Ben Holmes EXPECTS Kooks To Run Away...

[Ben Holmes]

Posted in the censored group under the title "Ben Holmes EXPECTS me to prove his
claim?", kooky Ken has demonstrated yet again his absolute refusal to respond to
my *ANSWERS*.

Now, perhaps Kooky Ken will feel it's unfair that I now have him killfiled...
but I still read the censored forum - so he can answer me there, or have an
intelligent enough response that David or Walt or someone who's not killfiled
responds... then I'll see it.

In article <YY-dnf85TO4noTnS...@giganews.com>, Ken McDonald says...
>
>This is about the debate about the lady wearing what looks like yellow
>slacks seen in the Nix film. I read it to see what the term "yellow pants"
>was really about.
>
>Ben Holms: "If you really *DID* read it, then answer the question that
>everyone kept running from."
>
>The question is how many people are shown standing at the curb at Z369.
>
>Me: "That's easy. There are four people standing in Z369. The Franzen
>family and Ginandtonic man."



Note that Kooky Ken *UNDERSTOOD* from the question he answered that *EVERYONE
ELSE* in that debate ran from answering the question. I purposely put the
question that way... I didn't want to simply ask him the question, but force him
to find what no-one else was answering.

And he clearly did, HE *KNEW* THAT EVERYONE ELSE WAS RUNNING FROM THAT QUESTION!

The very action that Kooky Ken labeled me a "liar" and a "coward" was
*PRECISELY* those actions that he understood *HIS* side was doing.



>Ben Holmes: "Now, list every person involved in that debate that refused
>to answer that question, and publicly label them liars and cowards."
>
>"Let's see just how honest you are..."
>
>"My prediction? You'll run away..."
>
>"But you won't... you're a coward."


So I simply asked him to apply his standards to the others... since he now
*KNEW* that it was the others who ran away from that debate, and not me.

You see, these kooks fall for this stuff all the time - because intelligent
questioning can get them to admit that the evidence doesn't support their
position. Kooky Ken claimed that I ran, yet he answered the question THAT HE
COULD ONLY FIND by figuring out what everyone *else* was running from.

Now that he's realized the corner he got painted into, he's backtracking as fast
as he can... but he can't deny that he doesn't know who actually ran.

And that his labeling of me as a "liar" and a "coward" is a lie.


>Ben Holmes EXPECTS ME to go back and re-read all of the posts from that
>debate (by the way, he ran away because he couldn't support his claim) and
>list all the people that supposedly ran away to prove his claim?


In answering the question, and in reading enough of the debate to see my
repeated challenges over and over again to answer the question, Kooky Ken
already knew the correct answer.

I expected him to simply not be a hypocrite, and apply the same title he accused
me of to those who actually *DID* run away. Honesty, in other words, was all I
expected.

My expectations were clearly too high.


>I'm not going to do that.


Of course not. Labeling your fellow kooks accurately isn't something that would
draw any admiration from them.

But you already *DID* read enough posts to figure out what the question was, so
you already *KNOW* that everyone else was running.

It's rather stupid to claim now that you're "not going to do that", when you
clearly ALREADY HAVE!


>If Ben Holmes has something to prove, he can do it himself.


Actually, I did.

I proved what I set out to prove - that your claim that I was a "liar" and
"coward" for "running" simply wasn't true, that it was those who I was debating
who ran. Your inability to quote *ANYONE* who gave the answer demonstrates it.

Your ability to find AND ANSWER the question that everyone else was running from
proves it.

And I proved that kooks are cowards...


>That's the most incredible thing I've ever heard of.


How silly! To force you to admit your own hypocrisy? To force you to admit, if
only by your refusal to answer, that you *KNOW* that everyone else ran from that
debate?

Kooks always refuse to support their words...


>Can you imagine going back to posts from 2008 and re-reading them to prove his
>claim? That's absurd.


Can you imagine going back to posts from 2008 to avoid answering posts recently
posted? You sound like the teenager pleading for leniency in the murder of his
parents by pointing out that he's an orphan.



>Ben Holmes also claimed that Main St. can be seen in Z369 which isn't
>true.


Here's the post:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b900b35211f89d8


The kook must be blind. Anyone can view Z-369 for themselves, here it is:

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z369.jpg

I invite all lurkers to search Google Images for "JFK Dealey Plaza", and they'll
find plenty of photos to help them get oriented on where Main Street was, and
just what area of grass exists.


>Did he admit to that mistake?


How can I admit to a "mistake" when all I did is tell the truth? Can you find
any grass *BEYOND* the top of Z-369? By all means, go through all of the 370's,
380's, 390's - go ahead and continue through the rest of the film. What you
*WON'T* find is any area of grass beyond where I state that Main Street is in
Z-369.

Perhaps you think that the pavement seen is a sidewalk or something like that...
then simply show us a photo.

It's really simple to do... you want to prove me a "liar", SIMPLY CITE THE
EVIDENCE THAT I'M IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH.

But merely claiming that you can't see what is plainly visible isn't going to do
the trick, Kooky Ken... it's only going to get you known by everyone for your
craziness sooner...

Here's what I said to Robert Harris on the topic:

"THE ENTIRE AREA OF GRASS FROM ELM TO MAIN STREET IS PLAINLY VISIBLE. There is
*NO* area of the grass from front to back that is not completely in view."

"So there cannot be *ANYONE* else on that grass. It's certainly true that if
there had been, we may only be looking at their feet - BUT WE WOULD SEE THEIR
FEET!!"

"Bob, when you need to lie, you really should simply do what Martin and Tony do
nowadays - and simply refuse to debate me. There's *NOTHING* you can say to the
simple fact that *ALL* of the grass is visible behind the Franzen family in
Z-369. Trying to make the argument that there could have been additional people
back there *unseen* is an impossible argument. (and an outright lie)"

It's amusing that you think you can debate me on an issue that is so clearly
plain and obvious to anyone with eyes, Kooky Ken. You've clearly snapped, and
have taken *YOURSELF* out of any serious consideration from any intelligent
people.


>No. God forbid if you make a mistake.
>You won't hear the end of it.


Such as your lie about never having resorted to false names in forums?

Or your currently lie about Main Street not being seen in Z-369?

Or perhaps your implied lie that I've never refuted your silly claim about me
not being able to point out to those who believe that the extant Z-film is
authentic that it fails to support what they believe?


You see, there quickly comes a point when it's pointless to be charitable and
label them "mistakes". They are "mistakes" only when immediately retracted when
the truth is pointed out... after that point, they're lies, plain and simple.

>Ken


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[Ken McDonald]

I'm killfiled? Oh boy! I'm so thrilled! Yellow Pants can dish it out, but
can't take it. What a coward and liar.

In article <YY-dnf85TO4noTnS...@giganews.com>, Ken McDonald
says...

This is about the debate about the lady wearing what looks like yellow
slacks seen in the Nix film. I read it to see what the term "yellow pants"

as really about.

Ben Holms: "If you really *DID* read it, then answer the question that
everyone kept running from."

The question is how many people are shown standing at the curb at Z369.

Me: "That's easy. There are four people standing in Z369. The Franzen
family and Ginandtonic man."

Ben Holmes: "Now, list every person involved in that debate that refused

yo answer that question, and publicly label them liars and cowards."

"Let's see just how honest you are..."

"My prediction? You'll run away..."

"But you won't... you're a coward."

Ben Holmes EXPECTS ME to go back and re-read all of the posts from that
debate (by the way, he ran away because he couldn't support his claim) and
list all the people that supposedly ran away to prove his claim?

I'm not going to do that. If Ben Holmes has something to prove, he can do it
himself.

Can you imagine going back to posts from 2008 and re-reading them to prove
his
claim? That's absurd.

Come on. Yellow Pants the coward and liar really thinks it's okay for me to
research and prove a point for Yellow Pants during a deabate. How many
others have done that? I know. None. Who on earth would spend the time and
energy to help prove Yellow Pants' point and sabatoge thier own debate with
Yellow Pants. Anyone for that matter. Yellow Pants dug the hole, and earned
the name Yellow Pants. I'm not going to help Yellow Pants.

Ken


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7114 (20120505) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[timstter]

TOP POST

What a rewriting of history THIS is, Holmes!

You simply ran from further debate of the Z369/Lady In Yellow Pants
matter back in 2008.

Either admit it, Holmes, or I'll repost the thread a demonstrate when
you ran.

You ran, Holmes, because you knew you were wrong.

And prior to that, already having realised you were wrong, you simply
stalled the debate in endless swamp posting re Z369, just as you do
today re Carrico.

Your last word on the matter was that The Lady In Yellow Pants was NOT
standing too far back on the Dealey Plaza grass to EVER appear in the
Zapruder film.

That was, and still is, plain and simple, a lie, Holmes.

Informative Regards,

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

On May 6, 4:34 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Posted in the censored group under the title "Ben Holmes EXPECTS me to prove his
> claim?", kooky Ken has demonstrated yet again his absolute refusal to respond to
> my *ANSWERS*.
>
> Now, perhaps Kooky Ken will feel it's unfair that I now have him killfiled...
> but I still read the censored forum - so he can answer me there, or have an
> intelligent enough response that David or Walt or someone who's not killfiled
> responds... then I'll see it.
>

> In article <YY-dnf85TO4noTnSnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@giganews.com>, Ken McDonald says...

[mucher1]

On 5 Maj, 20:34, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Posted in the censored group under the title "Ben Holmes EXPECTS me to prove his
> claim?", kooky Ken has demonstrated yet again his absolute refusal to respond to
> my *ANSWERS*.
>
> Now, perhaps Kooky Ken will feel it's unfair that I now have him killfiled...
> but I still read the censored forum - so he can answer me there, or have an
> intelligent enough response that David or Walt or someone who's not killfiled
> responds... then I'll see it.

Your errand boy usually avoids or snips the intelligent stuff. I guess
he's just being protective.

> In article <YY-dnf85TO4noTnSnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@giganews.com>, Ken McDonald says...

>
> >This is about the debate about the lady wearing what looks like yellow
> >slacks seen in the Nix film. I read it to see what the term "yellow pants"
> >was really about.
>
> >Ben Holms: "If you really *DID* read it, then answer the question that
> >everyone kept running from."

Could you be slightly more specific? Anyone who bothers to wade
through those old threads will find two sets of questions: about Z-369
and about Z-377, respectively. In both cases, the question was
answered, the idea behind the question has shot down, and you ran from
further discussion. Here's a quick recap:

Question A: How many people can be seen standing in the grass in
Z-369? Underlying idea: a couple obscuring the view of the Franzes
family in the Nix film should also have appeared in the Z-film.
However: the legs/feet/shadows of the couple are visible from Z-334 to
355.

Question B: How many people can be seen standing in the grass in
Z-377? Underlying idea: a "lady in yellow pants" seen in the Nix film
should also have appeared in the Z film. However: it turned out that
you had severely misjudged the location of the "lady in yellow pants"
because you mistakenly thought the lamp post in Z-377 was the same as
the one seen in the Nix film just before she entered the picture.

The first idea was, as I understand it, borrowed from Jack
"Photogramm...what?" White, and the second has become known as your
very own "Lady in Yellow Pants" theory. Also for the record: the fact
that you ran away from defending it (or admitting your failure) is
what earned you the "Yellow Pants" nickname.

How can you claim, with a straight face, that people ran from
answering your questions, when they not only answered them, but also
refuted the underlying ideas?

> >The question is how many people are shown standing at the curb at Z369.
>
> >Me: "That's easy. There are four people standing in Z369. The Franzen
> >family and Ginandtonic man."
>
> Note that Kooky Ken *UNDERSTOOD* from the question he answered that *EVERYONE
> ELSE* in that debate ran from answering the question. I purposely put the
> question that way... I didn't want to simply ask him the question, but force him
> to find what no-one else was answering.

Didn't Harris answer question A? I distinctly remember answering
question B. So what, if we were the only ones who answered the
questions directly? They were only rhetorical questions, the answers
were obvious, and the underlying ideas were quickly shot down.

> And he clearly did, HE *KNEW* THAT EVERYONE ELSE WAS RUNNING FROM THAT QUESTION!
>
> The very action that Kooky Ken labeled me a "liar" and a "coward" was
> *PRECISELY* those actions that he understood *HIS* side was doing.

I guess you think killfiling the opposition gives you plausible
deniability, but the only one who ran was you. You still haven't
admitted that you were wrong.

> >Ben Holmes: "Now, list every person involved in that debate that refused
> >to answer that question, and publicly label them liars and cowards."
>
> >"Let's see just how honest you are..."
>
> >"My prediction? You'll run away..."
>
> >"But you won't... you're a coward."
>
> So I simply asked him to apply his standards to the others... since he now
> *KNEW* that it was the others who ran away from that debate, and not me.

You shouldn't be telling other people what they know, especially when
it's false.

> You see, these kooks fall for this stuff all the time - because intelligent
> questioning can get them to admit that the evidence doesn't support their
> position. Kooky Ken claimed that I ran, yet he answered the question THAT HE
> COULD ONLY FIND by figuring out what everyone *else* was running from.

Huh? It turned out that the evidence didn't support YOUR position!

> Now that he's realized the corner he got painted into, he's backtracking as fast
> as he can... but he can't deny that he doesn't know who actually ran.

Oh, I think we all know who actually ran.

> And that his labeling of me as a "liar" and a "coward" is a lie.

I think I will respectfully decline to comment on that.

> >Ben Holmes EXPECTS ME to go back and re-read all of the posts from that
> >debate (by the way, he ran away because he couldn't support his claim) and
> >list all the people that supposedly ran away to prove his claim?
>
> In answering the question, and in reading enough of the debate to see my
> repeated challenges over and over again to answer the question, Kooky Ken
> already knew the correct answer.
>
> I expected him to simply not be a hypocrite, and apply the same title he accused
> me of to those who actually *DID* run away. Honesty, in other words, was all I
> expected.
>
> My expectations were clearly too high.

Nonsense. You thought you had found ironclad visual proof of Z film
alteration and was debunked over and over again. You'd probably feel
better if you just admitted it.

> >I'm not going to do that.
>
> Of course not. Labeling your fellow kooks accurately isn't something that would
> draw any admiration from them.
>
> But you already *DID* read enough posts to figure out what the question was, so
> you already *KNOW* that everyone else was running.
>
> It's rather stupid to claim now that you're "not going to do that", when you
> clearly ALREADY HAVE!

It's meaningless to enumerate the posters that didn't bother to answer
your rhetorical questions directly. Your ideas were debunked. You ran
away.

> >If Ben Holmes has something to prove, he can do it himself.
>
> Actually, I did.
>
> I proved what I set out to prove - that your claim that I was a "liar" and
> "coward" for "running" simply wasn't true, that it was those who I was debating
> who ran. Your inability to quote *ANYONE* who gave the answer demonstrates it.

I'm pretty sure that Harris answered question A. I'm positive I
answered question B. Several posters, including Barber and Brennan,
addressed and debunked your ideas.

> Your ability to find AND ANSWER the question that everyone else was running from
> proves it.

Uh, how?

> And I proved that kooks are cowards...

Uh, how?

> >That's the most incredible thing I've ever heard of.
>
> How silly! To force you to admit your own hypocrisy? To force you to admit, if
> only by your refusal to answer, that you *KNOW* that everyone else ran from that
> debate?
>
> Kooks always refuse to support their words...

Kooks always refuse to admit their mistakes.

> >Can you imagine going back to posts from 2008 and re-reading them to prove his
> >claim? That's absurd.
>
> Can you imagine going back to posts from 2008 to avoid answering posts recently
> posted? You sound like the teenager pleading for leniency in the murder of his
> parents by pointing out that he's an orphan.

That's funny. You constantly send people on wild goose chases to avoid
answering questions. Tell me: do you still think your "Lady in Yellow
Pants" theory has merit? And please don't tell me that it MUST have
because other people refused to answer your questions! That one
doesn't work anymore.

(snip)

[aeffects]

Kooky Ken McDonald (by himself) maneuvered aaj trolls into a corner,
they're forced to deal with case evidence, killfilter or otherwise.
aaj lurkers are having a 'real' au contraire moment-eyeful...

On May 5, 11:34 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> Posted in the censored group under the title "Ben Holmes EXPECTS me to prove his
> claim?", kooky Ken has demonstrated yet again his absolute refusal to respond to
> my *ANSWERS*.
>
> Now, perhaps Kooky Ken will feel it's unfair that I now have him killfiled...
> but I still read the censored forum - so he can answer me there, or have an
> intelligent enough response that David or Walt or someone who's not killfiled
> responds... then I'll see it.
>

> In article <YY-dnf85TO4noTnSnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@giganews.com>, Ken McDonald says...

[Ken McDonald]

>snip Parrot's drug addled babbling<

It must be cold out thee with no feathers.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7115 (20120506) __________

[Ben Holmes]

In article <a70c2764-058b-40d7...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>Kooky Ken McDonald (by himself) maneuvered aaj trolls into a corner,
>they're forced to deal with case evidence, killfilter or otherwise.
>aaj lurkers are having a 'real' au contraire moment-eyeful...

Yep... they're probably not liking that very much! :)


Particularly as he's reminding everyone of a thread where Robert Harris tried to
imply what he's saying outright...

That Main Street can't be seen in Z-369.




>On May 5, 11:34=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> Posted in the censored group under the title "Ben Holmes EXPECTS me to pr=
>ove his
>> claim?", kooky Ken has demonstrated yet again his absolute refusal to res=
>pond to
>> my *ANSWERS*.
>>
>> Now, perhaps Kooky Ken will feel it's unfair that I now have him killfile=
>d...
>> but I still read the censored forum - so he can answer me there, or have =
>an
>> intelligent enough response that David or Walt or someone who's not killf=

>iled
>> responds... then I'll see it.
>>

>> In article <YY-dnf85TO4noTnSnZ2dnUVZ_qydn...@giganews.com>, Ken McDonald =

>says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >This is about the debate about the lady wearing what looks like yellow

>> >slacks seen in the Nix film. I read it to see what the term "yellow pant=

>s"
>> >was really about.
>>
>> >Ben Holms: "If you really *DID* read it, then answer the question that
>> >everyone kept running from."
>>
>> >The question is how many people are shown standing at the curb at Z369.
>>
>> >Me: "That's easy. There are four people standing in Z369. The Franzen
>> >family and Ginandtonic man."
>>

>> Note that Kooky Ken *UNDERSTOOD* from the question he answered that *EVER=

>YONE
>> ELSE* in that debate ran from answering the question. I purposely put the

>> question that way... I didn't want to simply ask him the question, but fo=

>rce him
>> to find what no-one else was answering.
>>

>> And he clearly did, HE *KNEW* THAT EVERYONE ELSE WAS RUNNING FROM THAT QU=

>ESTION!
>>
>> The very action that Kooky Ken labeled me a "liar" and a "coward" was
>> *PRECISELY* those actions that he understood *HIS* side was doing.
>>
>> >Ben Holmes: "Now, list every person involved in that debate that refused
>> >to answer that question, and publicly label them liars and cowards."
>>
>> >"Let's see just how honest you are..."
>>
>> >"My prediction? You'll run away..."
>>
>> >"But you won't... you're a coward."
>>

>> So I simply asked him to apply his standards to the others... since he no=

>w
>> *KNEW* that it was the others who ran away from that debate, and not me.
>>

>> You see, these kooks fall for this stuff all the time - because intellige=

>nt
>> questioning can get them to admit that the evidence doesn't support their

>> position. Kooky Ken claimed that I ran, yet he answered the question THAT=

> HE
>> COULD ONLY FIND by figuring out what everyone *else* was running from.
>>

>> Now that he's realized the corner he got painted into, he's backtracking =

>as fast
>> as he can... but he can't deny that he doesn't know who actually ran.
>>
>> And that his labeling of me as a "liar" and a "coward" is a lie.
>>
>> >Ben Holmes EXPECTS ME to go back and re-read all of the posts from that

>> >debate (by the way, he ran away because he couldn't support his claim) a=

>nd
>> >list all the people that supposedly ran away to prove his claim?
>>
>> In answering the question, and in reading enough of the debate to see my
>> repeated challenges over and over again to answer the question, Kooky Ken
>> already knew the correct answer.
>>

>> I expected him to simply not be a hypocrite, and apply the same title he =
>accused
>> me of to those who actually *DID* run away. Honesty, in other words, was =

>all I
>> expected.
>>
>> My expectations were clearly too high.
>>
>> >I'm not going to do that.
>>

>> Of course not. Labeling your fellow kooks accurately isn't something that=

> would
>> draw any admiration from them.
>>

>> But you already *DID* read enough posts to figure out what the question w=

>as, so
>> you already *KNOW* that everyone else was running.
>>

>> It's rather stupid to claim now that you're "not going to do that", when =

>you
>> clearly ALREADY HAVE!
>>
>> >If Ben Holmes has something to prove, he can do it himself.
>>
>> Actually, I did.
>>

>> I proved what I set out to prove - that your claim that I was a "liar" an=
>d
>> "coward" for "running" simply wasn't true, that it was those who I was de=
>bating
>> who ran. Your inability to quote *ANYONE* who gave the answer demonstrate=
>s it.
>>
>> Your ability to find AND ANSWER the question that everyone else was runni=

>ng from
>> proves it.
>>
>> And I proved that kooks are cowards...
>>
>> >That's the most incredible thing I've ever heard of.
>>

>> How silly! To force you to admit your own hypocrisy? To force you to admi=
>t, if
>> only by your refusal to answer, that you *KNOW* that everyone else ran fr=

>om that
>> debate?
>>
>> Kooks always refuse to support their words...
>>

>> >Can you imagine going back to posts from 2008 and re-reading them to pro=

>ve his
>> >claim? That's absurd.
>>

>> Can you imagine going back to posts from 2008 to avoid answering posts re=
>cently
>> posted? You sound like the teenager pleading for leniency in the murder o=

>f his
>> parents by pointing out that he's an orphan.
>>
>> >Ben Holmes also claimed that Main St. can be seen in Z369 which isn't
>> >true.
>>
>> Here's the post:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b900b35211f89d8
>>
>> The kook must be blind. Anyone can view Z-369 for themselves, here it is:
>>
>> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z369.jpg
>>

>> I invite all lurkers to search Google Images for "JFK Dealey Plaza", and =
>they'll
>> find plenty of photos to help them get oriented on where Main Street was,=

> and
>> just what area of grass exists.
>>
>> >Did he admit to that mistake?
>>

>> How can I admit to a "mistake" when all I did is tell the truth? Can you =
>find
>> any grass *BEYOND* the top of Z-369? By all means, go through all of the =
>370's,
>> 380's, 390's - go ahead and continue through the rest of the film. What y=
>ou
>> *WON'T* find is any area of grass beyond where I state that Main Street i=
>s in
>> Z-369.
>>
>> Perhaps you think that the pavement seen is a sidewalk or something like =

>that...
>> then simply show us a photo.
>>

>> It's really simple to do... you want to prove me a "liar", SIMPLY CITE TH=

>E
>> EVIDENCE THAT I'M IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH.
>>

>> But merely claiming that you can't see what is plainly visible isn't goin=
>g to do
>> the trick, Kooky Ken... it's only going to get you known by everyone for =

>your
>> craziness sooner...
>>
>> Here's what I said to Robert Harris on the topic:
>>

>> "THE ENTIRE AREA OF GRASS FROM ELM TO MAIN STREET IS PLAINLY VISIBLE. =A0=
>There is
>> *NO* area of the grass from front to back that is not completely in view.=
>"
>>
>> "So there cannot be *ANYONE* else on that grass. =A0It's certainly true t=
>hat if
>> there had been, we may only be looking at their feet - BUT WE WOULD SEE T=
>HEIR
>> FEET!!"
>>
>> "Bob, when you need to lie, you really should simply do what Martin and T=
>ony do
>> nowadays - and simply refuse to debate me. =A0There's *NOTHING* you can s=
>ay to the
>> simple fact that *ALL* of the grass is visible behind the Franzen family =
>in
>> Z-369. =A0Trying to make the argument that there could have been addition=
>al people
>> back there *unseen* is an impossible argument. =A0(and an outright lie)"
>>
>> It's amusing that you think you can debate me on an issue that is so clea=
>rly
>> plain and obvious to anyone with eyes, Kooky Ken. You've clearly snapped,=
> and
>> have taken *YOURSELF* out of any serious consideration from any intellige=

>nt
>> people.
>>
>> >No. God forbid if you make a mistake.
>> >You won't hear the end of it.
>>
>> Such as your lie about never having resorted to false names in forums?
>>
>> Or your currently lie about Main Street not being seen in Z-369?
>>

>> Or perhaps your implied lie that I've never refuted your silly claim abou=
>t me
>> not being able to point out to those who believe that the extant Z-film i=

>s
>> authentic that it fails to support what they believe?
>>

>> You see, there quickly comes a point when it's pointless to be charitable=
> and
>> label them "mistakes". They are "mistakes" only when immediately retracte=
>d when
>> the truth is pointed out... after that point, they're lies, plain and sim=

[Ken McDonald]

What's the matter Yellow Pants? Cranky because your Parrot flew up your ass
with a laptop?

[Ken McDonald]

"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:jo3rs...@drn.newsguy.com...

>
>
> Posted in the censored group under the title "Ben Holmes EXPECTS me to
> prove his
> claim?", kooky Ken has demonstrated yet again his absolute refusal to
> respond to
> my *ANSWERS*.
>
> Now, perhaps Kooky Ken will feel it's unfair that I now have him
> killfiled...

You have no idea how stupid you are do you? Why in the hell do you think I
care if I'm killfiled? You're just a simple minded stupid fuck. This is so
funny.

> but I still read the censored forum - so he can answer me there, or have
> an
> intelligent enough response that David or Walt or someone who's not
> killfiled
> responds... then I'll see it.

I'm shaking in my boots Yellow Pants.

> In article <YY-dnf85TO4noTnS...@giganews.com>, Ken McDonald
> says...
>>
>>This is about the debate about the lady wearing what looks like yellow
>>slacks seen in the Nix film. I read it to see what the term "yellow pants"
>>was really about.
>>
>>Ben Holms: "If you really *DID* read it, then answer the question that
>>everyone kept running from."
>>
>>The question is how many people are shown standing at the curb at Z369.
>>
>>Me: "That's easy. There are four people standing in Z369. The Franzen
>>family and Ginandtonic man."
>
>
>
> Note that Kooky Ken *UNDERSTOOD* from the question he answered that
> *EVERYONE
> ELSE* in that debate ran from answering the question. I purposely put the
> question that way... I didn't want to simply ask him the question, but
> force him
> to find what no-one else was answering.
>
> And he clearly did, HE *KNEW* THAT EVERYONE ELSE WAS RUNNING FROM THAT
> QUESTION!

That's not true you lying gutless coward. There wasn't anyone running. Just
you. It's there plain as day for anyone to read.

>
> The very action that Kooky Ken labeled me a "liar" and a "coward" was
> *PRECISELY* those actions that he understood *HIS* side was doing.

My side? I don't have a side you simple minded stupid fuck. I'm on my own.
God, what a moron.

>
>
>>Ben Holmes: "Now, list every person involved in that debate that refused
>>to answer that question, and publicly label them liars and cowards."
>>
>>"Let's see just how honest you are..."
>>
>>"My prediction? You'll run away..."
>>
>>"But you won't... you're a coward."
>
>
> So I simply asked him to apply his standards to the others... since he now
> *KNEW* that it was the others who ran away from that debate, and not me.

No it wasn't you lying gutless dishonest coward. They were too busy
schooling you about why the lady in yellow pants couldn't be seen in the Z
film. The only person that ran was you.

>
> You see, these kooks fall for this stuff all the time - because
> intelligent
> questioning can get them to admit that the evidence doesn't support their
> position. Kooky Ken claimed that I ran, yet he answered the question THAT
> HE
> COULD ONLY FIND by figuring out what everyone *else* was running from.

This is unbelievable. This lying gutless dishonest cowardly simple minded
stupid fuck actually thinks I couldn't see the question unless I figured out
that someone ran? Oh.. wait. I did. It was Yellow Pants that ran away.
Yellow Pants can spin this anyway he likes. Everyone can read the threads
and see that it was Yellow Pants that ran.

>
> Now that he's realized the corner he got painted into, he's backtracking
> as fast
> as he can... but he can't deny that he doesn't know who actually ran.

What a whopper! The only person that ran was lying, gutless, dishonest,
cowardly simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
> And that his labeling of me as a "liar" and a "coward" is a lie.

You are a lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly simple minded stupid fuck
Yellow Pants.

>
>
>>Ben Holmes EXPECTS ME to go back and re-read all of the posts from that
>>debate (by the way, he ran away because he couldn't support his claim) and
>>list all the people that supposedly ran away to prove his claim?
>
>
> In answering the question, and in reading enough of the debate to see my
> repeated challenges over and over again to answer the question, Kooky Ken
> already knew the correct answer.
>
> I expected him to simply not be a hypocrite, and apply the same title he
> accused
> me of to those who actually *DID* run away. Honesty, in other words, was
> all I
> expected.
>
> My expectations were clearly too high.

Your expectations? The only person that ran was you lying, gutless,
dishonest, cowardly simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
>
>>I'm not going to do that.
>
>
> Of course not. Labeling your fellow kooks accurately isn't something that
> would
> draw any admiration from them.
>
> But you already *DID* read enough posts to figure out what the question
> was, so
> you already *KNOW* that everyone else was running.

Why do you think it was so hard to see the question lying, gutless,
dishonest, cowardly simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
> It's rather stupid to claim now that you're "not going to do that", when
> you
> clearly ALREADY HAVE!

What? Where? Who? I don't see where I labled anyone a coward and liar for
running away from that debate. Oh.... wait. I did. It was you, you lying,
gutless, dishonest, cowardly simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
>
>>If Ben Holmes has something to prove, he can do it himself.
>
>
> Actually, I did.
>
> I proved what I set out to prove - that your claim that I was a "liar" and
> "coward" for "running" simply wasn't true, that it was those who I was
> debating
> who ran. Your inability to quote *ANYONE* who gave the answer demonstrates
> it.
>
> Your ability to find AND ANSWER the question that everyone else was
> running from
> proves it.

The only person that ran was you, you lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly
simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
> And I proved that kooks are cowards...

You're the one that ran away lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly simple
minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
>
>>That's the most incredible thing I've ever heard of.
>
>
> How silly! To force you to admit your own hypocrisy? To force you to
> admit, if
> only by your refusal to answer, that you *KNOW* that everyone else ran
> from that
> debate?

You're the one that ran lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly simple minded
stupid fuck Yellow Pants. You can spin it anyway you like. Anyone can go
back and read it. What do I have to do, repost everything and make you look
like a lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly simple minded stupid fuck Yellow
Pants.

>
> Kooks always refuse to support their words...

Yea, they do don't they kooky lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly simple
minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
>
>>Can you imagine going back to posts from 2008 and re-reading them to prove
>>his
>>claim? That's absurd.
>
>
> Can you imagine going back to posts from 2008 to avoid answering posts
> recently
> posted? You sound like the teenager pleading for leniency in the murder of
> his
> parents by pointing out that he's an orphan.
>

You sound tired lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly simple minded stupid
fuck Yellow Pants. I'm just getting started.

>
>
>>Ben Holmes also claimed that Main St. can be seen in Z369 which isn't
>>true.
>
>
> Here's the post:

Oops my bad. What are you going to do about it lying, gutless, dishonest,
cowardly simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b900b35211f89d8
>
>
> The kook must be blind. Anyone can view Z-369 for themselves, here it is:
>
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z369.jpg
>

Oops my bad. I made a mistake and should be punished. Okay, give it to me.
Not on your life lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly simple minded stupid
fuck Yellow Pants.

> I invite all lurkers to search Google Images for "JFK Dealey Plaza", and
> they'll
> find plenty of photos to help them get oriented on where Main Street was,
> and
> just what area of grass exists.
>
>
>>Did he admit to that mistake?

Okay. I made a mistake. I'm so sorry.

>
>
> How can I admit to a "mistake" when all I did is tell the truth? Can you
> find
> any grass *BEYOND* the top of Z-369? By all means, go through all of the
> 370's,
> 380's, 390's - go ahead and continue through the rest of the film. What
> you
> *WON'T* find is any area of grass beyond where I state that Main Street is
> in
> Z-369.

You know the funny thing about that. You never noticed anything until
Anthony Marsh pointed it out to me. So maybe you are a lying, gutless,
dishonest, cowardly simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
> Perhaps you think that the pavement seen is a sidewalk or something like
> that...
> then simply show us a photo.

No. You can see Main St. in Costella's Z369.

>
> It's really simple to do... you want to prove me a "liar", SIMPLY CITE THE
> EVIDENCE THAT I'M IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH.

I don't have to prove that you're a lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly
simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants. You have that reputation already.

>
> But merely claiming that you can't see what is plainly visible isn't going
> to do
> the trick, Kooky Ken... it's only going to get you known by everyone for
> your
> craziness sooner...

Just like you're known for being a lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly
simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
> Here's what I said to Robert Harris on the topic:
>
> "THE ENTIRE AREA OF GRASS FROM ELM TO MAIN STREET IS PLAINLY VISIBLE.
> There is
> *NO* area of the grass from front to back that is not completely in view."
>
> "So there cannot be *ANYONE* else on that grass. It's certainly true that
> if
> there had been, we may only be looking at their feet - BUT WE WOULD SEE
> THEIR
> FEET!!"
>
> "Bob, when you need to lie, you really should simply do what Martin and
> Tony do
> nowadays - and simply refuse to debate me.

The reason no one wants to debate you is because you're a lying, gutless,
dishonest, cowardly simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants. You have that
reputation already. Why bother with you?

There's *NOTHING* you can say to the
> simple fact that *ALL* of the grass is visible behind the Franzen family
> in
> Z-369.

What's the difference? You were schooled four years ago as to why the two
giants blocking your view of the Franzen family that you can see in the Nix
film weren't in Z369. Your Parrot emailed you and told you where that couple
was in the Z film and you had to admit your mistake.

Trying to make the argument that there could have been additional people
> back there *unseen* is an impossible argument. (and an outright lie)"

There wasn't anyone to see behind the Franzen family. You're Parrot told you
the couple was in Z348.

>
> It's amusing that you think you can debate me on an issue that is so
> clearly
> plain and obvious to anyone with eyes, Kooky Ken. You've clearly snapped,
> and
> have taken *YOURSELF* out of any serious consideration from any
> intelligent
> people.

The funny thing about that is you never caught my mistake until Anthony
Marsh pointed it out to me. That makes you a lying, gutless, dishonest,
cowardly simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
>
>>No. God forbid if you make a mistake.
>>You won't hear the end of it.
>
>
> Such as your lie about never having resorted to false names in forums?

Yes. I got booted from that kooky Dellarosa forum and got right back on the
next day. I'm technically superior to them. I can get onto that forum
anytime I please. Maybe I am now. If you have a problem with that, to bad.
You're a redneck aren't you?

>
> Or your currently lie about Main Street not being seen in Z-369?

The funny thing about that is you never caught my mistake until Anthony
Marsh pointed it out to me. That makes you a lying, gutless, dishonest,
cowardly simple minded stupid fuck Yellow Pants.

>
> Or perhaps your implied lie that I've never refuted your silly claim about
> me
> not being able to point out to those who believe that the extant Z-film is
> authentic that it fails to support what they believe?

You can't prove that the Z film is altered on your own. All you can do is
regurgitate what you have read from fools like Fetzer, White (do you know
what photogrammetry is) and others. And you can't even get that right
either. Look at the trouble it got you into four years ago when you earned
the name Yellow Pants. Rule number one. Don't ever put your trust in Jack
White. He's incompetent.

>
>
> You see, there quickly comes a point when it's pointless to be charitable
> and
> label them "mistakes". They are "mistakes" only when immediately retracted
> when
> the truth is pointed out... after that point, they're lies, plain and
> simple.

You should know lying, gutless, dishonest, cowardly simple minded stupid
fuck Yellow Pants.

>
>>Ken
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
>

> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 7115 (20120506) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7117 (20120507) __________