DVP dumb da dumb-dumb, again.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

(from the Ed Forum today)

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
"...ignoring that 6.5 metallic object that is present in the A-P x-ray but not in the lateral x-ray. A scientific impossibility, but it was nevertheless given a pass. "

then

DVP chimed in:
"All the more reason to think that it wasn't a "metallic" object at all, but an "artifact", just as Ebersole said (per the ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html "

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:05:34 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
wrote:

>(from the Ed Forum today)
>
>13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

>"...ignoring that 6.5 metallic object that is present in the A-P x-ray but not in the lateral x-ray. A scientific impossibility, but it was nevertheless given a pass. "?

>
>then
>
>DVP chimed in:
>"All the more reason to think that it wasn't a "metallic" object at all, but an "artifact", just as Ebersole said (per the ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer)....
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html "

Amusing that DVP apparently believes Ebersole to be more knowledgeable
that the entire staff of experts, both ballistic & medical ... from
the HSCA who accepted this as a bullet fragment.

Of course, DVP is too much the coward to face knowledgeable people on
these issues.

[David Von Pein]

But you like Dr. Mantik's explanation the best for the "6.5 mm. object", right Ben?

But if that's the case, and if Mantik is correct, then you must believe that the "object" is, in fact, a piece of cardboard. But since when does cardboard have any "metallic" properties?

Looks like Ben is in a bit of a quandary. Who to believe? The HSCA or Mantik?

I'll choose a third option---neither one.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Let's watch beb worm his way out of that one...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:37:15 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:58:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:05:34 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >(from the Ed Forum today)
>> >
>> >13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
>> >"...ignoring that 6.5 metallic object that is present in the A-P x-ray but not in the lateral x-ray. A scientific impossibility, but it was nevertheless given a pass. "?
>> >
>> >then
>> >
>> >DVP chimed in:
>> >"All the more reason to think that it wasn't a "metallic" object at all, but an "artifact", just as Ebersole said (per the ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer)....
>> >
>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html "
>>
>> Amusing that DVP apparently believes Ebersole to be more knowledgeable
>> that the entire staff of experts, both ballistic & medical ... from
>> the HSCA who accepted this as a bullet fragment.
>>
>> Of course, DVP is too much the coward to face knowledgeable people on
>> these issues.
>
>But you like Dr. Mantik's explanation the best for the "6.5 mm. object", right Ben?

Actually, we already have testimony about how this was created.

> But if that's the case, and if Mantik is correct, then you must
> believe that the "object" is, in fact, a piece of cardboard. But since
> when does cardboard have any "metallic" properties?

Bullet fragments, however.... do. (As Custer reports...)

And, of course, you're quite ignorant of what Mantik was saying... he
was **NOT** X-raying cardboard... This was a light exposure during a
duplication of the film. And cardboard is indeed quite impenetratable
to light.

In your ignorance of what Mantik was actually saying, you make a
rather STUPID attempt to denigrate his suggestion.

>Looks like Ben is in a bit of a quandary. Who to believe? The HSCA or Mantik?
>
>I'll choose a third option---neither one.

I'll chose Custer's explanation... he was there, he is the true expert
on this topic.

David "Chester" Pein will now run away, having "debated" with a false
representation of what I actually said, and not addressing *AT ALL*
the fact that all the expert witnesses of the HSCA disagree with him.

Nor, of course, addressing Custer's explanation.

Chester will now create a new webpage, omitting this information -
which is, of course, telling a lie.

And he'll run away from his STUPID misunderstanding of what Mantik was
suggesting with cardboard... and refuse to retract his rather dumb
comments.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 20:30:42 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

Let's watch Chuckles refuse to defend Chester from his STUPID idea
that Mantik was referring to X-raying cardboard.

Chuckles will also run for the hills when Custer's assertions are
brought up.

Run Chucky... RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:05:34 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
wrote:

>(from the Ed Forum today)
>
>13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

>"...ignoring that 6.5 metallic object that is present in the A-P x-ray but not in the lateral x-ray. A scientific impossibility, but it was nevertheless given a pass. "?

>
>then
>
>DVP chimed in:
>"All the more reason to think that it wasn't a "metallic" object at all, but an "artifact", just as Ebersole said (per the ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer)....
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html "

All you have to do is let David "Chester" Pein post... and you get
sheer stupidity almost every time.

He's been nailed now... clearly thinking that Mantik was talking about
***X-RAYING*** cardboard.

Chester is too stupid to actually *READ* what Mantik was saying before
criticizing it.

But, of course, Chester does this all the time... failing to
understand something before offering the world his ignorant
pontifications.

He did the same thing with Bugliosi's lie about the "ragged" wound.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:05:34 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
wrote:

>(from the Ed Forum today)
>
>13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

>"...ignoring that 6.5 metallic object that is present in the A-P x-ray but not in the lateral x-ray. A scientific impossibility, but it was nevertheless given a pass. "?

>
>then
>
>DVP chimed in:
>"All the more reason to think that it wasn't a "metallic" object at all, but an "artifact", just as Ebersole said (per the ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer)....
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html "

Just to school Chester and Chuckles:

"This artifact was added to the JFK AP skull X-ray (in the darkroom)
via a double exposure of a 6.5 mm aperture (e.g., via a 6.5 mm hole in
a piece of cardboard). In this process, the first step was to imprint
the image from the original X-ray onto a duplicate film (via a light
box in the dark room). The second step was another exposure that
imprinted the 6.5 mm image onto the duplicate film (i.e.,
superimposing it over the image of the original X-ray). This duplicate
film was then developed to yield the image seen in Figure 1. [JFK AP
X-ray]"

https://journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/download/177/78/

Read slowly, read repeatedly, then see if you can again misrepresent
what Mantik ACTUALLY said.

Now let's see Chuckles & Chester worm their way out of this.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Your burden. Carry it.

Why was it added?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 08:33:57 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

No moron... it's now **YOUR** burden to explain how cardboard can be
used in X-raying to produce a forgery.

You fell for Chester's stupid misunderstanding... YOU now need to worm
your way out of it.

YOU NEED TO CARRY YOUR BURDEN, MORON!

**YOU** need to acknowledge that I had no trouble WHATSOEVER in
"worming" my way out of Chester's post.


>Why was it added?


To implicate a rifle that fired 6.5mm ammo, of course.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

you really stink at this ya know....

[healyd...@gmail.com]

altered imagery... we do have a bit of that in this case... Great job making this clear to ALL parties... Even Dudster, but I suspect he already knows.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:12:37 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com

Yes, Puddy already knows this. I'm mainly schooling DVP and Chuckles -
who *don't* know this. (as they both just demonstrated.)

But Puddy's too dishonest to correct his fellow believers publicly.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

They already had the rifle, stupid.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Healy? Your AA membership money is overdue. Pay up.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Which one? Stupid

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:44:23 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

Dead silence.

Your cowardice is beginning to stink.

Tell us moron, JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU?

You got caught in DVP's silly misunderstanding of what Dr. Mantik had
proposed... you actually thought that forging the X-rays was
accomplished by X-raying a cardboard "bullet."

And now that you've been schooled... just like DVP - you'll evade any
explanation for your stupidity.

>> >Why was it added?
>>
>> To implicate a rifle that fired 6.5mm ammo, of course.
>
>They already had the rifle, stupid.

This is the same answer to the question: Why did they forge the BY
photos.

You lose again!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:45:56 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

Ad hominem is your way to admit that you have no evidence, no
citations, and no logical argument.

You lose!

[David Von Pein]

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 10:53:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:05:34 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >(from the Ed Forum today)
> >
> >13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
> >"...ignoring that 6.5 metallic object that is present in the A-P x-ray but not in the lateral x-ray. A scientific impossibility, but it was nevertheless given a pass. "?
> >
> >then
> >
> >DVP chimed in:
> >"All the more reason to think that it wasn't a "metallic" object at all, but an "artifact", just as Ebersole said (per the ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer)....
> >
> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html "
>
>
> All you have to do is let David "Chester" Pein post... and you get
> sheer stupidity almost every time.
>
> He's been nailed now... clearly thinking that Mantik was talking about
> ***X-RAYING*** cardboard.

Wrong. I never said anything about MANTIK X-raying anything. I was talking about the HSCA's determination that the "object" was "metallic" in nature. And, thusly, I asked----If the object is really cardboard, how could it show up as a METAL object to the HSCA?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:42:31 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 10:53:45 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:05:34 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >(from the Ed Forum today)
>> >
>> >13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
>> >"...ignoring that 6.5 metallic object that is present in the A-P x-ray but not in the lateral x-ray. A scientific impossibility, but it was nevertheless given a pass. "?
>> >
>> >then
>> >
>> >DVP chimed in:
>> >"All the more reason to think that it wasn't a "metallic" object at all, but an "artifact", just as Ebersole said (per the ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer)....
>> >
>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html "
>>
>>
>> All you have to do is let David "Chester" Pein post... and you get
>> sheer stupidity almost every time.
>>
>> He's been nailed now... clearly thinking that Mantik was talking about
>> ***X-RAYING*** cardboard.
>
> Wrong. I never said anything about MANTIK X-raying anything. I was
> talking about the HSCA's determination that the "object" was
> "metallic" in nature. And, thusly, I asked----If the object is really
> cardboard, how could it show up as a METAL object to the HSCA?

You stated: "But if that's the case, and if Mantik is correct, then

you must believe that the "object" is, in fact, a piece of cardboard.
But since when does cardboard have any "metallic" properties?"

You were afraid to respond in the thread where you made this claim.

You've been schooled now, and you're desperately trying to change what
you said.

Won't work.

**YOU** don't believe the HSCA, and now you're whining something
completely nonsensical...

YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT THE 6.5MM OBJECT WAS MADE OF CARDBOARD!!!

Once again, this PROVES that you haven't read Dr. Mantik, or my
explanations to you.

ARE YOU A MORON???


Do you ENJOY getting schooled REPEATEDLY?


Dr. Mantik DID NOT state that the 6.5mm object was cardboard... IT WAS
THE ABSENCE OF CARDBOARD!


Let me predict that none of these posts schooling you on what Dr.
Mantik actually said will EVER appear in your websites. You're just
too much a dishonest coward.

[David Von Pein]

Whether it be an "absence of cardboard" or "cardboard" itself, neither option will show up as METALLIC. That was my main point, Mr. Nasty. If the "object" is associated with PAPER (cardboard) in some fashion, then it would not have metallic properties. So, Ben, why did the HSCA say it was metallic in nature, if, in fact, it was really something that was created by using a NON-metallic substance?

Can you answer that without calling me a moron again?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:40:37 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

Proven to be an illiterate moron, you now have to descend into
unwarranted ad hominem.

YOU **ARE** a moron ... not bothering to read what I posted before.

And pointing out your UNWARRANTED ignorance is honesty, not
"nastiness."

> If the "object" is associated with PAPER (cardboard) in some
> fashion, then it would not have metallic properties.

So tell us stupid, just *what* in an X-ray demonstrates "metallic"
properties.

Show how this is different from any other X-ray opaque material.

I suggest you head down to your nearest medical facility, and ask a
radiologist a few questions... you might even think to study what Dr.
Mantik said, SINCE HE'S HIGHLY QUALIFIED IN THIS VERY AREA.

You got caught in a bit of stupidity - not understanding what Dr.
Mantik was saying... AND YOU CLEARLY **STILL** DON'T UNDERSTAND!

> So, Ben, why did
> the HSCA say it was metallic in nature, if, in fact, it was really
> something that was created by using a NON-metallic substance?
>
>Can you answer that without calling me a moron again?

No. I can't. Because once again you're demonstrating that your a moron
that doesn't understand anything about radiology.

Perhaps you were simply asleep in your science classes, I don't know.

But Dr. Mantik has some excellent presentations online for you to get
up to speed.

And let me clue you in: there's ***NOTHING*** that can differentiate
metal from any other opaque objects in an X-ray.


And, you don't believe the HSCA anyway... I'm amused that you keep
referencing what they found. **YOU** believe it's an artifact.
Presumably during the developing process.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:47:43 -0800, Ben Holmes
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:37:15 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
><davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:58:44 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:05:34 -0800 (PST), healyd...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >(from the Ed Forum today)
>>> >
>>> >13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
>>> >"...ignoring that 6.5 metallic object that is present in the A-P x-ray but not in the lateral x-ray. A scientific impossibility, but it was nevertheless given a pass. "?
>>> >
>>> >then
>>> >
>>> >DVP chimed in:
>>> >"All the more reason to think that it wasn't a "metallic" object at all, but an "artifact", just as Ebersole said (per the ARRB testimony of Jerrol Custer)....
>>> >
>>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-970.html "
>>>
>>> Amusing that DVP apparently believes Ebersole to be more knowledgeable
>>> that the entire staff of experts, both ballistic & medical ... from
>>> the HSCA who accepted this as a bullet fragment.
>>>
>>> Of course, DVP is too much the coward to face knowledgeable people on
>>> these issues.
>>
>>But you like Dr. Mantik's explanation the best for the "6.5 mm. object", right Ben?
>
>
>Actually, we already have testimony about how this was created.

Anyone notice that Chester has remained completely silent here?

>> But if that's the case, and if Mantik is correct, then you must
>> believe that the "object" is, in fact, a piece of cardboard. But since
>> when does cardboard have any "metallic" properties?
>
>
>Bullet fragments, however.... do. (As Custer reports...)
>
>And, of course, you're quite ignorant of what Mantik was saying... he
>was **NOT** X-raying cardboard... This was a light exposure during a
>duplication of the film. And cardboard is indeed quite impenetratable
>to light.
>
>In your ignorance of what Mantik was actually saying, you make a
>rather STUPID attempt to denigrate his suggestion.

I'm not completely sure that Chester really understands this yet.

>>Looks like Ben is in a bit of a quandary. Who to believe? The HSCA or Mantik?
>>
>>I'll choose a third option---neither one.
>
>
>I'll chose Custer's explanation... he was there, he is the true expert
>on this topic.

Once again, Chester runs.

>David "Chester" Pein will now run away, having "debated" with a false
>representation of what I actually said, and not addressing *AT ALL*
>the fact that all the expert witnesses of the HSCA disagree with him.
>
>Nor, of course, addressing Custer's explanation.
>
>Chester will now create a new webpage, omitting this information -
>which is, of course, telling a lie.
>
>And he'll run away from his STUPID misunderstanding of what Mantik was
>suggesting with cardboard... and refuse to retract his rather dumb
>comments.

Looks like he did precisely what I said. I'll keep an eye on his
websites to see what shows up, but I predict that *NONE* of this
schooling will appear.

It would make DVP appear like the fool he is.

[David Von Pein]

So why was the HSCA so sure it was a METALLIC fragment then? Were they lying about it?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

There was only one rifle, stupid.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Keep trying beb. Somebody might buy it.

This round goes to DVP. As have the previous rounds. beb is zero for fifty-five years.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 07:14:10 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

If the "round" went to DVP - why will he REFUSE to post it on his
website?

You're just saying sheer stupidities now, Chuckles... you can't defend
Chester from his moronic misunderstandings any better than he has...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 07:08:55 -0800 (PST), chucksch...@gmail.com

Oh?

What's in this photo shown in this thread:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16383-the-mauser/

Patrick Collins claimed it was cardboard - is this your explanation?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 17:44:24 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

No stupid, this isn't the way it works.

**YOU** have made the claim that there is some sort of "metallic"
property of objects in an X-ray that proves it's metal.

**YOU** made the claim, now either cite for your claim, or admit that
you didn't know what you were talking about.

And since Chuckles thinks you "won" this debate, I expect to see all
these posts moved to your websites.


When you publicly acknowledge that you didn't know what you were
talking about, then I'll be happy to explain to you why the HSCA came
to the conclusion that you don't believe anyway.

You think being a believer means never acknowledging your errors, I'm
here to tell you that you're wrong.

Now, either acknowledge this publicly, or run away and hide again.