Troll Claims Occipital On The Top Of The Head!!!

[Ben Holmes]

>> The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
>> into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as
>> the top/side of the head, no?

No.

It's silly the lengths these kooks will go to re-write history. Here
we have a kook who thinks that the occipital can be described as the
top of the head.

My guess is that this moron will **NEVER** cite for such a wacky
claim, and indeed won't even try.

It's like trying to cite for claiming that the South Pole is a
tropical paradise.

Notice that not a **SINGLE** believer stepped in to correct this
fellow believer in his wacky assertion that the occipital could be
described as the "top/side of the head."

Truth is not a concept favored by believers...

[Mark Ulrik]

You seem to be a special kind of stupid. The argument was that it is possible for a large wound to be both *mainly* on the top/side of the head and extend *somewhat* into the occipital.

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 5:28:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
> >> into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as
> >> the top/side of the head, no?
>
> No.
>
> It's silly the lengths these kooks will go to re-write history. Here
> we have a kook who thinks that the occipital can be described as the
> top of the head.

Where is the parietal?

What does "chiefly" mean?

> My guess is that this moron will **NEVER** cite for such a wacky
> claim, and indeed won't even try.
>
> It's like trying to cite for claiming that the South Pole is a
> tropical paradise.
>
> Notice that not a **SINGLE** believer stepped in to correct this
> fellow believer in his wacky assertion that the occipital could be
> described as the "top/side of the head."

That isn`t what he said. You are off the deep end misrepresenting people.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 5:28:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
>> >> into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as
>> >> the top/side of the head, no?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> It's silly the lengths these kooks will go to re-write history. Here
>> we have a kook who thinks that the occipital can be described as the
>> top of the head.
>
> Where is the parietal?

What part? If the part near the occipital, then it's in the rear of
the head.

As David Von Pein admitted:

***************************************************
Ben Holmes:
As I've pointed out before, AND YOU'VE REFUSED TO ADDRESS AT ALL... a
wound can be ENTIRELY in the parietal, yet still be in the back of the
head.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, that's true.
***************************************************

Are you calling David Von Pein a liar, or will you PUBLICLY agree that
a part of the parietal is in the read of the head?

(Or, as I predict, will you do neither, and run away...)


> What does "chiefly" mean?


A dictionary is your friend.

If you were *HONEST* - then you'd admit that *NO* part of the
occipital is anywhere other than the back - and any part of the
parietal at the border of the occipital is in the rear of the head.

But you're not an honest man, are you Puddles?

>> My guess is that this moron will **NEVER** cite for such a wacky
>> claim, and indeed won't even try.
>>
>> It's like trying to cite for claiming that the South Pole is a
>> tropical paradise.
>>
>> Notice that not a **SINGLE** believer stepped in to correct this
>> fellow believer in his wacky assertion that the occipital could be
>> described as the "top/side of the head."
>
> That isn`t what he said.

You're lying again, Puddy.

"The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as the
top/side of the head, no?"

Now Puddles - CITE FOR THIS CLAIM!

Your failure to to cite is an admission by you that you lied.

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:35:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 5:28:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
> >> >> into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as
> >> >> the top/side of the head, no?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> It's silly the lengths these kooks will go to re-write history. Here
> >> we have a kook who thinks that the occipital can be described as the
> >> top of the head.
> >
> > Where is the parietal?
>
>
> What part? If the part near the occipital, then it's in the rear of
> the head.

<snicker> Notice the dishonesty? When Mark was calling for specifics Ben wasn`t interested. Now the bar gets raised, now we must be specific.

Here is the parietal...

https://www.knowyourbody.net/parietal-lobe.html

So if the wound is placed mainly (chiefly) in the parietal, but somewhat into the temporal and occipital, it would be mostly in the yellow area, but extending somewhat into the green and pink.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1f2TR19fDk&t=17s

If the wound seen on the z-film isn`t the same wound, where is *that* wound described?

> As David Von Pein admitted:
>
> ***************************************************
> Ben Holmes:
> As I've pointed out before, AND YOU'VE REFUSED TO ADDRESS AT ALL... a
> wound can be ENTIRELY in the parietal, yet still be in the back of the
> head.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> Yes, that's true.
> ***************************************************
>
> Are you calling David Von Pein a liar, or will you PUBLICLY agree that
> a part of the parietal is in the read of the head?
>
> (Or, as I predict, will you do neither, and run away...)
>
>
> > What does "chiefly" mean?
>
>
> A dictionary is your friend.
>
> If you were *HONEST* - then you'd admit that *NO* part of the
> occipital is anywhere other than the back - and any part of the
> parietal at the border of the occipital is in the rear of the head.
>
> But you're not an honest man, are you Puddles?

You have been caught up in your silly game playing for so long that you`ve lost the ability to determine the truth, if you ever had the ability.

> >> My guess is that this moron will **NEVER** cite for such a wacky
> >> claim, and indeed won't even try.
> >>
> >> It's like trying to cite for claiming that the South Pole is a
> >> tropical paradise.
> >>
> >> Notice that not a **SINGLE** believer stepped in to correct this
> >> fellow believer in his wacky assertion that the occipital could be
> >> described as the "top/side of the head."
> >
> > That isn`t what he said.
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddy.
>
> "The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
> into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as the
> top/side of the head, no?"

Your characterization of what he said was a lie. It wasn`t what he said. You are getting too slimy to talk to any more, you misrepresent everyone.

> Now Puddles - CITE FOR THIS CLAIM!

You are lying about what the claim is. A wound that is chiefly in the parietal could very well be top/side mostly. Check out the graphic of the spinning skull showing where the parietal eminence is...

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

Notice that when the skull if positioned forward neither red spot can be seen from the rear. Of course the damage could have extended downward or rearward from those red dots, but that would be the area that had most of the damage. The parietal.

> Your failure to to cite is an admission by you that you lied.

Nobody cares about your hot air, Ben.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 17:16:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:35:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 5:28:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
>> >> >> into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as
>> >> >> the top/side of the head, no?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> It's silly the lengths these kooks will go to re-write history. Here
>> >> we have a kook who thinks that the occipital can be described as the
>> >> top of the head.
>> >
>> > Where is the parietal?
>>
>> What part? If the part near the occipital, then it's in the rear of
>> the head.
>
> <snicker> Notice the dishonesty?

You're lying again, Puddles.

At **NO TIME** have I been less than specific about the wound location
I'm talking about.

> When Mark was calling for specifics Ben wasn`t interested. Now the
> bar gets raised, now we must be specific.

I've not changed a single thing.

You're lying again, Puddy.

>> As David Von Pein admitted:
>>
>> ***************************************************
>> Ben Holmes:
>> As I've pointed out before, AND YOU'VE REFUSED TO ADDRESS AT ALL... a
>> wound can be ENTIRELY in the parietal, yet still be in the back of the
>> head.
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>> Yes, that's true.
>> ***************************************************
>>
>> Are you calling David Von Pein a liar, or will you PUBLICLY agree that
>> a part of the parietal is in the read of the head?
>>
>> (Or, as I predict, will you do neither, and run away...)

Looks like Puddles is afraid to comment.

>> > What does "chiefly" mean?
>>
>> A dictionary is your friend.
>>
>> If you were *HONEST* - then you'd admit that *NO* part of the
>> occipital is anywhere other than the back - and any part of the
>> parietal at the border of the occipital is in the rear of the head.
>>
>> But you're not an honest man, are you Puddles?
>
> You have been caught up in your silly game playing for so long
> that you`ve lost the ability to determine the truth, if you ever had
> the ability.

Ad hominem isn't an answer. If you were honest, you'd admit that *NO*
part of the occipital is anywhere other than the back.

Quite the coward, aren't you Puddles?

>> >> My guess is that this moron will **NEVER** cite for such a wacky
>> >> claim, and indeed won't even try.
>> >>
>> >> It's like trying to cite for claiming that the South Pole is a
>> >> tropical paradise.
>> >>
>> >> Notice that not a **SINGLE** believer stepped in to correct this
>> >> fellow believer in his wacky assertion that the occipital could be
>> >> described as the "top/side of the head."
>> >
>> > That isn`t what he said.
>>
>> You're lying again, Puddy.
>>
>> "The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
>> into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as the
>> top/side of the head, no?"
>
> Your characterization of what he said was a lie.

I just QUOTED the troll. He's quite clearly placing a wound that is
chiefly parietal, BUT EXTENDING SOMEWHAT INTO THE OCCIPITAL as the top
of the head.

That's an outright lie.

So **YOU** and the troll are lying... not I.

> It wasn`t what he said. You are getting too slimy to talk to any
> more, you misrepresent everyone.

Here it is again: "The wound was described as chiefly parietal but

extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be
interpreted as the top/side of the head, no?"

Now, *ANSWER THAT QUESTION* ... and cite for your answer.

If you can't say, as I did, "no"... then you're lying.

>> Now Puddles - CITE FOR THIS CLAIM!
>
> You are lying about what the claim is. A wound that is chiefly in
> the parietal could very well be top/side mostly. Check out the graphic
> of the spinning skull showing where the parietal eminence is...

Here it is again: "The wound was described as chiefly parietal but

extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be
interpreted as the top/side of the head, no?"

Now, *ANSWER THAT QUESTION* ... and cite for your answer.

If you can't say, as I did, "no"... then you're lying.

>> Your failure to to cite is an admission by you that you lied.
>
> Nobody cares about your hot air, Ben.

Answer the question, and cite for your answer.

Or be proven a liar.

[Bud]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 8:33:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 17:16:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:35:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 5:28:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> >> >> The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
> >> >> >> into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as
> >> >> >> the top/side of the head, no?
> >> >>
> >> >> No.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's silly the lengths these kooks will go to re-write history. Here
> >> >> we have a kook who thinks that the occipital can be described as the
> >> >> top of the head.
> >> >
> >> > Where is the parietal?
> >>
> >> What part? If the part near the occipital, then it's in the rear of
> >> the head.
> >
> > <snicker> Notice the dishonesty?
>
> You're lying again, Puddles.
>
> At **NO TIME** have I been less than specific about the wound location
> I'm talking about.

Mark asked a series of question intended to nail you down. You slithered away from them.

> > When Mark was calling for specifics Ben wasn`t interested. Now the
> > bar gets raised, now we must be specific.
>
>
> I've not changed a single thing.

Did I say you changed anything? Why do suck so much strawman cock?

> You're lying again, Puddy.
>
>
> >> As David Von Pein admitted:
> >>
> >> ***************************************************
> >> Ben Holmes:
> >> As I've pointed out before, AND YOU'VE REFUSED TO ADDRESS AT ALL... a
> >> wound can be ENTIRELY in the parietal, yet still be in the back of the
> >> head.
> >>
> >> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >> Yes, that's true.
> >> ***************************************************
> >>
> >> Are you calling David Von Pein a liar, or will you PUBLICLY agree that
> >> a part of the parietal is in the read of the head?
> >>
> >> (Or, as I predict, will you do neither, and run away...)
>
>
> Looks like Puddles is afraid to comment.

Looks like Ben wants me to write more things so he can remove them and run from them.

>
> >> > What does "chiefly" mean?
> >>
> >> A dictionary is your friend.
> >>
> >> If you were *HONEST* - then you'd admit that *NO* part of the
> >> occipital is anywhere other than the back - and any part of the
> >> parietal at the border of the occipital is in the rear of the head.
> >>
> >> But you're not an honest man, are you Puddles?
> >
> > You have been caught up in your silly game playing for so long
> > that you`ve lost the ability to determine the truth, if you ever had
> > the ability.
>
>
> Ad hominem isn't an answer. If you were honest, you'd admit that *NO*
> part of the occipital is anywhere other than the back.
>
> Quite the coward, aren't you Puddles?

Why are you focusing on the occipital when they said the chief area of damage was somewhere else?

>
> >> >> My guess is that this moron will **NEVER** cite for such a wacky
> >> >> claim, and indeed won't even try.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's like trying to cite for claiming that the South Pole is a
> >> >> tropical paradise.
> >> >>
> >> >> Notice that not a **SINGLE** believer stepped in to correct this
> >> >> fellow believer in his wacky assertion that the occipital could be
> >> >> described as the "top/side of the head."
> >> >
> >> > That isn`t what he said.
> >>
> >> You're lying again, Puddy.
> >>
> >> "The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
> >> into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as the
> >> top/side of the head, no?"
> >
> > Your characterization of what he said was a lie.
>
>
> I just QUOTED the troll.

And prior to that you misrepresented his position.

> He's quite clearly placing a wound that is
> chiefly parietal, BUT EXTENDING SOMEWHAT INTO THE OCCIPITAL as the top
> of the head.

The wound covered an *area*, stupid. Extending into one area doesn`t rule out the main portion of damage being in another. In fact, that is what is said.

> That's an outright lie.
>
> So **YOU** and the troll are lying... not I.
>
>
>
> > It wasn`t what he said. You are getting too slimy to talk to any
> > more, you misrepresent everyone.
>
> Here it is again: "The wound was described as chiefly parietal but
> extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be
> interpreted as the top/side of the head, no?"
>
> Now, *ANSWER THAT QUESTION* ... and cite for your answer.
>
> If you can't say, as I did, "no"... then you're lying.
>
>
> >> Now Puddles - CITE FOR THIS CLAIM!
> >
> > You are lying about what the claim is. A wound that is chiefly in
> > the parietal could very well be top/side mostly. Check out the graphic
> > of the spinning skull showing where the parietal eminence is...
>
>
> Here it is again: "The wound was described as chiefly parietal but
> extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be
> interpreted as the top/side of the head, no?"
>
> Now, *ANSWER THAT QUESTION* ... and cite for your answer.

Do you want to cut it out again?

> If you can't say, as I did, "no"... then you're lying.
>
>
> >> Your failure to to cite is an admission by you that you lied.
> >
> > Nobody cares about your hot air, Ben.
>
> Answer the question, and cite for your answer.
>
> Or be proven a liar.

Ben cut out what I cited. He cuts out arguments he has no answer to, then repeats his demands. He is a coward, as this discussion has shown.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 18:00:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 8:33:35 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 17:16:21 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:35:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 16:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 5:28:30 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> >> The wound was described as chiefly parietal but extending somewhat
>> >> >> >> into the temporal and occipital bone. That could be interpreted as
>> >> >> >> the top/side of the head, no?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's silly the lengths these kooks will go to re-write history. Here
>> >> >> we have a kook who thinks that the occipital can be described as the
>> >> >> top of the head.
>> >> >
>> >> > Where is the parietal?
>> >>
>> >> What part? If the part near the occipital, then it's in the rear of
>> >> the head.
>> >
>> > <snicker> Notice the dishonesty?
>>
>> You're lying again, Puddles.
>>
>> At **NO TIME** have I been less than specific about the wound location
>> I'm talking about.
>
> Mark asked a series of question intended to nail you down. You
> slithered away from them.

Asking questions in order to avoid answering the question is a tactic
believers have perfected.

Was there a large wound on the back of JFK's head? It's a simple
question, and DVP is the *ONLY* believer to have ever answered it.

Run coward... RUN!

[David Von Pein]

Vincent Bugliosi and Dr. Michael Baden have answered it. (Or don't they count, since those two "believers" have never posted at alt.conspiracy.jfk?)

Anyway, here's what Bugliosi and Baden had to say....

---- Quoting From Page 407 of Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History": ----

"Even apart from Dr. McClelland's wandering completely off the reservation in the sketch he drew for Josiah Thompson, what is the explanation for several of the other Parkland doctors erroneously thinking that the large exit wound was to the right rear of the president's head as opposed to the right frontal region, where all the medical and scientific evidence proved it to be? Dr. Michael Baden, the chief forensic pathologist for the HSCA, has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid...." ...[see image below]...

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Byh8chSlVZw/XBrTkEFdk2I/AAAAAAABQeI/BirDwNY3DgstQ3xyCYgaKRPozw5aIPNWwCLcBGAs/s1600/Dr-Baden-Quote-Regarding-JFKs-Head-Wounds.png

[Ben Holmes]

Well, it's all over for you now, DVP. Since you're now willing to
accept citations that will never defend their statements in this
forum.

So Douglas Horne, Mark Lane, all by themselves, trump your claims.

THEY TRUMP YOUR CLAIMS.

I can list many others... since you don't mind citing people that will
never defend their statements.

But better than that, I can now trump any claim you offer by merely
citing the dozens of medical professionals - and since there's no need
on *YOUR PART* for them to be able to defend their statements...
merely citing their "occipital/parietal" statements trums ANYTHING you
try to use... since they are primary eyewitnesses.

If you aren't feeling stupid now about trying to use Bugliosi & Baden,
you should.

>Anyway, here's what Bugliosi and Baden had to say....
>
>---- Quoting From Page 407 of Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History": ----
>
> "Even apart from Dr. McClelland's wandering completely off the
> reservation in the sketch he drew for Josiah Thompson, what is the
> explanation for several of the other Parkland doctors erroneously
> thinking that the large exit wound was to the right rear of the
> president's head as opposed to the right frontal region, where all the
> medical and scientific evidence proved it to be? Dr. Michael Baden,
> the chief forensic pathologist for the HSCA, has what I believe to be
> the answer, one whose logic is solid...." ...[see image below]...

McClelland was there, Bugliosi and Baden were not.

The Autopsy Report states it quite clearly: 1. There is a large
irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly
the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp
and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in
greatest diameter.

But you've already claimed you don't believe this... you **NEED** the
prosectors to have been inaccurate.

You **NEED** the dozens of medical professionals who stated that the
wound was occipital/parietal to have been mistaken.

You even assert on your website your incredulity that the Parkland
witnesses could even see the wound - with JFK lying on his back.

What you NEVER seem capable of doing is demonstrating the authenticity
of the evidence you use to deny the Autopsy Report, and the dozens of
medical professionals.

And amusingly, you've said nothing about the believers in this forum -
who ALL DAY yesterday refused to answer the simple question:

WAS THERE A LARGE WOUND ON THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD? AS DESCRIBED BY
DOZENS OF MEDICALLY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS AND BY THE AUTOPSY REPORT?

Chuckles has now come out disagreeing with you ... are you going to
say anything about it?

Puddy spends more words claiming to have answered than the simple
"yes" or "no" that it would take... do you have anything to say about
Puddles strange refusal to support your answer to this question?

[Bud]

Asking you questions about the issue you brought up is a way to show how you are being dishonest.

> Was there a large wound on the back of JFK's head?

Asked and answered.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:38:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

CLAIMING THAT YOU'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTION IS YOUR WAY TO SHOW YOUR
INHERENT DISHONESTY.

>> Was there a large wound on the back of JFK's head?
>
> Asked and answered.

NONE OF THE THREE POSSIBLE ANSWERS WOULD HAVE TAKEN AS MANY LETTERS TO
TYPE.

YOU'RE CLEARLY LYING AGAIN.

CAN YOU AT LEAST STATE THAT YOU AGREE WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S ANSWER?

[Bud]

Fantastic ideas cannot trump reasonable explanations.

> I can list many others... since you don't mind citing people that will
> never defend their statements.
>
> But better than that, I can now trump any claim you offer by merely
> citing the dozens of medical professionals - and since there's no need
> on *YOUR PART* for them to be able to defend their statements...
> merely citing their "occipital/parietal" statements trums ANYTHING you
> try to use... since they are primary eyewitnesses.
>
> If you aren't feeling stupid now about trying to use Bugliosi & Baden,
> you should.
>
>
> >Anyway, here's what Bugliosi and Baden had to say....
> >
> >---- Quoting From Page 407 of Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History": ----
> >
> > "Even apart from Dr. McClelland's wandering completely off the
> > reservation in the sketch he drew for Josiah Thompson, what is the
> > explanation for several of the other Parkland doctors erroneously
> > thinking that the large exit wound was to the right rear of the
> > president's head as opposed to the right frontal region, where all the
> > medical and scientific evidence proved it to be? Dr. Michael Baden,
> > the chief forensic pathologist for the HSCA, has what I believe to be
> > the answer, one whose logic is solid...." ...[see image below]...
>
> McClelland was there, Bugliosi and Baden were not.

Making correct observations is more important that just "being there". Jean Hill said men in plain clothes returned fire during the assassination.

> The Autopsy Report states it quite clearly: 1. There is a large
> irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly
> the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
> occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp
> and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in
> greatest diameter.
>
> But you've already claimed you don't believe this... you **NEED** the
> prosectors to have been inaccurate.

We only need for their findings to be sound.

> You **NEED** the dozens of medical professionals who stated that the
> wound was occipital/parietal to have been mistaken.

Why are autopsies performed?

> You even assert on your website your incredulity that the Parkland
> witnesses could even see the wound - with JFK lying on his back.
>
> What you NEVER seem capable of doing is demonstrating the authenticity
> of the evidence you use to deny the Autopsy Report, and the dozens of
> medical professionals.
>
> And amusingly, you've said nothing about the believers in this forum -
> who ALL DAY yesterday refused to answer the simple question:
>
> WAS THERE A LARGE WOUND ON THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD? AS DESCRIBED BY
> DOZENS OF MEDICALLY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS AND BY THE AUTOPSY REPORT?

Begged question.

> Chuckles has now come out disagreeing with you ... are you going to
> say anything about it?
>
> Puddy spends more words claiming to have answered than the simple
> "yes" or "no" that it would take... do you have anything to say about
> Puddles strange refusal to support your answer to this question?

I showed where the wound likely was and you cut it out. You have no interest in the truth, only your silly game playing.

[Bud]

Non sequitur. You can`t always just misdirect to other people.

>
>
> >> Was there a large wound on the back of JFK's head?
> >
> > Asked and answered.
>
>
> NONE OF THE THREE POSSIBLE ANSWERS WOULD HAVE TAKEN AS MANY LETTERS TO
> TYPE.

Non sequitur.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:47:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

What's the "reasonable explanation???

>> I can list many others... since you don't mind citing people that will
>> never defend their statements.
>>
>> But better than that, I can now trump any claim you offer by merely
>> citing the dozens of medical professionals - and since there's no need
>> on *YOUR PART* for them to be able to defend their statements...
>> merely citing their "occipital/parietal" statements trums ANYTHING you
>> try to use... since they are primary eyewitnesses.
>>
>> If you aren't feeling stupid now about trying to use Bugliosi & Baden,
>> you should.
>>
>>
>> >Anyway, here's what Bugliosi and Baden had to say....
>> >
>> >---- Quoting From Page 407 of Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History": ----
>> >
>> > "Even apart from Dr. McClelland's wandering completely off the
>> > reservation in the sketch he drew for Josiah Thompson, what is the
>> > explanation for several of the other Parkland doctors erroneously
>> > thinking that the large exit wound was to the right rear of the
>> > president's head as opposed to the right frontal region, where all the
>> > medical and scientific evidence proved it to be? Dr. Michael Baden,
>> > the chief forensic pathologist for the HSCA, has what I believe to be
>> > the answer, one whose logic is solid...." ...[see image below]...
>>
>> McClelland was there, Bugliosi and Baden were not.
>
> Making correct observations is more important that just "being
> there". Jean Hill said men in plain clothes returned fire during the
> assassination.

McClelland is a medical professional making statements that he's
considered an expert on.

Trying to compare him to Jean Hill shows how desperate you're getting.

(As well as lying about what Jean Hill said...)

>> The Autopsy Report states it quite clearly: 1. There is a large
>> irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly
>> the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
>> occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp
>> and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in
>> greatest diameter.
>>
>> But you've already claimed you don't believe this... you **NEED** the
>> prosectors to have been inaccurate.
>
> We only need for their findings to be sound.

So you believe that their Autopsy Report description of the wounds is
wrong.

Good to know!

>> You **NEED** the dozens of medical professionals who stated that the
>> wound was occipital/parietal to have been mistaken.
>
> Why are autopsies performed?

So you can pretend to believe them. Yet refuse to state that you do.

>> You even assert on your website your incredulity that the Parkland
>> witnesses could even see the wound - with JFK lying on his back.
>>
>> What you NEVER seem capable of doing is demonstrating the authenticity
>> of the evidence you use to deny the Autopsy Report, and the dozens of
>> medical professionals.
>>
>> And amusingly, you've said nothing about the believers in this forum -
>> who ALL DAY yesterday refused to answer the simple question:
>>
>> WAS THERE A LARGE WOUND ON THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD? AS DESCRIBED BY
>> DOZENS OF MEDICALLY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS AND BY THE AUTOPSY REPORT?
>
> Begged question.

You're lying again, Puddles.

Here, let me make it simple for you: Was there a large wound on the

back of JFK's head?

Now, you know, and I know, that I'm speaking about a wound larger than
a 6 or 7mm hole... so let's hear your answer.

You cannot claim THAT is a "begged" question - yet I predict you'll
still refuse to answer it.

>> Chuckles has now come out disagreeing with you ... are you going to
>> say anything about it?
>>
>> Puddy spends more words claiming to have answered than the simple
>> "yes" or "no" that it would take... do you have anything to say about
>> Puddles strange refusal to support your answer to this question?
>

> I showed where the wound likely was ...

Was it in the back of JFK's head? Yes or no...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:58:16 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Non sequitur. You can't always just misdirect to other people, other
questions, other excuses.

Was there a large wound in the back of JFK's head?

And you *KNOW* what I mean by "large."


Run coward...

RUN!!!

>> >> Was there a large wound on the back of JFK's head?
>> >
>> > Asked and answered.
>>
>> NONE OF THE THREE POSSIBLE ANSWERS WOULD HAVE TAKEN AS MANY LETTERS TO
>> TYPE.
>
> Non sequitur.

Proving that you lied.

You claim to have answered... yet your claims to have answered ARE
LONGER THAN THE ANSWER WOULD BE.

Yes or no, Puddy? Or even "I don't know."

[Bud]

Hit the link DVP provided.

Expertise is only one consideration. Context is another.

> Trying to compare him to Jean Hill shows how desperate you're getting.

It was enough to make the point that getting things right is more important than just being there.

> (As well as lying about what Jean Hill said...)
>
>
>
> >> The Autopsy Report states it quite clearly: 1. There is a large
> >> irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly
> >> the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and
> >> occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp
> >> and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in
> >> greatest diameter.
> >>
> >> But you've already claimed you don't believe this... you **NEED** the
> >> prosectors to have been inaccurate.
> >
> > We only need for their findings to be sound.
>
>
> So you believe that their Autopsy Report description of the wounds is
> wrong.

Is that what you figure?

> Good to know!
>
>
> >> You **NEED** the dozens of medical professionals who stated that the
> >> wound was occipital/parietal to have been mistaken.
> >
> > Why are autopsies performed?
>
>
> So you can pretend to believe them. Yet refuse to state that you do.

Ben can`t even admit why autopsies are performed.

> >> You even assert on your website your incredulity that the Parkland
> >> witnesses could even see the wound - with JFK lying on his back.
> >>
> >> What you NEVER seem capable of doing is demonstrating the authenticity
> >> of the evidence you use to deny the Autopsy Report, and the dozens of
> >> medical professionals.
> >>
> >> And amusingly, you've said nothing about the believers in this forum -
> >> who ALL DAY yesterday refused to answer the simple question:
> >>
> >> WAS THERE A LARGE WOUND ON THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD? AS DESCRIBED BY
> >> DOZENS OF MEDICALLY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS AND BY THE AUTOPSY REPORT?
> >
> > Begged question.
>
>
> You're lying again, Puddles.
>
> Here, let me make it simple for you: Was there a large wound on the
> back of JFK's head?

It seems there was a wound that was largely on the upper side that extended back to the rear somewhat and to the lower side somewhat.

> Now, you know, and I know, that I'm speaking about a wound larger than
> a 6 or 7mm hole... so let's hear your answer.
>
> You cannot claim THAT is a "begged" question - yet I predict you'll
> still refuse to answer it.
>
>
> >> Chuckles has now come out disagreeing with you ... are you going to
> >> say anything about it?
> >>
> >> Puddy spends more words claiming to have answered than the simple
> >> "yes" or "no" that it would take... do you have anything to say about
> >> Puddles strange refusal to support your answer to this question?
> >
> > I showed where the wound likely was ...
>
> Was it in the back of JFK's head? Yes or no...

I showed you where it seemed to be and you cut it out and ran from it. You have no interest in the truth, you only have interest in silly game playing.

[Bud]

You brought up an issue. Mark asked you questions about the issue you brought up and you ran. You are only interested in your silly game playing.

> Was there a large wound in the back of JFK's head?
>
> And you *KNOW* what I mean by "large."

I explained my thoughts on the wound...
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/bKFKIgffobU/munDQ3hzAgAJ

You had no interest, you only have interest is silly game playing.

> Run coward...
>
> RUN!!!
>
>
> >> >> Was there a large wound on the back of JFK's head?
> >> >
> >> > Asked and answered.
> >>
> >> NONE OF THE THREE POSSIBLE ANSWERS WOULD HAVE TAKEN AS MANY LETTERS TO
> >> TYPE.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
>
> Proving that you lied.

Another non sequitur.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>> What's the "reasonable explanation???
>
> Hit the link DVP provided.

PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!

PUDDY FINALLY ADMITS AN ANSWER....

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:51:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

BOTH YOU AND CHUCKLES HAVE FINALLY ANSWERED...

YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS NO LARGE WOUND ON THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD.

AND CHUCKLES BELIEVES THAT THERE WAS.

Of course, neither of you can defend your claims.

[David Von Pein]

On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
> >
> > Hit the link DVP provided.
>
>
> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!
>

~sigh~ That's not the link Bud was referring to. He meant this link....

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Byh8chSlVZw/XBrTkEFdk2I/AAAAAAABQeI/BirDwNY3DgstQ3xyCYgaKRPozw5aIPNWwCLcBGAs/s1600/Dr-Baden-Quote-Regarding-JFKs-Head-Wounds.png

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
>> >
>> > Hit the link DVP provided.
>>
>>
>> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
>> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!
>
>~sigh~ That's not the link Bud was referring to.

Nope... you're lying.

The topic was crystal clear. Whether or not the large wound on JFK's
head was in the BACK of the head.

No lying allowed in an open forum.

[David Von Pein]

I think you're wrong, Benjamin. I think Bud meant this link (which is the only one I've posted in this thread thus far)....

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Byh8chSlVZw/XBrTkEFdk2I/AAAAAAABQeI/BirDwNY3DgstQ3xyCYgaKRPozw5aIPNWwCLcBGAs/s1600/Dr-Baden-Quote-Regarding-JFKs-Head-Wounds.png

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:28:43 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 5:11:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
>> >> >
>> >> > Hit the link DVP provided.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
>> >> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!
>> >
>> >~sigh~ That's not the link Bud was referring to.
>>
>>
>> Nope... you're lying.
>>
>> The topic was crystal clear. Whether or not the large wound on JFK's
>> head was in the BACK of the head.
>>
>> No lying allowed in an open forum.
>
>I think you're wrong, Benjamin.

Who cares what you think?

The topic for two days has been where the large wound was located on
JFK.

You can run, David, but you can't hide.

Puddy's been remaining silent. He knows he can't justify your lie.

[David Von Pein]

Ben The Brainless doesn't think this quote by Baden has anything at all to do with the location of JFK's head wound. Incredible....

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Byh8chSlVZw/XBrTkEFdk2I/AAAAAAABQeI/BirDwNY3DgstQ3xyCYgaKRPozw5aIPNWwCLcBGAs/s2500/Dr-Baden-Quote-Regarding-JFKs-Head-Wounds.png

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

When did I say that?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Ben's desperation to reset the argument from the fringe over and over has assumed legendary proportions. This is worse than Harris and Z 285.

Ben, deal with the arguments that have been made.

The autopsy conclusion says one shot to the head, fired from above and behind.

You are not smarter than the doctors who performed the autopsy.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Was there a large wound in the back of JFK's head? C'mon hon, what's the prob? Simple question, yes or no....

[Bud]

On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
> >
> > Hit the link DVP provided.
>
>
> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!

Keep in mind that every time Ben foists a position on me he is lying.

[Bud]

On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 5:11:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
> >> >
> >> > Hit the link DVP provided.
> >>
> >>
> >> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
> >> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!
> >
> >~sigh~ That's not the link Bud was referring to.
>
>
> Nope... you're lying.

As usual, it is you. In your desperation you`ve taken to misrepresenting everyone.

> The topic was crystal clear. Whether or not the large wound on JFK's
> head was in the BACK of the head.

What DVP linked to speaks to that.

But you don`t want reasonable explanations, do you? You crave silly game playing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:58:34 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein

<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 5:49:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:28:43 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 5:11:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hit the link DVP provided.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
>> >> >> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!
>> >> >
>> >> >~sigh~ That's not the link Bud was referring to.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nope... you're lying.
>> >>
>> >> The topic was crystal clear. Whether or not the large wound on JFK's
>> >> head was in the BACK of the head.
>> >>
>> >> No lying allowed in an open forum.
>> >
>> >I think you're wrong, Benjamin.
>>
>>
>> Who cares what you think?
>>
>> The topic for two days has been where the large wound was located on
>> JFK.
>

>Ben ...

What has the topic been the last two days, David?

Are you man enough to state what it was?

[Ben Holmes]

>1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right
>involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the
>temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
>absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures

>approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:05:27 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:58:35 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 5:49:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:28:43 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> > <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 5:11:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> > >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > >> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> > >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Hit the link DVP provided.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
>> > >> >> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!
>> > >> >
>> > >> >~sigh~ That's not the link Bud was referring to.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Nope... you're lying.
>> > >>
>> > >> The topic was crystal clear. Whether or not the large wound on JFK's
>> > >> head was in the BACK of the head.
>> > >>
>> > >> No lying allowed in an open forum.
>> > >
>> > >I think you're wrong, Benjamin.
>> >
>> >
>> > Who cares what you think?
>> >
>> > The topic for two days has been where the large wound was located on
>> > JFK.
>

>Ben's desperation...

And yet, it's been you & Puddles who've provably been TERRIFIED of
answering a simple question.

Have you told David that you believe the Autopsy Report rather than
him, yet?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 5:11:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
>> >> >
>> >> > Hit the link DVP provided.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
>> >> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!
>> >
>> >~sigh~ That's not the link Bud was referring to.
>>
>>
>> Nope... you're lying.
>
> As usual, it is you.

What's the topic, Puddy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:21:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
>> >
>> > Hit the link DVP provided.
>>
>>
>> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
>> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!
>
> Keep in mind that every time Ben foists a position on me he is lying.

PUDDY NOW DENIES THAT DAVID VON PEIN GOT IT RIGHT! BELIEVES THE
PROSECTORS AND DOZENS OF MEDICALLY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS INSTEAD!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:00:28 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

CHUCKLES HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM WITH SENILITY THAT PUDDY ILLUSTRATED!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:18:58 -0700 (PDT), healyd...@gmail.com

Just when the two morons give an answer, they change their minds...

McAdams has been pretty harsh lately on believers that don't toe the
party line - and no-one told them what the party line is supposed to
be.

It's not in the Warren Commission Report!!!

[Bud]

Something you apparently can`t go anywhere with.

[Bud]

I did what I needed to do, show you had nothing to offer.

[Bud]

Something you can`t seem to take anywhere.

[Bud]

Ben`s lying has reached desperate proportions.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:45:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I did what I needed to do...

RAN FROM THE QUESTION LIKE THE YELLOW COWARD YOU ARE!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:45:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

PUDDLES SENILITY GETTING TO HIM - CAN'T REMEMBER THE TOPIC!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:46:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 6:31:11 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:21:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 5:11:58 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> >> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hit the link DVP provided.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
>> >> >> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!
>> >> >
>> >> >~sigh~ That's not the link Bud was referring to.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nope... you're lying.
>> >
>> > As usual, it is you.
>>
>> What's the topic, Puddy?
>
> Something you can`t seem to take anywhere.

PUDDLES REFUSES TO TAKE HIS MEDICINE - CAN'T REMEMBER THE TOPIC!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:47:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 6:32:23 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:21:15 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 13:45:40 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> What's the "reasonable explanation???
>> >> >
>> >> > Hit the link DVP provided.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> PUDDY AGREES WITH DAVID VON PEIN'S SILLY IDEA THAT THE PROSECTORS
>> >> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE WRITING!
>> >
>> > Keep in mind that every time Ben foists a position on me he is lying.
>>
>> PUDDY NOW DENIES THAT DAVID VON PEIN GOT IT RIGHT! BELIEVES THE
>> PROSECTORS AND DOZENS OF MEDICALLY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS INSTEAD!
>
> Ben`s lying has reached desperate proportions.

PUDDLES TELLS ANOTHER WHOPPER - REFUSES TO BE PINNED TO *ANY* ANSWER!