we are free to examine his conclusions further.
>
> You say it was a good question but then you answer a completely different one.
>
> Focus,

Delete delete

, we need to establish his credentials before we can give weight to his opinions. Now, with that in mind, answer the following question...
>
> "What is the compelling reason to give any weight to what this individual says on that subject?"
>
> > Ayoob believes the same bullet hit both JFK and Connally.
> >
> > Ayoob points out that Oswald was left-handed, which would have enabled him to actually shoot faster and better.
> >
> > Ayoob does not discount the LN narrative....
>
> What does any of this have to do with what was being discussed?
>
> > Bullets like those fired in Oswald's rifle just don't do what we've been told they do.
>
> Support that.
>
> >They just don't send pieces of skull flying across the sky when fired from a distance.
>
> Support that.
>
> > This is so clear to Ayoob in fact that, even in the conclusion to his article, where he postulates that Oswald quite possibly acted alone, he does so only under the proviso that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 ****"for unexplainable reasons did damage out of all proportion to its ballistic capability****
>
> What are his qualifications for making this determination?
>
> > So now that the imbecile "Bud" has done exactly what I wanted him to do, let's watch him backtrack on his whiny bullshit about "empty claims" and "no expertise" and "why should we give any weight to what he says."
>
> Nothing has changed, you might as well not have responded at all as you merely repeated things when you should have been supporting them.
>
> > >
> > > Perhaps if there was a photo showing where the bullet entered Kennedy`s back this could help you. Naw...
> >
> > Those are a dime a dozen.
>
> There is that "willful ignorance" you were talking about. As soon as the evidence conflicts with your silly ideas, rather than discard your silly ideas you discard the evidence.
>
> > But you don't believe pictures. Remember?
>
> I remember you`re

deleted

[Bud]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:21:46 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> An 8-year old begins crying:
>
> >
> > Now you`re just saying stuff.
>
> I like this. Evidence is "stuff". That's good.

You said...

"No, I quoted a ballistics and weapons expert who knows precisely how bullets behave upon impact with different surfaces, not excluding bones and flesh."

This is not evidence, this is you just saying stuff. You aren`t showing that the things you say are true. You are shooting blanks.

> >
> > Look, if you think it will help you, I can link to photos of firearms and photos of bullet wounds and I expect even a retard such as yourself might be able to make a distinction between the two completely different things.
>
> You can try.

Ok, lets give it a shot...

These are firearms ...

http://ransom-lawfirm.com/practice-areas/firearms/

These are gunshot wounds...

https://www.pinterest.com/micktan_us/gunshot-wounds-graphic/

To help you further, Robert Frazier was an FBI`s firearms expert. Alfred Olivier was the Army`s wound ballistics expert. They are two different fields. If someone is a cab driver that doesn`t make them an expert in the wounds people sustain from being hit by cabs.

> But then you'd have to explain it. Which you can't do.

I can explain it fine, you are an intellectual coward trying to obscure the issue because you can`t support your ideas.

> >
> > Actually, it didn`t say that but we can`t expect accuracy from you, can we?
>
> It did, and we can.

Now you are lying, and cutting away the content that shows you are lying. I`ll put it back in, you said...

"YOU cited Ayoob's bio, which in that very citation identifies him as an expert witness in the capacity of firearms and ballistics in court."

The Wikipedia source had this...

"Ayoob has appeared as an expert witness in several trials."

Doesn`t say what in what capacity he testified as a expert, you assumed.

> >
> > I would be smart enough not to cite a plumber when the subject is electricity.
>
> So if a plumber told you not to stick a fork in an outlet, you'd ask him what his expertise on the matter is, and then do it anyway. You've probably done it before...and that's why you're you. :-)

You`d have an electrician put a toilet in for you because you are unable to make the distinction between the two different fields.

> >
> > And why are you being a retard and trying to misdirect back to me? *You* cited this guy.
>
> "This guy." It's so obvious you don't even really know who he is.

Yet I linked to his "bio". You really are desperate when you have to misdirect to the words I choose to use to avoid addressing the points I`m making. Just admit you were an idiot who didn`t know enough to tell whether this guy was an expert in a field relevant to the discussion.

>
> > Focus, stupid, we need to establish his credentials before we can give weight to his opinions. Now, with that in mind, answer the following question...
> >
> > "What is the compelling reason to give any weight to what this individual says on that subject?"

Still running from this, eh, "Boris"?

> > > Ayoob believes the same bullet hit both JFK and Connally.
> > >
> > > Ayoob points out that Oswald was left-handed, which would have enabled him to actually shoot faster and better.
> > >
> > > Ayoob does not discount the LN narrative....
> >
> > What does any of this have to do with what was being discussed?
>
> You asked, why should we give any weight to what he has to say on the subject?

Now I have to school you on what was being discussed? It was the damage to Kennedy`s skull, stupid.

>Well, you've been giving weight to all of the above probably your whole homunculus life. Why pay any credence to you?
>
> > > Bullets like those fired in Oswald's rifle just don't do what we've been told they do.
> >
> > Support that.
> >
> > >They just don't send pieces of skull flying across the sky when fired from a distance.
> >
> > Support that.
>
> I'll be happy to support both, BUT you've been way under-contributing with the quid pro quo.

There is no quid pro quo, stupid. You made these claims, it is up to you to support them. You think you can fire off an unending series of blanks and never have to support any of them.

> So since we're on the topic of bullets and targets,

We aren`t. You just want to flit away to other ideas you won`t support. Chew what is in your mouth first.

> I want you to support the SBT.

I want a pony.

> Support it. *Show* it.

It has been discussed here. Look for it.

You don`t get to demand that I respond to anything that pops into your head. When I start a post about the SBT or express ideas in a post about the SBT then you can demand that I support whatever position I take or idea I express. You don`t seem to understand anything.

> You take a turn for once. If you can do that, I will post the citations I've found to support Ayoob.

You can support you words or run, it doesn`t matter to me. It is clear that you will never support that this guy has the expertise to comment on the damage to Kennedy`s head. You won`t put up and you won`t shut up.

> If you can't, we can assume you're a know-nothing coward who cannot defend his position.

You and Ben were making claims about the damage seen in that x-ray, stupid. How it works is if you post ideas you have to support them. You just want to shoot off blanks as if what you say is meaningful. It isn`t.

> Let's see what you do.
>
> >
> > > > Perhaps if there was a photo showing where the bullet entered Kennedy`s back this could help you. Naw...
> > >
> > > Those are a dime a dozen.
> >
> > There is that "willful ignorance" you were talking about. As soon as the evidence conflicts with your silly ideas, rather than discard your silly ideas you discard the evidence.
>
> Dummy, I mean those photos are everywhere on the Internet.

Yet you seem unable to apply what is seen in that photo to determine where Kennedy was shot. Why is that?

> Google "jfk back wound." You can even do it like that, with "jfk" all lowercase, since the right way is too much work for an asshole like yourself.

I linked to it a week or so back, stupid.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8AL8mAXLS_0/OPKMtw4QAgAJ

> Don't forget to support your local SBT!!!

Did that. You need to find it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 6:11:42 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > Lazy insult by Bud deleted
> >
>
> You delete those, you silence the troll permanent.

You're a troll.

More than ever it's obvious the troll doesn't know what it's talking about.

Says the guy who thinks a missile flew into the Pentagon. Says the guy who thinks thousands killed JFK and covered up his death and continue to do so today.

Experts are anathema to their cause.

Experts determined Oswald fired all of the bullets that killed JFK JDT and wounded JBC. Experts weighed in and said the Zapruder film is authentic. Experts determined that JFK was hit by ONLY two bullets, fired from above and behind. The list goes on and on and on. Trolls brush this aside and conduct their own parallel investigations via YouTube, kook symposiums, podcasts, books, etc. all meaningless, all taken seriously by no one, and the more ridiculous theories---such as JFK's body was kidnapped---universally ridiculed.

And autopsy reports are only credible in certain parts, but not in others.

Says Boris the Truther, a troll himself, who isn't a doctor, didn't perform the autopsy, and serenely ignores the FACT that other doctors from other investigations, like the Ramsey Clark panel, the HSCA, etc, have all said the original autopsy in all it's original, basic findings and conclusions is CORRECT.

The troll's response to the third thoracic vertebrae problem in particular shows a willful ignorance that is staggering.

That you think this is a "problem" in light of the autopsy conclusions is staggering. But again, you're still trying to figure out 9-11.

>
> If they were human I might try the feel/felt/found approach to placate them...
>
> I understand how you feel about Oswald's sole guilt. I felt the same way.
> But this is what I found....

Actually, that perfectly sums up Boris the Truther Troll's "research" methods. Feelings over facts. Damn what the doctors and firearms experts determined! I'm going to go with my "feelings!" You must be a woman or gay. Or maybe both.

Apparently Boris the Truther Troll has done in-home sales. As we're kicking you to the door, Boris, quick call your manager and see if you can get us 50% off those triple-pane windows on your "first call traveling discount."

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Were Oswald's BY photos real? Was the Zapruder film altered? Were JFK's autopsy photos or x-rays altered? Dance, Truther Troll, dance!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 9 May 2018 05:29:51 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

No sense in answering... you'll IMMEDIATELY turn tail and run away.

You cannot defend your own faith. It's a cult.