A Scenario Better Than The Warren Commission.

[Ben Holmes]

Multiple shooters fired in Dealey Plaza.

This explains **ALL** the evidence known in Dealey Plaza ... and far
better than the WCR. It explains why the shooting tests done for the
WC were intentionally falsified, it explains why they refused to take
Jack Ruby out of Dallas, and falsified his lie detector test.

It explains why JFK's body had to be taken out of any honest autopsy,
and rushed to the military where orders could be given.

It explains why the extant Zapruder film was never seen for over a
decade.

It explains why additional bullets found in Dealey Plaza were quitely
pocketed and disappeared.

It explains why the Warren Commission blatantly lied about the
evidence.

Watch - as not a *SINGLE* believer can refute any of this by citing or
logical argument - and that not a *SINGLE* believer will cite any
evidence **NOT** explained by multiple shooters.

Chuckles is crying...

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 8:42:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

> Multiple shooters fired in Dealey Plaza.

Too vague.

>
> This explains **ALL** the evidence known in Dealey Plaza

Then you agree with the HSCA conclusions that Oswald fired the only shots that struck anyone?

... and far
> better than the WCR. It explains why the shooting tests done for the
> WC were intentionally falsified,

Begging the Question.

it explains why they refused to take
> Jack Ruby out of Dallas, and falsified his lie detector test.

Explain Oswald requesting to change sweaters thus delaying his own transfer and the 1117am time stamp on Ruby's $25 WU MO wired to his stripper.

>
> It explains why JFK's body had to be taken out of any honest autopsy,

Show how an autopsy never performed is honest.

> and rushed to the military where orders could be given.

The autopsy not done is the one Low-Ability Ben thinks should've been done.

>
> It explains why the extant Zapruder film was never seen for over a
> decade.

Explain why the Z film needed to be altered when it could've been destroyed.

>
> It explains why additional bullets found in Dealey Plaza were quitely
> pocketed and disappeared.

Begging the Question. Show where these bullets were supposedly recovered at in Dealey Plaza and explain their trajectories and where they were fired from and why the snipers missed so frequently.

>
> It explains why the Warren Commission blatantly lied about the
> evidence.

Begging the Question.

>
> Watch - as not a *SINGLE* believer can refute any of this by citing or
> logical argument - and that not a *SINGLE* believer will cite any
> evidence **NOT** explained by multiple shooters.

You're just getting started, Low-Ability Ben. Run your tests, produce your diagrams, identify your suspects, show the bullet trajectories, etc.

You know, do the things the WC did that you criticize. Your burden is not less than theirs. Carry your burden.
>
> Chuckles is crying...


Chuckles is laughing.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 8:42:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

..Which is why Ben left such a devastating "answer" to my challenge to him to spell out more precisely his alternate shooting scenario. See well down into an (unfortunately) extended posting exchange with Ben. His silence spoke volumes:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/EBdwYmtoWS0/OQUm2-6vR_cJ

[healyd...@gmail.com]

and where were YOU 10 years or so ago when this Mark Lane series first ran? You loon nut loons are still trying to figure out how Ben Holmes knocked you all over the place with the truth... And all you can do is pull Bud's pud.... such cowardice on your part....

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 7:50:23 AM UTC-7, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 8:42:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > Multiple shooters fired in Dealey Plaza.
>
> Too vague.
> >
> > This explains **ALL** the evidence known in Dealey Plaza
>
> Then you agree with the HSCA conclusions that Oswald fired the only shots that struck anyone?
>
> ... and far
> > better than the WCR. It explains why the shooting tests done for the
> > WC were intentionally falsified,
>
> Begging the Question.
>
> it explains why they refused to take
> > Jack Ruby out of Dallas, and falsified his lie detector test.
>
> Explain Oswald requesting to change sweaters thus delaying his own transfer and the 1117am time stamp on Ruby's $25 WU MO wired to his stripper.
> >
> > It explains why JFK's body had to be taken out of any honest autopsy,
>
> Show how an autopsy never performed is honest.
>
> > and rushed to the military where orders could be given.
>
> The autopsy not done is the one Low-Ability Ben thinks should've been done.
> >
> > It explains why the extant Zapruder film was never seen for over a
> > decade.
>
> Explain why the Z film needed to be altered when it could've been destroyed.

perhaps BOTH, moron. altered then destroyed. Have you or any outside source authenticated the alleged original, in-camera Z-film currently housed at NARA?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:50:22 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 8:42:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> Multiple shooters fired in Dealey Plaza.
>
>Too vague.

Who cares what a liar thinks?

Particularly one who ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to post his scenario....

You're desperate to snipe at anything I post - and too cowardly to
post anything yourself.

>> This explains **ALL** the evidence known in Dealey Plaza
>
>Then you agree with the HSCA conclusions that Oswald fired the only shots that struck anyone?

Nope. Why would *MY* scenario agree with anything other than the
EVIDENCE?

Are you a moron?

> ... and far
>> better than the WCR. It explains why the shooting tests done for the
>> WC were intentionally falsified,
>
>Begging the Question.

You can't defend the facts... so you simply run away. It's not
"begging the question" since I've documented this many times before,
and *YOU CAN'T DEFEND THE FACTS*.

So you're just a gutless liar...

>> it explains why they refused to take
>> Jack Ruby out of Dallas, and falsified his lie detector test.

So you acknowledge this fact?

SPEAK UP, COWARD!!!

> Explain Oswald requesting to change sweaters thus delaying his own
> transfer and the 1117am time stamp on Ruby's $25 WU MO wired to his
> stripper.

My scenario explains this - your scenario simply claims that this is
an amazing coincidence... that Ruby could have met Oswald in order to
kill him.

>> It explains why JFK's body had to be taken out of any honest autopsy,
>
>Show how an autopsy never performed is honest.

You're lying again, Chuckles... you know quite well that the prosector
were forbidden from examining JFK's clothing... forbidden from
dissecting the neck wound... forbidden from dissecting the track of
the back wound...

Tell us you didn't already know this...

>> and rushed to the military where orders could be given.
>
>The autopsy not done is the one Low-Ability Ben thinks should've been done.

Gutless coward, aren't you Chuckles?

>> It explains why the extant Zapruder film was never seen for over a
>> decade.
>
>Explain why the Z film needed to be altered when it could've been destroyed.

Too many people knew it existed.

And it *WAS* destroyed... as an accurate portrayal of what happened.

>> It explains why additional bullets found in Dealey Plaza were quitely
>> pocketed and disappeared.
>
> Begging the Question. Show where these bullets were supposedly
> recovered at in Dealey Plaza and explain their trajectories and where
> they were fired from and why the snipers missed so frequently.

Another logical fallacy on your part.

>> It explains why the Warren Commission blatantly lied about the
>> evidence.
>
>Begging the Question.

Not when you refuse to defend them when I point out their lies.

Can't have it both ways, coward...

>> Watch - as not a *SINGLE* believer can refute any of this by citing or
>> logical argument - and that not a *SINGLE* believer will cite any
>> evidence **NOT** explained by multiple shooters.
>
> You're just getting started, Low-Ability Ben. Run your tests,
> produce your diagrams, identify your suspects, show the bullet
> trajectories, etc.

No "test" is needed to show that my scenario is possible. One shooter
doesn't preclude another shooter... never has.

And as I stated, you didn't refute ANYTHING I stated by citing or by
logical argument.

Nor did you provide any evidence ** NOT ** explained by multiple
shooters.

You lose!

> You know, do the things the WC did that you criticize. Your burden
> is not less than theirs. Carry your burden.

I accept their evidence. It's all that's needed to demonstrate my
scenario. My burden has been met - AND YOU'VE PROVEN THAT FACT.

By your inability to refute anything I stated, and by your inability
to provide any evidence my scenario doesn't explain.

You lose!

>> Chuckles is crying...
>
>
>Chuckles is laughing.

Sad...

[BT George]

...Which I am sure explains why *you* are going to *credibly* answer the questions I asked Ben in the link that he "somehow" just didn't get 'round to. :-)

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 8 August 2018 23:42:02 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Multiple shooters fired in Dealey Plaza.
>
> This explains **ALL** the evidence known in Dealey Plaza ... and far
> better than the WCR. It explains why the shooting tests done for the
> WC were intentionally falsified, it explains why they refused to take
> Jack Ruby out of Dallas, and falsified his lie detector test.
>

How were the shooting tests intentionally falsified? One shooter, Specialist Miller, far EXCEEDED what Oswald was claimed to have done.

> It explains why JFK's body had to be taken out of any honest autopsy,
> and rushed to the military where orders could be given.
>

It was because of what Jackie Kennedy SAID that Bethesda was chosen, Benny.

Jackie Kennedy is now part of your <snicker> CONSPIRACY scenario?

> It explains why the extant Zapruder film was never seen for over a
> decade.
>

Were they perhaps trying to get the <snicker> *Lady In Yellow Pants* into the Z film all that time, Benny?

> It explains why additional bullets found in Dealey Plaza were quitely
> pocketed and disappeared.
>

Quitely? QUITELY?? Watch out, Benny. Grammar hound Boris Badenov moght [sic] not like THAT one!

> It explains why the Warren Commission blatantly lied about the
> evidence.
>

What about how Mark Lane BLATANTLY lied about evidence, Benny?

> Watch - as not a *SINGLE* believer can refute any of this by citing or
> logical argument - and that not a *SINGLE* believer will cite any
> evidence **NOT** explained by multiple shooters.
>
> Chuckles is crying...

Nah, I think everybody is LAUGHING, Benny. Laughing at YOU!

Corrective Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Benny's HERO Mark Lane LIED!!!

[Ben Holmes]

Chuckles whimpered something about me "running" from a post... I
thought it would be a good idea to show him what "running" actually
looks like... this is a recent post that he simply ran away from:

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 07:50:22 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 8:42:02 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>

>> Multiple shooters fired in Dealey Plaza.
>

>Too vague.


Who cares what a liar thinks?

Particularly one who ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to post his scenario....

You're desperate to snipe at anything I post - and too cowardly to
post anything yourself.

>> This explains **ALL** the evidence known in Dealey Plaza
>

>Then you agree with the HSCA conclusions that Oswald fired the only shots that struck anyone?


Nope. Why would *MY* scenario agree with anything other than the
EVIDENCE?

Are you a moron?

> ... and far
>> better than the WCR. It explains why the shooting tests done for the
>> WC were intentionally falsified,
>

>Begging the Question.

You can't defend the facts... so you simply run away. It's not
"begging the question" since I've documented this many times before,
and *YOU CAN'T DEFEND THE FACTS*.

So you're just a gutless liar...

>> it explains why they refused to take
>> Jack Ruby out of Dallas, and falsified his lie detector test.

So you acknowledge this fact?

SPEAK UP, COWARD!!!


> Explain Oswald requesting to change sweaters thus delaying his own
> transfer and the 1117am time stamp on Ruby's $25 WU MO wired to his
> stripper.


My scenario explains this - your scenario simply claims that this is
an amazing coincidence... that Ruby could have met Oswald in order to
kill him.

>> It explains why JFK's body had to be taken out of any honest autopsy,
>

>Show how an autopsy never performed is honest.


You're lying again, Chuckles... you know quite well that the prosector
were forbidden from examining JFK's clothing... forbidden from
dissecting the neck wound... forbidden from dissecting the track of
the back wound...

Tell us you didn't already know this...

>> and rushed to the military where orders could be given.
>

>The autopsy not done is the one Low-Ability Ben thinks should've been done.


Gutless coward, aren't you Chuckles?

>> It explains why the extant Zapruder film was never seen for over a
>> decade.
>

>Explain why the Z film needed to be altered when it could've been destroyed.


Too many people knew it existed.

And it *WAS* destroyed... as an accurate portrayal of what happened.

>> It explains why additional bullets found in Dealey Plaza were quitely
>> pocketed and disappeared.
>

> Begging the Question. Show where these bullets were supposedly
> recovered at in Dealey Plaza and explain their trajectories and where
> they were fired from and why the snipers missed so frequently.

Another logical fallacy on your part.

>> It explains why the Warren Commission blatantly lied about the
>> evidence.
>

>Begging the Question.

Not when you refuse to defend them when I point out their lies.

Can't have it both ways, coward...

>> Watch - as not a *SINGLE* believer can refute any of this by citing or
>> logical argument - and that not a *SINGLE* believer will cite any
>> evidence **NOT** explained by multiple shooters.
>

[Ben Holmes]

Amusingly, the anonymous "BT George" also failed to refute anything I
stated above... either by citation or by logical argument.

Believers are TERRIFIED of posting their scenario - they know it can't
stand the light of day.

This troll has proven my point.

[Ben Holmes]

I've stated many times that there is no evidential question in this
case that I cannot CREDIBLY explain.

The opposite simply isn't true.

Why not be a man, and *POST* right here, right now, a question you
think I cannot answer.

I'll answer it, then pose a question for *YOU*... lurkers will see
just who's telling the truth, and who's a troll.

Agreed?

[BT George]

The troll Ben Holmes know very well who I am and that BT George is simply short for Brock T. George ...A great secret in the small corner of the world that debates this case! My link showed Ben has no *logical* answers.

[BT George]

Well how about Mr. Holmes *CREDIBLY* respond *POINT BY POINT* to at least this portion of the post I already linked to that he never responded to a few years back.

Of course, should he fail to so in the *manner* I have stated above lurkers, will say something obvious about the validity of his beliefs.

Portion of unanswered prior posting exchange below from this link:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/EBdwYmtoWS0/OQUm2-6vR_cJ



> Despite being only hearsay, any such "hurrying" had *NOTHING* to do with
>
> why the prosectors were forbidden to examine JFK's clothing.
>

So Ben Holmes contends based on only his interpretation of a *portion* of
the testimonial record. However, as McAdams and others have pointed out
already, Ben not only *ignores* statements made in the earlier testimonial
record (HSCA hearings):

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt

….but also ignores the *CONTEXT* of Finck’s words at the Shaw trial
that *HE* linked to here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=145280&relPageId=150
Note where he says:

“After the publication of the Warren Report, numerous physicians
criticized the autopsy protocol that did not describe the adrenal glands
of Kennedy who suffered from adrenal insufficiency. The prosectors
complied with the autopsy permit and its restrictions. I was told that
the Kennedy family first authorized the autopsy of the head only and then
extended the permission to the chest. Organs of the neck were not removed,
because of the same restrictions.”

Now just *WHO* does this say that Finck actually *said* was imposing the
“autopsy permit and its *RESTRICTIONS*?

It also *clearly* establishes that pressure from the Kennedy family had
*SOMETHING* to do with why the neck was not properly dissected.
Moreover, it may well help explain the *belief* (even if incorrect) that
the adrenal condition had *something* to do with the decision not to
dissect the neck.

I suspect that some persons reading this testimony, have interpreted the
words “Organs of the neck were not removed, because of the *SAME*
restrictions.” as being connected to the *opening* sentences that read:
“After the publication of the Warren Report, numerous physicians
criticized the autopsy protocol that did not describe the adrenal glands
of Kennedy who suffered from adrenal insufficiency. The prosectors
complied with the autopsy permit and its restrictions.” (I.e., it was
the adrenal issue that was leading to the dissection-related
restrictions.)



>
>
> Merely another common believer's factoid.
>
See prior comments.
>
>
> You see, the reason for *that* order was given by Col. Finck.
>
>

It may have been, but the *EVIDENCE* just cited argues it *wasn’t* the
reasons*YOU* are suggesting.

NOTE: The next several sentences are part of a prior exhange in the thread/post that set up the rest of my responses on this particular exchange:

>
>
>
> >>>> >So tell us John... why didn't you correct BT George?
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> >You *DID* know that his statement was incorrect, didn't you?
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>>>>>> I didn't know he made the claim.
>
> >>>>>>>> But why don't you address what *I'm* saying?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> >
>
> >>>> >>>>Now I am *quite* sure neither is the kind of CT answer Ben is looking=
>
> >for,>>>> >>>>but they are answers nontheless. Which is MORE than he has given
>
> me.
>
> >>>> >>>
>
> >>>> >>>
>
> >>>> >>>If this is the best of the answers that can be given, and immediately=
>
> >>>>> >>>refutable by the known evidence... it seems you have a problem.
>
> >>>> >>>
>
> >>>> >>
>
> >>>> >>What is the "known evidence" that refutes what BT said?
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> >The very evidence that you're unwilling to examine (that Greer had the=
>
> >>>>> >clothing, and was present at the autopsy), and that on the basis of not=
>
> >>>>> >knowing it, can make statements that you cannot support or cite for. (th=
>
> >at>>>> >the clothing wasn't available for examination)
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> >Ooooh! This 'ass kicking' is really getting to me! :)
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>>>>>> I think you don't understand at all how lame your arguments are.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> >
>
> >>>> >>>>I am *STILL* waiting for him to provide *ANY* *specific* and *credibl=
>
> >e*>>>> >>>>frontal trajectories that would explain Kennedy's neck wounding in
>
> li=
>
> >ght>>>> >>>>of his rejection of shots from behind and of the SBT.
>
> >>>> >>>
>
> >>>> >>
>
> >>>> >>Huh? Who rejected the SBT and shots from behind?
>
> >>>> >>
>
> >>>> >>What buffs think is not relevant.
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> >This was, of course, a statement made by a Warren Commission believer th=
>
> >at>>>> >John is now claiming isn't relevant.
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> >Tell us John, why do you think that what BT George said is not relevant?
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>> >
>
> >>>>>>>> If he doesn't believe the SBT, and doesn't think shots came from
>
> >>>> behind, he's wrong.
>
> >>>>>>>> But so what?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Enough! *I* am *NOT* the one I was saying rejected the SBT. I am saying
>
> >Ben Holmes does! (If I am wrong about that I apologize as I can't keep up
>
> >with what every prominent Internet CT actually does and does not believe.
>
> >But I think I am correct on that score.)
>
>
>
>

NOTE: Resume text of current exchange:

>
> Yep... you're correct... I don't believe in the SBT... it's a desperate
>
> attempt to fit all the wounds to JFK & Connally into just two shots.


Maybe. But I’ll bet the alternative sounds even *more* desperate *IF* you try to get *specific* in suggesting a *credible* alternative.

>
>
> But I'm amused that John attributed the statement to me, and completely
>
> misunderstood the statement.
>
>

Well why didn’t you correct him when he then turned around and though it
applied to *me*? (I’m pretty sure you understood that it was to*you*
that I was referring.)

>
>
>
>
>
> >I am simply saying that w/o the SBT that *he* rejects he needs to come up
>
> >with a trajectory or trajectories that can explain *ALL* of the following
>
> >wounds:
>
> >
>
> >1) The penetrating back wound in JFK's uppermost back seen easily enough
>
> >in the autopsy photos.
>
>
>
>
>
> Which one?
>

How about the one that *EVERY* pathologist and forensic pathologist
(including Wecht) that studied the body or autopsy photos between
1963-1978 concluded was the *only* back wound supported by available
evidence?

>
>
>
>
> >2) The front neck wound that *Ben* says is an entrance not an exit.
>
>
>
>
>
> The doctors who commented on in contemporaneously stated the same thing.
>

The *pathologists* who reviewed the body at *autopsy* and who saw the
X-rays (yes they saw these at the time of the autopsy even though they did
*not* see the autopsy photos till years later) concluded otherwise, after
confirmation from Parkland that the tracheotomy opening was an enlargement
of an existing gunshot wound.

A conclusion that was further *confirmed* by the clothing when they
finally saw it before they testified before the WC and that was *TWICE
MORE* confirmed by the Clark and HSCA FPP’s that reviewed the photos and
X-rays related to the back/neck wounds.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >3) Connally's back wound that was ovoid in appearance, leaving the kind of
>
> >"keyhole" characteristic of a bullet that was tumbling/yawing.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yep... not nearly as pronounced as the wound in JFK's back.

…which argues all the more that it struck something else *FIRST* that slowed the bullet down----like maybe JFK’s neck!
>
>
>
>
> >4) His broken/shattered 5th rib.
>

Oh let me! Let me! DEAD SILENCE….

> >
>
> >5) The ragged 5 centimeter (2 inch) hole in his chest just below the
>
> >nipple.
>

DEAD SILENCE….

> >
>
> >6) His shattered radius.
>

DEAD SILENCE…..


> >
>
> >7) The shallow puncture wound to his thigh.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't have any problems with what the Parkland *DOCTORS* who examined
>
> JFK and Connally considered...
>

You mean their semi-informed opinions which they formed in the midst of a
rescue effort and without full knowledge of the facts and circumstances of
the shooting, the relative positions of the men, and with no particular
training or commission from law enforcement or government investigative
agencies to serve as ME’s or crime scene investigators?

>
>
> I find their thoughts worth paying attention to.
>

See above comments.

>
>
>
>
> >So far Ben keeps coming back with some *non-specific* NONSENSE like asking:
>
> >
>
> >"Are you claiming that there were no places in Dealey Plaza that JFK's
>
> >neck could not be seen?"
>
> >
>
> >Of course Ben Holmes knows *very well* that is NOT the issue.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you pretend that there's no possible shot to JFK's neck, then you have
>
> to demonstrate that there's no possible *view* of JFK's neck. What you can
>
> directly see, you can hit.
>

No I don’t have to demonstrate *anything*. It is*YOU* who reject the SBT
that have to demonstrate a *CREDIBLE* place or places from some*where* in
*FRONT* of JFK that such a shot could be made.

So tell us Ben, SPECIFICALLY don’t you think *reasonable* people would
agree that for such a *FRONTAL* shot to be able to hit JFK’s neck, a
shooting position would *OF NECESSITY* have to be elevated *high* enough
to shoot over Connally’s body and head? (Again assuming you don’t
have your own FRONTAL SBT.)

If so, from ***where***?

-Were they blasting away from the top of the Triple Underpass in easy
wide-open view of *many* witnesses?

-Shooting from an “elevated” platform somewhere directly in FRONT of
the limo. on Elm Street? :-)

- Suspended from the end of long rope dangling from a military helicopter
just overhead? :-)

-Magic levitation boots and invisibility shield? :-)

You see…it’s not enough to just “scoff” at the SBT, you need your
*OWN* *CREDIBLE* alternatives.

>
>
> So how is this not an issue?
>

See above comments…then you tell me.

>
>
>
>
> >The issue
>
> >is how many places in Dealey Plaza were there in *FRONT* of JFK that would
>
> >allow a shot to be fired that:
>
> >
>
> >1) would *NOT* hit Connally,
>
>
>
>
>
> Such a location would not be where JFK's neck was visible. So why do you
>
> bother to bring up a case that you *KNOW* I've already ruled out with my
>
> question of where can you see JFK's neck???
>
>

Because you still haven’t *answered* the *QUESTION*. You have *never*
been asked where the shot *COULDN’T* be made from. You have been
asked---now repeatedly--- from ***WHERE*** *SPECIFICALLY* it
****COULD/DID***** come from!

Now stop *DODGING* the *ACTUAL* question, or be seen for the *reality*
that you have *NO* *CREDIBLE* answers for it!

>
>
>
> >2) would pass through JFK's neck and *not* hit someone or something behind
>
> >JFK, or
>
>
>
>
>
> Why would it be required to hit someone? What did the Parkland doctors
>
> suggest happen to this bullet? Are you familiar with this at all?
>
>

I don’t CARE what the Parkland doctor’s thought---see prior comments
about them in this post. I never said that it was *REQUIRED* to hit
someone or something. However, the # of places such a shot could be fired
from that would permit a FMJ bullet to pass through something like a human
neck (that’s liable to cause only slight deflection) and then still
*NOT* hit anyone or anything else behind him and not be noticed has got to
be *VERY* few.

Also, since we must assume that *NO* would-be assassin would take a
low-powered weapon to pull off an assassination, then how on earth would
it be believable that it could fire a FMJ bullet that would *FAIL* to pass
through a human neck, having struck no bone dead-on, nor anything else
first. Now, of course it might not be a FMJ bullet, but that has its own
problems, as I state below.

>
>
>
> >3) would fail to pass through?
>
>
>
>
>
> That's what was one of the considerations at Parkland.
>
>

See prior comments.

>
>
>
> >a) If the latter, was it a FMJ bullet? If so, how does he account for its
>
> >failure to transverse something as thin as a neck?
>
>
>
>
>
> I find it highly unlikely to have been an FMJ bullet. But, of course, this
>
> isn't the issue, it's the *velocity* of the bullet that's the
>
> consideration.
>
>
>
> FMJ's generally are designed for higher velocities, so this is where you
>
> get confused.
>
>
>
> I wouldn't think of the configuration of the bullet, I'd be looking at
>
> caliber and velocity.
>
>

So it seems to me that you are proposing one of two *UNLIKELY* scenarios:

1) JFK’s assassin(s) wanted to frame LHO as a “Patsy” with a FMJ
firing high-powered rifle. So what to do? Well instead of the *obvious*
strategy of shooting him from a single location with a high-powered FMJ
rifle (or at *LEAST* from multiple locations that *ALL* used high-powered
FMJ firing bullets) they chose to shoot him up from different locations
using non-FMJ ordinance.

2) They decided, to shoot at him with FMJ ordinance, but of lower
caliber/ordinance. (NOTE: I meant to say "caliber/velocity".)

In either of these “masterful” plots, they create a far *GREATER* need
to do post-assassination cover ups---when a MAXIMUM of attention and
potential players would be involved---than if they’d simply shot him
with the “right stuff” in the **first** place! Yessir! Brilliant!
Simply brilliant!

>
>
>
> >b) If a non-FMJ bullet, why did they not find it or remnants of it on the
>
> >X-rays or fail to note the distinctive internal damage that should have
>
> >been seen on the same?
>
>
>
>
>
> There *WAS* distinctive internal damage noted at Parkland.
>
>

AUTOPSIES BEN! AUTOPSIES! That’s when determinations like this are
normally made. Also, if the Parkland doctors were so sure that a non-FMJ
bullet was used (Did they even take X-rays?) Then surely they made some
*CONTEMPORANEOUS* statements when news that the assassination weapon was
believed to be a FMJ military weapon came out that they had *CLEARLY* seen
evidence to the contrary. If not, why not?

>
>
>
> >My guess is he is really not too interested in getting too *specific* on
>
> >such questions because he *knows* that *specificity* is not his friend in
>
> >this case. But let's see...
>
>
>
>
>
> I get precisely as specific as the evidence allows. I leave speculation to
>
> others.
>

No. You primarily reject the *EVIDENCE* of LHO’s guilt and then make
*wild* assertions involving *VAGUE* shooting scenarios and locations and
suggest large-scale after-the-fact cover ups Gosh…Where’s the
speculation in all of *THAT*?

BTW Ben, I seem to notice that you make two seemingly disconnect points.
On the one hand you keep asserting that the autopsists were ordered by the
plotters to not do various things at the autopsy---presumably to keep them
from discovering the truth; right?

Then please explain where the part about *Humes* coming in and removing
the bullets before the “official” autopsy began around 8? Could that
be from Horne? If HUMES was IN on it, WHY the effort to keep the
autopsists from discovering the truth? Surely Boswell and Finck could
have as easily been brought on board or “convinced” to go along with
Humes. If not, why not?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Lol, Low-Ability Ben just posted proof of him running from my simple request that he offer evidence for his claims.

The frustration is mounting. How long until the radio signals in Ben's brain compel him to grab the AR-15 from the blanket in Boris's garage and head for a school or political rally or country music concert, bible open, as he shows the world that a short man can have "guts," and dishes out his revenge on a society that ignored the evil forces that killed RFK and JFK?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 08:47:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Ran again, eh Chuckles?

Why do my words frighten you so much?

Why does the truth hold such terror for you?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Quitely? QUITELY?? Watch out, Benny. Grammar hound Boris Badenov moght [sic] not like THAT one!

There's no better evidence that a troll read a post he's hiding from than when the troll actually quotes from it! Good dog, Tim. Now we *know* you read the post where I confronted you on your bullshit lie.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/SPnEIHup0i0/XqLtknCvDAAJ

Tim whines endless about the Lady in the Yellow Pants, though it's only to hide the fact he's the Aussie with the Yellow Heart.
Amusin' Regards,

"Boris"
Planet Earth
Criticus Terribilus

“*SIMMONS advised that it was his opinion the shots came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building*”
From FBI Report, 3/19/64 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 100-10461
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1416.htm

And yet when he was asked on camera to mark the area where he thought the shots came from, this is what he indicated:
https://youtu.be/0w4sQtwWfBo?t=2175

X marks the spot where the FBI LIED!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:27:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Quitely? QUITELY?? Watch out, Benny. Grammar hound Boris Badenov moght [sic] not like THAT one!
>
> There's no better evidence that a troll read a post he's hiding from than when the troll actually quotes from it! Good dog, Tim. Now we *know* you read the post where I confronted you on your bullshit lie.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/SPnEIHup0i0/XqLtknCvDAAJ
>
> Tim whines endless about the Lady in the Yellow Pants, though it's only to hide the fact he's the Aussie with the Yellow Heart.
> Amusin' Regards,

Boris, you really need to get up to speed. The so-called "Lady in Yellow Pants" anomaly was cited by Ben as a central plank as his "proof" the Zapruder film was altered. Ben is obviously wrong, but, of course, doesn't want to budge even an inch as it deflates the hobby.

As he's grooming you, he can depend on you to carry his water. Is he taking you camping this weekend?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Boris, you really need to get up to speed. The so-called "Lady in Yellow Pants" anomaly was cited by Ben as a central plank as his "proof" the Zapruder film was altered. Ben is obviously wrong, but, of course, doesn't want to budge even an inch as it deflates the hobby.
>
> As he's grooming you, he can depend on you to carry his water. Is he taking you camping this weekend?

So that's a negative on supporting Tim's lie, then? Okay, thanks.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 11:40:22 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Thursday, August 9, 2018 at 1:27:39 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Quitely? QUITELY?? Watch out, Benny. Grammar hound Boris Badenov moght [sic] not like THAT one!
>>
>> There's no better evidence that a troll read a post he's hiding from than when the troll actually quotes from it! Good dog, Tim. Now we *know* you read the post where I confronted you on your bullshit lie.
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/SPnEIHup0i0/XqLtknCvDAAJ
>>
>> Tim whines endless about the Lady in the Yellow Pants, though it's only to hide the fact he's the Aussie with the Yellow Heart.
>> Amusin' Regards,
>
> Boris, you really need to get up to speed. The so-called "Lady in
> Yellow Pants" anomaly was cited by Ben as a central plank as his
> "proof" the Zapruder film was altered. Ben is obviously wrong, but, of
> course, doesn't want to budge even an inch as it deflates the hobby.

You're lying again, pervert.