Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Provable Lies Of The Warren Commission #17.

31 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 9:54:02 AM4/5/17
to
"A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the president's neck, assuming that the President had been struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end of the muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have been held by the assassin." (WCR 106)

The citations given for this statement, 'WC 5H 153' and 'WC 5H 137' do NOT state that the surveyor "placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the president's neck..." Indeed, there is no citation possible that will support this statement, since the wound was in JFK's back, not the back of his neck. Utilizing false citation like this to support a lie seems to be a frequent tactic of the WC, as well as supporters of the WC (Posner comes to mind)

Indeed, CE 903,
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm which shows this same angle of declination that was measured by the surveyor (17º 43' 30"), fails to show a path beginning at the base of the neck. Note the string in the background, which was set to exactly this declination.

Why did the WC simply lie about what the surveyor did? Could it be that the Warren Commission was just trying to find more "evidence" for their theory? By lying about that evidence?

What is clear, however, is that this is merely another example where the Warren Commission lied...

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 10:56:45 AM4/5/17
to
CE903 is the very best WC exhibit in existence to prove that the conspiracy clowns like Ben Holmes and Jimmy DiEugenio don't have a leg to stand on when they continue to insist that the WC HAD TO HAVE JFK'S BACK WOUND RAISED TO THE NECK. CE903 proves the CTers are nuts in this regard.

How?

By showing that the SBT works perfectly fine with the wound just exactly where we know it was in JFK's body --- the UPPER BACK (not the NECK)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

Choke on it, Ben. Gag real hard on CE903. Because it's proving that you're a kook of the first order.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 11:04:48 AM4/5/17
to
Tut tut tut, David.

The Warren Commission stated the "back of the neck."

Tell us David, why are you lying about this?

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 12:58:18 PM4/5/17
to
You're getting all hung up on semantics. WHO CARES whether they called it the "back of the neck" or the "neck" or the "back"? (And the WC used ALL of those terms at various times in the WCR and throughout the WC testimony sessions.) But what counts the most is WHERE on the body the wound was placed in CE903.

Where does Specter's rod place the wound here, Ben? The BACK or the NECK?....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cH6TIrBe72w/UomNj_vsNZI/AAAAAAAAw6M/yUNOMnmLfN4/s2000/Commission-Exhibit-903.jpg

Tell me, Ben --- what do you think is WRONG (or a "lie") about the things we see depicted in CE903? What the heck is wrong with it? I see nothing wrong at all. I see the WC getting EVERYTHING RIGHT in that Commission exhibit. And yet CTers still scream bloody murder. Why??

(Let me guess --- Ben will say that the WC should have said JFK's throat wound was an ENTRY wound. Right?)

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 5:29:59 PM4/5/17
to
On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 9:58:18 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 11:04:48 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 7:56:45 AM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 9:54:02 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > "A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the president's neck, assuming that the President had been struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end of the muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have been held by the assassin." (WCR 106)
> > > >
> > > > The citations given for this statement, 'WC 5H 153' and 'WC 5H 137' do NOT state that the surveyor "placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the president's neck..." Indeed, there is no citation possible that will support this statement, since the wound was in JFK's back, not the back of his neck. Utilizing false citation like this to support a lie seems to be a frequent tactic of the WC, as well as supporters of the WC (Posner comes to mind)
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, CE 903,
> > > > http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm which shows this same angle of declination that was measured by the surveyor (17º 43' 30"), fails to show a path beginning at the base of the neck. Note the string in the background, which was set to exactly this declination.
> > > >
> > > > Why did the WC simply lie about what the surveyor did? Could it be that the Warren Commission was just trying to find more "evidence" for their theory? By lying about that evidence?
> > > >
> > > > What is clear, however, is that this is merely another example where the Warren Commission lied...
> > >
> > > CE903 is the very best WC exhibit in existence to prove that the conspiracy clowns like Ben Holmes and Jimmy DiEugenio don't have a leg to stand on when they continue to insist that the WC HAD TO HAVE JFK'S BACK WOUND RAISED TO THE NECK. CE903 proves the CTers are nuts in this regard.
> > >
> > > How?
> > >
> > > By showing that the SBT works perfectly fine with the wound just exactly where we know it was in JFK's body --- the UPPER BACK (not the NECK)....
> > >
> > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html
> > >
> > > Choke on it, Ben. Gag real hard on CE903. Because it's proving that you're a kook of the first order.
> >
> > Tut tut tut, David.
> >
> > The Warren Commission stated the "back of the neck."
> >
> > Tell us David, why are you lying about this?
>
> You're getting all hung up on semantics.

As are you.

What's the difference between "Lone Gunman" and "Conspiracy?"

Since you assert that you don't care for semantics, welcome to the conspiracy camp.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 5:36:48 PM4/5/17
to
What a lunatic.

And note how Holmes will avoid this question like a dreaded disease....

"Where does Specter's rod place the wound [in CE903], Ben? The BACK or the NECK?"

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 5:47:30 PM4/5/17
to
*Not* in the place specified by the Warren Commission. That's a contradiction - either the photo is wrong, or the Warren Commission is wrong.

Which one is wrong, David?

And note how Pein will avoid this question like a dreaded disease...

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 6:01:43 PM4/5/17
to
Sure there's a contradiction (sort of). But it's merely SEMANTICS. Nothing more. Since the wound in JFK's back was very close to the junction of where the NECK meets the BACK, the Commission would alternately utilize BOTH of those words when referring to the location of the bullet hole.

But it doesn't matter what WORD they used. What matters most, as I said before, is where they LITERALLY PLACED the wound in the CE903 picture. And where was it placed, Ben?

Would you like to exhibit some common sense and honesty (for once), Ben? Or are you late for your next "I'm In Denial" class?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 6:08:13 PM4/5/17
to
I ASKED YOU WHICH ONE WAS WRONG!!!

YOU'RE A GUTLESS COWARD, DAVID VON PEIN!!!

ANSWER THE QUESTION - OR RUN LIKE THE YELLOW COWARD YOU ARE YET AGAIN...

Bud

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 6:12:29 PM4/5/17
to
The vertebrae of the neck go down into what is commonly considered the back by most laymen.

http://www.bodywellnessprogram.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vertebrae-in-the-neck-cervical-vertebrae-priyanka-chapter-8-joints-and-their-diagrams.jpg


> But it's merely SEMANTICS. Nothing more. Since the wound in JFK's back was very close to the junction of where the NECK meets the BACK, the Commission would alternately utilize BOTH of those words when referring to the location of the bullet hole.
>
> But it doesn't matter what WORD they used. What matters most, as I said before, is where they LITERALLY PLACED the wound in the CE903 picture. And where was it placed, Ben?
>
> Would you like to exhibit some common sense and honesty (for once), Ben? Or are you late for your next "I'm In Denial" class?

He is a retard trying to score retard points.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 6:23:04 PM4/5/17
to
The implication that there's no difference between a shot to the back of the neck, and a shot to JFK's back - is simply another lie.

It takes a truly dedicated believer to pretend that there's no difference.

Of course, you MUST pretend that there's no difference - because if there *is* a difference, then the Warren Commission provably lied.


> http://www.bodywellnessprogram.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vertebrae-in-the-neck-cervical-vertebrae-priyanka-chapter-8-joints-and-their-diagrams.jpg


The cervical vertebrae also continue all the way down to the tailbone.

Why don't you just assert that JFK was shot in the ass?

Surely, if it's mere semantics between the back of the neck, and JFK's back, then it's not that much more of a stretch to the tailbone.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 6:27:13 PM4/5/17
to
Where did the WC place the wound in CE903, Ben?

Bud

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 6:41:41 PM4/5/17
to
Stop making these empty claims and prove it.

> It takes a truly dedicated believer to pretend that there's no difference.

Show a difference.

> Of course, you MUST pretend that there's no difference - because if there *is* a difference, then the Warren Commission provably lied.

Stop shooting blanks and show a difference.
C1 to C7 are the vertebrae of the NECK, stupid.

> Why don't you just assert that JFK was shot in the ass?
>
> Surely, if it's mere semantics between the back of the neck, and JFK's back, then it's not that much more of a stretch to the tailbone.

Look at the image I linked to and stop making yourself look stupid.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 6:50:17 PM4/5/17
to
"A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the president's neck..."

Is this really that difficult to read?

"on the back of the president's neck..." - Seems pretty clear to me.



> > > http://www.bodywellnessprogram.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vertebrae-in-the-neck-cervical-vertebrae-priyanka-chapter-8-joints-and-their-diagrams.jpg
> >
> >
> > The cervical vertebrae also continue all the way down to the tailbone.
> >
> > Why don't you just assert that JFK was shot in the ass?
> >
> > Surely, if it's mere semantics between the back of the neck, and JFK's back, then it's not that much more of a stretch to the tailbone.


Looks like believers can't handle simple logic.

Bud

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 7:32:08 PM4/5/17
to
Now all you need to do if find out where the neck is.

> > > > http://www.bodywellnessprogram.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vertebrae-in-the-neck-cervical-vertebrae-priyanka-chapter-8-joints-and-their-diagrams.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > > The cervical vertebrae also continue all the way down to the tailbone.
> > >
> > > Why don't you just assert that JFK was shot in the ass?
> > >
> > > Surely, if it's mere semantics between the back of the neck, and JFK's back, then it's not that much more of a stretch to the tailbone.
>
>
> Looks like believers can't handle simple logic.

Retard logic.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 5, 2017, 8:50:38 PM4/5/17
to
You lost.

The Warren Commission provably lied.

The shot did *NOT* enter the President's neck.

It's as simple as that.

Bud

unread,
Apr 6, 2017, 10:14:40 AM4/6/17
to
Medically speaking it did.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 6, 2017, 10:27:47 AM4/6/17
to
Nope. T3/T4 is not in the neck... "medically speaking."

Now, a bullet entered the FRONT of the neck, medically speaking - so you're right if you're referring to *that* wound.

Bud

unread,
Apr 6, 2017, 1:10:43 PM4/6/17
to
Conspiracy retards cling to all the wrong information.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 6, 2017, 1:39:16 PM4/6/17
to
Ad hominem simply shows that you cannot refute the evidence I provide.

You lose!

Bud

unread,
Apr 6, 2017, 1:56:07 PM4/6/17
to
You cling to the wrong things and then you look at the wrong things incorrectly.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 6, 2017, 2:14:27 PM4/6/17
to
Then you should be able to cite evidence showing this. But your failure to do so shows that ...

Yep...

YOU LOST!
0 new messages