info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Challenge - Part 2
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Feb 10, 2019, 7:53:21 PM2/10/19
to
The Challenge Part 2
> 3.) 3rd bullet strikes JFK (at approximately Z-313) low on the right
> occipital area of the skull causing his head to rotate to the left
> violently immediately followed by his torso and then the entire body
> goes back. The fragments exited the right parietal/temporal area and
> enters Connally's right wrist shattering it and exiting the dorsal
> side to possibly strike the rear view mirror and front windshield.
Striking near the EOP from the sixth floor (and only *slightly* to the
right of it) would *NOT* under any circumstances drive JFK's head
backwards and to the left. Simply a violation of basic physics.
Nor could any such bullet have struck Connally's wrist ... it was
struck on the OUTSIDE of the wrist - which with the elbow down simply
couldn't be rotated enough to face rearward. The *NATURAL* course of a
bullet from the Grassy Knoll would well explain Connally's wrist
injury.
Nor were there only three shots. The description of a "flurry" is
completely incompatible with only three shots. Far more likely would
have been 4-6 shots or so... there's no way to know at this late
stage, because the FBI early on decided that there had been three, and
began intimidating witnesses into agreeing to this number.
Another problem you've not dealt with, probably because you don't
believe that JFK had a temple wound, is the shot that struck him in
the temple, and was the cause of the large blowout wound reported by
DOZENS of medically trained staff, and also described in the Autopsy
Report.
My scenario EXPLAINS why the back of his head had a large wound, yours
does not.
> Note: we also beleieve that one of those fragments from the 3rd shot
> probably wounded James Tague if indeed he was hit at all.
It's quite indisputable that James Tague suffered from the effects of
a bullet strike, and *that* bullet was fired far too *HIGH* to have
been from the 6th floor. (In order to strike the pavement next to
Tague, the trajectory from the 6th floor would have been 12 feet
*OVER* JFK's head)
This is either an absolutely MASSIVE miss by a TSBD shooter, or it was
fired from another (lower) location. Believers virtually never examine
this problem.
The damage to the concrete (and the secret repairs done) argues
against it being merely a fragment of a bullet, and must have been a
full bullet that had not struck anything before. As was the damage to
the chrome in the limo - I rather suspect was a miss, and not a
fragment of a bullet.
[Ref added:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Curbstone/Item%2022.pdf]
> Ben Holmes ambiguous and impotent "shooting scenario" has 3 shooters
> shooting multiple times from unknown directions creating a partially
> unknown number of wounds with no mention of the chronology of when the
> wounds were created. I suspect that Ben Holmes will run from this
> like the pathetic phony CT he is.
You're lying, "Conan" - I've described REPEATEDLY where these shooters
were shooting from. You're also lying in your claim that you actually
think I won't respond... you have ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL SUPPORT for
such a silly idea.
You're simply a liar.
Now, I've done EXACTLY as I've repeatedly stated I would do (and have
done twice before) - match in length, detail, and number of citations
any scenario provided by a believer.
P.S. You've offered no citations, so I didn't bother either, other
than one given to clarify the trajectory. I predict that you'll REFUSE
to address this post point by point, as I've done with your post.
**************************************************************************
And, surprising no-one who knows believers to be the cowards that
they've repeatedly shown that they are, the anonymous "Conan" ran
away, and never responded. Puddy has taken to denying that Conan
offered a scenario - but Conan himself labels it his scenario, and I
certainly matched his "facts" with better facts.
Puddy is therefore calling Conan a liar... but won't *actually* make
that assertion. This shows just how desperate Puddy is getting, that
he's willing to label a fellow believer a liar just to avoid the FACT
that I posted a scenario.
And whether Puddy likes it or not, this post constitutes a "scenario"
of the event. I predict in advance that Puddy will deny this, and
complain that it's not complete... complain that it doesn't cover some
small tidbit of information. But Puddy's a coward who refuses to post
a scenario - and that's a fact that cannot be denied.
Puddy has **NEVER** offered his scenario - and never will - because he
knows that I'll INSTANTLY match it in length, detail, and number of
citations.
But for some strange reason, he believes lurkers are stupid enough to
accept these lies.
> "This by definition *excludes* making a bunch of posts to say why
> they think the LN scenario *isn't* correct, but must *include* telling
> everyone *specifically* what they think *is correct* and upon what
> *evidence* their scenario rests.
Once again, you're lying.
It's **NOT POSSIBLE** to present a conspiratorial explanation without,
AT THE SAME TIME, showing that the lone assassin isn't correct.
Puddy is setting the challenge so that it's virtually *IMPOSSIBLE* to
do by *his* rules.
Fortunately, no-one is required to follow the "rules" of a completely
dishonesty and cowardly person.
And *NO* honest person can deny that the following is both a
"scenario," and one that explains the known evidence BETTER than the
Warren Commission's theory.
(I predict Puddy will deny both statements)
> And the explanation must cover all the major known pieces of evidence
> (fragments in the limo, people saying they saw Oswald kill people that
> day, the BY photo, ect.) If an explanation is not offered for a major
> piece of evidence it will be assumed that the WC`s rendering of that
> evidence was correct. In other words, if you think something has been
> tampered with, you have to say, or it is assumed in your scenario to
> be free from tampering.
This is ... yet again... another lie. The Warren Commission's theory
has long since been quite thoroughly demolished by a number of
authors... this "requirement" to accept an undefended WCR is just
another attempt by Puddy to set rules that would effectively kill any
other possible explanations.
Yet it's a FACT that Puddy refuses to defend the Warren Commission
when their lies and omissions are pointed out.
The *true* presumption is that if you cannot defend it by utilizing
the underlying evidence, then it's wrong.
The logical fallacy that Puddy is using here is sometimes known as the
"Perfect Solution Fallacy." The perfect solution fallacy is a related
informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect
solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some
part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.
Puddy demands that any explanation of the assassination FAR EXCEED
anything he's willing to post. Indeed, unless my post is in excess of
the length of the WCR - Puddy would reject it ON THAT BASIS ONLY!
Because the Warren Commission explained some tidbit that I didn't
mention... (Remember - I predicted it!)
I completely reject this nonsense. **THIS** is the scenario that
explains the assassination **BETTER** than the Warren Commission - who
as I will show, simply lied about their own evidence. And since Puddy
refuses to defend those Warren Commission lies, and will be unable to
*CITE* for any lies in this scenario - by definition, this scenario
beats the Warren Commission's.
> What won`t be acceptable is "this allows me to believe this" kind of
> explanations, where a few things are offered to support a fantastic
> premise. The WC could not have gotten away with mentioning one or two
> things, like Brennan saying he saw Oswald shooting, and drawing a
> "this is all I need" conclusion, so neither can the conspiracy (cough,
> cough) advocates.
Amusingly, this is PRECISELY what believers do all the time. The mere
*mention* of the WCR is all they need to support their faith, and
allows them to run away from any defense of their faith.
Of course, I reject Puddy's implied claim that *HE* is the sole
arbiter of the success of any explanation... for if HE CANNOT REFUTE
WHAT I STATE - then it stands. If he cannot defend the Warren
Commission from the lies I point out, the Warren Commission loses.
> So this is your big chance, conspiracy folks, show us this
> explanation you have for the known evidence that will knock the Warren
> Commission out of consideration, let us see your comprehensive,
> compelling positive case. Brock and I have agreed to leave you guys
> alone to present this case without comment (here) or interference
> until Feb 11th. Remember, if you don`t produce anything than there is
> nothing more we need to do, since there is no alternative case the WCR
> wins by default.
>
> The forum is yours. Dazzle us. See you in a couple of weeks.
Amusingly, this is a proven lie.
Just two days after you posted this - you jumped in and posted in this
forum... then realized your mistake, AND DELETED YOUR POST! You
admitted to deleting it - but didn't apologize for the lie you told
above.
Watch... as Puddles absolutely REFUSES to admit he lied... and got
caught.
Amusingly, Puddles believes that if *HIS* conditions aren't met, then
he wins. But that logic also applies to him... since he's REPEATEDLY
refused to meet my challenge, he lost.
Same logic.
> 3.) 3rd bullet strikes JFK (at approximately Z-313) low on the right
> occipital area of the skull causing his head to rotate to the left
> violently immediately followed by his torso and then the entire body
> goes back. The fragments exited the right parietal/temporal area and
> enters Connally's right wrist shattering it and exiting the dorsal
> side to possibly strike the rear view mirror and front windshield.
Striking near the EOP from the sixth floor (and only *slightly* to the
right of it) would *NOT* under any circumstances drive JFK's head
backwards and to the left. Simply a violation of basic physics.
Nor could any such bullet have struck Connally's wrist ... it was
struck on the OUTSIDE of the wrist - which with the elbow down simply
couldn't be rotated enough to face rearward. The *NATURAL* course of a
bullet from the Grassy Knoll would well explain Connally's wrist
injury.
Nor were there only three shots. The description of a "flurry" is
completely incompatible with only three shots. Far more likely would
have been 4-6 shots or so... there's no way to know at this late
stage, because the FBI early on decided that there had been three, and
began intimidating witnesses into agreeing to this number.
Another problem you've not dealt with, probably because you don't
believe that JFK had a temple wound, is the shot that struck him in
the temple, and was the cause of the large blowout wound reported by
DOZENS of medically trained staff, and also described in the Autopsy
Report.
My scenario EXPLAINS why the back of his head had a large wound, yours
does not.
> Note: we also beleieve that one of those fragments from the 3rd shot
> probably wounded James Tague if indeed he was hit at all.
It's quite indisputable that James Tague suffered from the effects of
a bullet strike, and *that* bullet was fired far too *HIGH* to have
been from the 6th floor. (In order to strike the pavement next to
Tague, the trajectory from the 6th floor would have been 12 feet
*OVER* JFK's head)
This is either an absolutely MASSIVE miss by a TSBD shooter, or it was
fired from another (lower) location. Believers virtually never examine
this problem.
The damage to the concrete (and the secret repairs done) argues
against it being merely a fragment of a bullet, and must have been a
full bullet that had not struck anything before. As was the damage to
the chrome in the limo - I rather suspect was a miss, and not a
fragment of a bullet.
[Ref added:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Curbstone/Item%2022.pdf]
> Ben Holmes ambiguous and impotent "shooting scenario" has 3 shooters
> shooting multiple times from unknown directions creating a partially
> unknown number of wounds with no mention of the chronology of when the
> wounds were created. I suspect that Ben Holmes will run from this
> like the pathetic phony CT he is.
You're lying, "Conan" - I've described REPEATEDLY where these shooters
were shooting from. You're also lying in your claim that you actually
think I won't respond... you have ABSOLUTELY NO HISTORICAL SUPPORT for
such a silly idea.
You're simply a liar.
Now, I've done EXACTLY as I've repeatedly stated I would do (and have
done twice before) - match in length, detail, and number of citations
any scenario provided by a believer.
P.S. You've offered no citations, so I didn't bother either, other
than one given to clarify the trajectory. I predict that you'll REFUSE
to address this post point by point, as I've done with your post.
**************************************************************************
And, surprising no-one who knows believers to be the cowards that
they've repeatedly shown that they are, the anonymous "Conan" ran
away, and never responded. Puddy has taken to denying that Conan
offered a scenario - but Conan himself labels it his scenario, and I
certainly matched his "facts" with better facts.
Puddy is therefore calling Conan a liar... but won't *actually* make
that assertion. This shows just how desperate Puddy is getting, that
he's willing to label a fellow believer a liar just to avoid the FACT
that I posted a scenario.
And whether Puddy likes it or not, this post constitutes a "scenario"
of the event. I predict in advance that Puddy will deny this, and
complain that it's not complete... complain that it doesn't cover some
small tidbit of information. But Puddy's a coward who refuses to post
a scenario - and that's a fact that cannot be denied.
Puddy has **NEVER** offered his scenario - and never will - because he
knows that I'll INSTANTLY match it in length, detail, and number of
citations.
But for some strange reason, he believes lurkers are stupid enough to
accept these lies.
> "This by definition *excludes* making a bunch of posts to say why
> they think the LN scenario *isn't* correct, but must *include* telling
> everyone *specifically* what they think *is correct* and upon what
> *evidence* their scenario rests.
Once again, you're lying.
It's **NOT POSSIBLE** to present a conspiratorial explanation without,
AT THE SAME TIME, showing that the lone assassin isn't correct.
Puddy is setting the challenge so that it's virtually *IMPOSSIBLE* to
do by *his* rules.
Fortunately, no-one is required to follow the "rules" of a completely
dishonesty and cowardly person.
And *NO* honest person can deny that the following is both a
"scenario," and one that explains the known evidence BETTER than the
Warren Commission's theory.
(I predict Puddy will deny both statements)
> And the explanation must cover all the major known pieces of evidence
> (fragments in the limo, people saying they saw Oswald kill people that
> day, the BY photo, ect.) If an explanation is not offered for a major
> piece of evidence it will be assumed that the WC`s rendering of that
> evidence was correct. In other words, if you think something has been
> tampered with, you have to say, or it is assumed in your scenario to
> be free from tampering.
This is ... yet again... another lie. The Warren Commission's theory
has long since been quite thoroughly demolished by a number of
authors... this "requirement" to accept an undefended WCR is just
another attempt by Puddy to set rules that would effectively kill any
other possible explanations.
Yet it's a FACT that Puddy refuses to defend the Warren Commission
when their lies and omissions are pointed out.
The *true* presumption is that if you cannot defend it by utilizing
the underlying evidence, then it's wrong.
The logical fallacy that Puddy is using here is sometimes known as the
"Perfect Solution Fallacy." The perfect solution fallacy is a related
informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect
solution exists or that a solution should be rejected because some
part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.
Puddy demands that any explanation of the assassination FAR EXCEED
anything he's willing to post. Indeed, unless my post is in excess of
the length of the WCR - Puddy would reject it ON THAT BASIS ONLY!
Because the Warren Commission explained some tidbit that I didn't
mention... (Remember - I predicted it!)
I completely reject this nonsense. **THIS** is the scenario that
explains the assassination **BETTER** than the Warren Commission - who
as I will show, simply lied about their own evidence. And since Puddy
refuses to defend those Warren Commission lies, and will be unable to
*CITE* for any lies in this scenario - by definition, this scenario
beats the Warren Commission's.
> What won`t be acceptable is "this allows me to believe this" kind of
> explanations, where a few things are offered to support a fantastic
> premise. The WC could not have gotten away with mentioning one or two
> things, like Brennan saying he saw Oswald shooting, and drawing a
> "this is all I need" conclusion, so neither can the conspiracy (cough,
> cough) advocates.
Amusingly, this is PRECISELY what believers do all the time. The mere
*mention* of the WCR is all they need to support their faith, and
allows them to run away from any defense of their faith.
Of course, I reject Puddy's implied claim that *HE* is the sole
arbiter of the success of any explanation... for if HE CANNOT REFUTE
WHAT I STATE - then it stands. If he cannot defend the Warren
Commission from the lies I point out, the Warren Commission loses.
> So this is your big chance, conspiracy folks, show us this
> explanation you have for the known evidence that will knock the Warren
> Commission out of consideration, let us see your comprehensive,
> compelling positive case. Brock and I have agreed to leave you guys
> alone to present this case without comment (here) or interference
> until Feb 11th. Remember, if you don`t produce anything than there is
> nothing more we need to do, since there is no alternative case the WCR
> wins by default.
>
> The forum is yours. Dazzle us. See you in a couple of weeks.
Amusingly, this is a proven lie.
Just two days after you posted this - you jumped in and posted in this
forum... then realized your mistake, AND DELETED YOUR POST! You
admitted to deleting it - but didn't apologize for the lie you told
above.
Watch... as Puddles absolutely REFUSES to admit he lied... and got
caught.
Amusingly, Puddles believes that if *HIS* conditions aren't met, then
he wins. But that logic also applies to him... since he's REPEATEDLY
refused to meet my challenge, he lost.
Same logic.
donald willis
Feb 11, 2019, 12:45:20 AM2/11/19
to
Well, at least the testers got the results they wanted in 1 of 10 tests! But the omissions suggest that it was another type of bullet which caused the "blowout", if the results of only one test could be documented. In the second-to-last paragraph, they write of "the test skull", as if we might be assumed to have forgotten that there was more than one....
dcw
0 new messages