Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Has Anyone Noticed? Re: This Forum 'Dying'...

27 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 5:28:41 PM4/13/06
to
Has anyone noticed that the very people that wistfully hope that this forum dies
a natural death are the very ones that are clogging it up with posts?

How ironic...

And then, to compound silliness on top of nonsense - they imply that only CT'ers
are the 'posting engines of doom'... endlessly cranking out post after post...

We can be sure that this forum will never die as long as there are the
"faithful" still out there, still hoping against hope that Bugliosi can save
them.

Even more ironic ... it would be best for the faithful LNT'ers if Bugliosi never
published his book, for just as Posner shafted the LNT'er camp in a way that
they still haven't recovered from, so too will Bugliosi... but I suppose that
they won't understand this comment.


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Todd W. Vaughan

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 6:05:36 PM4/13/06
to
So has Ben spoken.

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 7:07:34 PM4/13/06
to
And I STILL say that a little "Andy Rooney" imitation around the edges
wouldn't hurt Ben-boy's presentation here. Ya think??

[Andy Rooney whiny delivery on]

"Ever notice that whenever a CTer gets his panties all balled up under
his itchy scrotum region, he seems to feel that it's necessary to start
up a fresh thread about the evils of LNism?? Ever notice that fellas? I
have. Maybe Ben should try a larger size of Fruit-Of-The-Looms. Ones
that won't bind his man-gland region so much. Or, should I say
"Kook-Gland region"? That'd be my recommendation."

[Andy Rooney off]

Bud

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 8:04:58 PM4/13/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> Has anyone noticed that the very people that wistfully hope that this forum dies
> a natural death are the very ones that are clogging it up with posts?

Tomnln?

> How ironic...
>
> And then, to compound silliness on top of nonsense - they imply that only CT'ers
> are the 'posting engines of doom'...

I prefer "beaters of dead horses".

> endlessly cranking out post after post...
>
> We can be sure that this forum will never die as long as there are the
> "faithful" still out there, still hoping against hope that Bugliosi can save
> them.

My wish is that no more books be written on this subject until there
is something new to be added.

> Even more ironic ... it would be best for the faithful LNT'ers if Bugliosi never
> published his book, for just as Posner shafted the LNT'er camp in a way that
> they still haven't recovered from, so too will Bugliosi... but I suppose that
> they won't understand this comment.

Posner`s book wasn`t needed any more than Bugliosi`s book is. Even
the WCR was unnecessary. This crime just isn`t that hard to figure out.

Grizzlie Antagonist

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 11:45:22 PM4/13/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> Has anyone noticed that the very people that wistfully hope that this forum dies
> a natural death are the very ones that are clogging it up with posts?


Then as a CONSPIRACY forum, it's DYING, isn't it, dumbass?

aeffects

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 11:50:16 PM4/13/06
to

The Dabug 'watercarrier association' hath spoken, so says the Stump[s]

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 12:05:55 AM4/14/06
to
In article <1144986616.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
says...


It *is* amusing to watch the LNT'ers squirm...

JLeyd...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 1:56:23 PM4/14/06
to
Reality check, Ben. It's already over for this NG. You've just been
too busy posting to notice. Scroll down your screen and check the
threads on the various posts. There really are only a dozen or so
people who post here on a regular basis, including you and Tomnln who
pretty much distort the numbers. And it's all old stuff, too. Haven't
seen anything new in, like, forever. The JFK debate is dead. You guys
lost.

JGL

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 2:57:05 PM4/14/06
to
In article <1145037383.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
JLeyd...@aol.com says...

>
>Reality check, Ben. It's already over for this NG.

That's why you keep posting?

Anyone can view the numbers... and your speculation aside, the numbers simply
don't support your theory.


>You've just been
>too busy posting to notice. Scroll down your screen and check the
>threads on the various posts. There really are only a dozen or so
>people who post here on a regular basis,

That's been true for years and years... the people change, but the numbers are
roughly the same.

>including you and Tomnln who
>pretty much distort the numbers.


You see??? Once again, your bias and willingness to misrepresent come to the
fore...

For you know quite well that many, if not *MOST* of our posts are in *response*
to a LNT'er posting here. Yet you're willing to misrepresent, and outright lie
about it. Why is that?

And if LNT'ers can't resist posting here - then your predictions of the "dying"
will never come true. For the kooks will be with us always... to paraphrase the
Bible.

Of course, it's simple to actually *view* the very facts that make your
speculations nonsense.

Here's the number of posts for the first three months of the last few years:

2000: 8,530
2001: 5,490
2002: 4,110
2003: 8,360
2004: 3,580
2005: 9,170
2006: 6,820

So the numbers are lower than 3 previous years, and higher than 3 previous
years... Yep... a real *dying* taking place here folks...

Once again, a LNT'er simply isn't bothered with facts.


>And it's all old stuff, too.


Yep... 40+ years old... but "old" never stopped anyone. Check in with the
archeologists... or geologists...

The *same* complaint can be leveled against the censored group - but you seem
strangely silent on that point.


>Haven't seen anything new in, like, forever.

Can't help it if you're illiterate. The news about previous assassination
attempts in the weeks before was quite interesting - although it again makes
nonsense of your silly LNT'er theory.

And it'll be fun when Bugliosi's book comes out - We'll have fun destroying it
as was done to Posner's book.


>The JFK debate is dead. You guys lost.


Does this explain why LNT'ers always 'snip and run'? And refuse to debate the
*evidence and testimony*???

Or does it explain the poll numbers?

How embarrassed you must be!

>JGL

Steve

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 3:49:19 PM4/14/06
to
Cute.

Just how many hundreds and hundreds of these are from the repetitious
"Tomnln" and Bob Harris, posting the same drivel overand over, not to
mention your own reposting when someone doesnt give the attention you
think you deserve to your "list".

JGL has been keeping a good count on things here, Ben. He's also made
an excellent point.

tomnln

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 4:08:39 PM4/14/06
to
ONLY a Felon Supporter would describe Unanswered Questions as "drivel".


"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1145044159.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 4:55:58 PM4/14/06
to
In article <1145044159.0...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Steve
says...


Yep... and you've been just as dishonest as he has been. Your refusal to
mention any LNT'ers who are repeatedly posting is a good illustration of your
bias and lack of character.

How sad...

Steve

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 8:20:36 PM4/14/06
to
In article <1145044159.011600.100...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Steve
says...


>Cute.


> Just how many hundreds and hundreds of these are from the repetitious
>"Tomnln" and Bob Harris, posting the same drivel overand over, not to
>mention your own reposting when someone doesnt give the attention you
>think you deserve to your "list".


> JGL has been keeping a good count on things here, Ben. He's also made
>an excellent point.

Yep... and you've been just as dishonest as he has been. Your refusal
to
mention any LNT'ers who are repeatedly posting is a good illustration
of your
bias and lack of character.

How sad...


Steve writes:


I am not talking about people posting in general. I am talking about
these folks like Tom, Harris and yourself who sound like a broken
record, repeating the same things over and over, the accusing anyone
who doesn't take your bait names.

What is "sad" is, that you defend what you, Tom, and your cohorts do
here, Ben.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 8:37:12 PM4/14/06
to
In article <1145060436.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Steve
says...

>
>In article <1145044159.011600.100...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>Steve
>says...
>
>
>>> Cute.
>
>
>>> Just how many hundreds and hundreds of these are from the repetitious
>>> "Tomnln" and Bob Harris, posting the same drivel overand over, not to
>>> mention your own reposting when someone doesnt give the attention you
>>> think you deserve to your "list".
>
>
>>> JGL has been keeping a good count on things here, Ben. He's also made
>>> an excellent point.
>
>
>
>> Yep... and you've been just as dishonest as he has been. Your refusal
>> to mention any LNT'ers who are repeatedly posting is a good illustration
>> of your bias and lack of character.
>
>How sad...
>
>
>Steve writes:
>
>
> I am not talking about people posting in general.

Of course you are... it was in reference to the *NUMBERS* of posts... and by far
the greater number of posts have *NOT* been made by CT'ers... but by LNT'ers...
and CT'ers *RESPONDING* to LNT'ers...

Yet you mention only CT'ers... that was dishonest of you, and you *DO* know the
truth.

For that matter, most any lurker who's been here for any length of time is going
to know that you're misrepresenting the facts.

>I am talking about
>these folks like Tom, Harris and yourself who sound like a broken
>record, repeating the same things over and over, the accusing anyone
>who doesn't take your bait names.

And I will *CONTINUE* to point out those who lie, ommit, misrepresent, and who
are dishonest. You can always run back to the censored group... or, heaven
forbid, actually *debate* the evidence without lying about it.

> What is "sad" is, that you defend what you, Tom, and your cohorts do
>here, Ben.

I defend the evidence and testimony. You don't. It's as simple as that.

Steve

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 9:17:18 PM4/14/06
to
Ben,
anyone who has an ounce of intelligence here knows that your
definition of "debate" is not to be trusted. You insult peoples'
intelligence, is what you do.

You "don't "defend" the evidence, Ben. You adulterate and distort it.

I defend the evidence, as presented by the authorities--*not** by
ameteurs who go around caliming that they are smarter than the
authorities.

You obviously know very little about the law. This is indicated by
the fact that you rely solely on "eyewitness accounts" over forensice
and ballistic evidence. Any intelligent law officer will tell you that
eyewitnesss testimony is most unreliable when it comes to investigating
a crime. It is useful toa certain degree. No two people see/hear the
same thing, which in turn, is conflicting. That's why we have
forensics, ballistics, and the likes. But, you just go right ahead and
try to play out your little games in here, with people. Just don't
expect me to play along with you.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 12:23:44 AM4/15/06
to
In article <1145063838....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Steve, after
snipping away, says...

>
>Ben,
> anyone who has an ounce of intelligence here knows that your
>definition of "debate" is not to be trusted.

How can it be? LNT'ers are too cowardly to actually leave messages unsnipped,
and *RESPOND* to the points being made. So how can you make any reference to
any "definition" of debate, when it's never engaged in?


>You insult peoples' intelligence, is what you do.


And you really believe that spouting such nonsense, even while *refusing* to
debate the evidence, really fools any lurkers?


Trust me, it doesn't...


> You "don't "defend" the evidence, Ben. You adulterate and distort it.


Then all you have to do is *show* such. But when you and other LNT'ers snip and
run, you *certainly* haven't proven that I distort -anything-.


> I defend the evidence, as presented by the authorities--*not** by
>ameteurs who go around caliming that they are smarter than the
>authorities.


How silly... most LNT'ers here simply snip and run... they don't "defend"
anything at all.

You've illustrated that principle as well as any LNT'er...

For example, when I provided the actual *NUMBERS* that make the theory of this
forum "dying" sheer nonsense, you simply snipped it, didn't you?

Facts aren't of any interest to a LNT'er unless he can use it to defend his
faith.


> You obviously know very little about the law.


By all means, LEAVE MY WORDS ALONE, AND SEE IF YOU CAN EDUCATE ME.


But you won't... like all LNT'ers, your strategy is to snip and run...


>This is indicated by the fact that you rely solely on "eyewitness accounts"
>over forensice and ballistic evidence.

Without eyewitness testimony, forensic and ballistic evidence is meaningless and
not admissible.

You'd better think about it just a moment before you try to deny it...

But forensic and ballistic evidence is *JUST* as valuable for the CT'er side,
perhaps even more so. The NAA testing on LHO's cheek cast, for example, is a
bit of forensic evidence that is devastating for the LNT'er case... likewise
with the NAA testing done on the various bullet fragments. The 6.5mm virtually
round object is another bit of evidence that has *no* explanation outside of a
coverup... at least, none has ever been offered that sounds reasonable. CE543's
lack of a 'chamber mark' is another problem that LNT'ers refuse to touch.
Ballistics was so much of a problem for the WC that they fired their first
expert - in order to find someone willing to testify the way they wanted.

Eyewitness accounts are *most* valuable in a case like this, where there's an
excellent probability that physical evidence was tampered with. And, as I've
often pointed out, the law *recognizes* the supremacy of eyewitness testimony
over that of photographs, for example - which *CANNOT* be admitted unless it is
'validated' by an eyewitness.

But, you won't respond to *any* of this, you'll simply snip and run... and prove
to lurkers just who is willing to stand by their words.


>Any intelligent law officer will tell you that
>eyewitnesss testimony is most unreliable when it comes to investigating
>a crime.

How silly...


>It is useful toa certain degree. No two people see/hear the
>same thing, which in turn, is conflicting.


And when dozens of people *DO* testify to the same thing? What are you going to
say now? Will you formulate a theory of mass hallucination?


>That's why we have
>forensics, ballistics, and the likes.


Which, of course, *also* rely on, and complement, eyewitness testimony... and in
many cases, *can* successfully be used to contradict eyewitness testimony. Your
problem, of course, is that this is not one of those cases. Since much of the
evidence has no valid chain of possession... or is not validated by
eyewitnesses.


>But, you just go right ahead and try to play out your little games in
>here, with people. Just don't expect me to play along with you.


Of course I don't. You can't be honest and defend your theories. You're a
gutless coward to boot. Many, if not most LNT'ers are. The ones who aren't
will not even engage in a debate that they know they'll lose.

Just as an experiment, try going to any of my posts THAT DEAL WITH THE ACTUAL
EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY - and try to refute it without snipping. Use any
evidence, any testimony, any citation, any argument that you can...

The problem, of course, is that LNT'ers are either too ignorant, or too afraid
of the facts to do so. It's far easier to rant against a silly theory of Greer
shooting JFK, or Umbrella men with darts, or any easily argued *speculation*.
But when it comes to the actual *facts*, you have nothing that you can do other
than try to argue that the *FACTS* are wrong.

Grizzlie Antagonist

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 1:10:55 AM4/15/06
to
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1144986616.7...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
> >
> >
> >Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> >> Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> Has anyone noticed that the very people that wistfully hope that this forum
> >>dies
> >> > a natural death are the very ones that are clogging it up with posts?
> >>
> >>
> >> Then as a CONSPIRACY forum, it's DYING, isn't it, dumbass?
> >
> >The Dabug 'watercarrier association' hath spoken, so says the Stump[s]
>
>
> It *is* amusing to watch the LNT'ers squirm...

But you're not getting any amusement from watching me squirm, Ben
Holmes Movement, because you've PLONKED me, remember?

David VP

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 1:39:29 AM4/15/06
to
>>"The 6.5mm virtually-round object is another bit of evidence that has *no* explanation
>>outside of a coverup..."

Even when said object CANNOT BE DEFINITIVELY IDENTIFIED AT ALL?? (Which
it cannot and has not been.)

You must be crackers with such reasoning.

It sounds like the same CT "reasoning" re. Badge Man's "existence" ...
i.e., Badge Man has no logical explanation outside of a conspiracy (per
CTers).

When, in fact, BM has many other logical and just-as-acceptable anti-CT
explanations -- such as shadows, photographic grain from Miss Moorman's
el-cheapo Polaroid camera/film stock, sunlight, glare, or all of the
above (which are, in fact, explanations that seem much more logical to
me than a killer showing himself above the fence line to be
photographed in broad daylight).

And -- Even if "Badge Dude" IS a human figure...that STILL doesn't make
"him" a killer. Even if it was a person behind the fence, the CTers are
still a long way from placing a verifiable gun in his hands....and an
even longer way away from having a gunshot from this guy striking JFK
in the head (which we know never happened based on the verifiable
evidence in this case).

Plus -- Re. the 6.5mm-shaped "object" on the X-ray ---- Can any CTer
tell us, logically, WHY the plotters/photo-fakers were so reckless as
to let that little item slip through their dastardly conspiratorial
fingers? That is, why is that 6.5mm item (that you say leads to
"conspiracy" and is potentially PLOT-BLOWING in nature) even ON that
X-ray AFTER the "faked" X-rays were "faked" by the "fakers"? Why is it
even there for all the world to see and say "Hey, lookie what we've got
here"?

Didn't the person faking/phonying-up that particular X-ray get the
"We're Framing Only Lee Oswald Tomorrow" memo from Patsy HQ on
Thursday, November 21st? He must not have, huh?


>>"Eyewitness accounts are *most* valuable in a case like this, where there's an
>>excellent probability that physical evidence was tampered with."

I, too, think that eyewitness and earwitness testimony is valuable.
But, as probably everybody else agrees as well, to a much more limited
point and (naturally) limited reliability factor than that of other
types of physical evidence in a murder case (such as guns, bullets,
shells, prints, etc.).

I was accused by someone here recently of trying to have my cake and
eat it too (not the exact quote, but the point is the same) re. the
witness testimony.

That is, in one thread here I was talking about the "unreliability" of
witness testimony in a general sense...while in another thread re. the
incredibly-high % of "Shots Came From Just One Direction" earwitnesses,
I was placing quite a bit MORE faith in such "unreliable" testimony.

However -- In the "One-Directional" vs. "Two Or More Directions Of
Gunfire" instance, I brought that point up due to the sheer, vast,
overwhelming percentile of witnesses who heard shots from just ONE
single direction or general location (which, via Mr. McAdams' study, is
a remarkably-high 99 out of 104 polled witnesses who heard shots from
just ONE locality, be it either a front or rear location).

Now, is it possible for the 99 to be wrong and for the measly 5 to be
correct via that survey/poll? Yes, of course it's possible. But is it
LIKELY that 99 out of 104 persons (who, btw, were stationed in various
places within Dealey Plaza...not JUST near the TSBD or JUST near the
Grassy Knoll) messed up and got it wrong?

Well...I'm dubious as to whether 99 of 104 people were ALL the victim
of the very same odd "sound trick" in Dealey that day....an audio trick
which had shots REALLY coming from at least THREE different directions
(based on an anti-SBT stance, which every CTer takes, which HAS to mean
at least three different assassins; can't be any fewer via an anti-SBT
posture), but these 99 people were ALL fooled into thinking that these
THREE assassins' gunshots sounded as though they all came from just a
SINGLE direction within the Plaza. That one's hard for me to buy.*

* = Anticipating the CTer backlash utilizing a similar "They Can't ALL
Be Wrong, Can They?" argument....regarding the BOH wound witnesses.
.... With the difference there being: There's so much OTHER STUFF in
the official, verifiably-authentic record that PROVES that the BOH
witnesses WERE, indeed, incorrect (things like the autopsy report, the
autopsy photos, the autopsy X-rays, the autopsy doctors' testimony, and
the Z-Film).

What similar HARD, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE do CTers have to support the
admittedly-decent-sized batch of "Frontal Gunshot" earwitnesses? (For
instance -- evidence like: a body showing a frontal wound, or maybe a
bullet or two that didn't come from rifle C2766, or a gun someplace
that wasn't Oswald's. Is there any of this stuff favoring a Knoll
shooter? Answer: No.)

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 3:25:09 PM4/15/06
to

Once again, Davey-boy was too yellow to answer my post without snipping.


He doesn't mind being correctly identified as a coward, evidently.


In article <1145079569.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>> The 6.5mm virtually-round object is another bit of evidence that has *no*
>> explanation outside of a coverup..."
>
>Even when said object CANNOT BE DEFINITIVELY IDENTIFIED AT ALL?? (Which
>it cannot and has not been.)


Untrue. Both the experts of the Clark Panel, and the HSCA, stated that it was a
fragment of a bullet. Why lie about it?

You're *stuck* with that identification.


>You must be crackers with such reasoning.

<non-relevant content snipped>

>Plus -- Re. the 6.5mm-shaped "object" on the X-ray

Come now... both the Clark Panel and the HSCA *STATED* that this was a bullet
fragment. If you are *denying* this - please let the lurkers know just what
sort of forensic expertise you've been hiding from everyone is.


> ---- Can any CTer
>tell us, logically, WHY the plotters/photo-fakers were so reckless as
>to let that little item slip through their dastardly conspiratorial
>fingers?

What do you mean... "slip" through their fingers? They were intent on framing
LHO - to the extent of showing where the bullet hit, and verifying it's caliber.

It worked quite well, too... both the Clark Panel and the HSCA moved the entry
point *UP* from where the prosectors placed it, *ENTIRELY* on the basis of this
object.

>That is, why is that 6.5mm item (that you say leads to
>"conspiracy" and is potentially PLOT-BLOWING in nature) even ON that
>X-ray AFTER the "faked" X-rays were "faked" by the "fakers"?

How silly!!! This *IS* part of the alteration of the X-rays...

>Why is it even there for all the world to see and say "Hey, lookie what
>we've got here"?


Quite clearly, so that the Clark Panel and the HSCA could conclude what they
did. Is that too difficult for you? Does simple logic pass you by?

Do you *enjoy* looking like a fool?


>Didn't the person faking/phonying-up that particular X-ray get the
>"We're Framing Only Lee Oswald Tomorrow" memo from Patsy HQ on
>Thursday, November 21st? He must not have, huh?

A completely meaningless non-sequitur...

Once again, all you can offer is speculation... but here are the FACTS:

1. This object was identified by *ALL* investigations that looked at it as a
bullet fragment.

2. No-one saw it on the night of the autopsy, despite an almost frantic search
for bullets or bullet fragments.


Those are the facts, and ones that the LNT'er camp has no answer for.

If you'd like, you can look up what John McAdams had to say... perhaps he can
guide you if you can't find this in the LNT'er handbook.

But just like you're going to do, McAdams ran off... refused to respond...


>> Eyewitness accounts are *most* valuable in a case like this, where
>> there's an excellent probability that physical evidence was tampered with.
>
>I, too, think that eyewitness and earwitness testimony is valuable.


And yet, you're too much of a coward to leave the *REST* of my statements
intact, and either respond or refuse to respond...

Yellow coward, aren't you?


>But, as probably everybody else agrees as well, to a much more limited
>point and (naturally) limited reliability factor than that of other
>types of physical evidence in a murder case (such as guns, bullets,
>shells, prints, etc.).


None of which can be entered into evidence without eyewitness testimony.


>I was accused by someone here recently of trying to have my cake and
>eat it too (not the exact quote, but the point is the same) re. the
>witness testimony.

Not, however, by me. Nor is any of this applicable to what I refuted of your
statements, is it?

Rather cowardly to snip them all...


>That is, in one thread here I was talking about the "unreliability" of
>witness testimony in a general sense...while in another thread re. the
>incredibly-high % of "Shots Came From Just One Direction" earwitnesses,
>I was placing quite a bit MORE faith in such "unreliable" testimony.
>
>However -- In the "One-Directional" vs. "Two Or More Directions Of
>Gunfire" instance, I brought that point up due to the sheer, vast,
>overwhelming percentile of witnesses who heard shots from just ONE
>single direction or general location (which, via Mr. McAdams' study, is
>a remarkably-high 99 out of 104 polled witnesses who heard shots from
>just ONE locality, be it either a front or rear location).


Pure nonsense.


>Now, is it possible for the 99 to be wrong and for the measly 5 to be
>correct via that survey/poll? Yes, of course it's possible. But is it
>LIKELY that 99 out of 104 persons (who, btw, were stationed in various
>places within Dealey Plaza...not JUST near the TSBD or JUST near the
>Grassy Knoll) messed up and got it wrong?


Pure nonsense. You're too much of a coward to respond to the answer for this,
aren't you?


>Well...I'm dubious as to whether 99 of 104 people were ALL the victim
>of the very same odd "sound trick" in Dealey that day....an audio trick
>which had shots REALLY coming from at least THREE different directions
>(based on an anti-SBT stance, which every CTer takes, which HAS to mean
>at least three different assassins; can't be any fewer via an anti-SBT
>posture), but these 99 people were ALL fooled into thinking that these
>THREE assassins' gunshots sounded as though they all came from just a
>SINGLE direction within the Plaza. That one's hard for me to buy.*


Anything factual is "hard for you to buy". When you're a coward, and a liar,
lies and cowardice simply come natural.


>* = Anticipating the CTer backlash utilizing a similar "They Can't ALL
>Be Wrong, Can They?" argument....regarding the BOH wound witnesses.
>.... With the difference there being: There's so much OTHER STUFF in
>the official, verifiably-authentic record that PROVES that the BOH
>witnesses WERE, indeed, incorrect

And even though I previously CHALLENGED you to name them, you ducked the
question. Coward, aren't you?

>(things like the autopsy report,

The autopsy report VALIDATES a wound on the back of the head. Learn to live
with it.

>the autopsy photos,

As previously stated, the *ONLY* thing that contradicts all other evidence.

>the autopsy X-rays,

Untrue... although it's clear that the X-rays have been altered as well.


>the autopsy doctors' testimony,

Again, untrue. Dr. Humes even makes the point that the bullet *exited* the back
of the head. :)


>and the Z-Film).

Again, untrue... as has been frequently pointed out on this forum... it's quite
clear in the Z-film where the back of JFK's head has been blasted out.


So what you have is a BOH photo that is repudiated by all the eyewitnesses, the
prosectors, the autopsy report, the X-rays, and yes, the testimony.

This is one of the items that the HSCA simply lied about, when they asserted
that the medical eyewitnesses validated the photos.


>What similar HARD, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE do CTers have to support the
>admittedly-decent-sized batch of "Frontal Gunshot" earwitnesses? (For
>instance -- evidence like: a body showing a frontal wound,

Seen in one of the autopsy photos... the hole in the right temple.

>or maybe a
>bullet or two that didn't come from rifle C2766, or a gun someplace
>that wasn't Oswald's. Is there any of this stuff favoring a Knoll
>shooter? Answer: No.)

When you have to lie, all you've proven is that you're a liar, isn't that true?

Steve

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 4:24:45 PM4/15/06
to

Yeah, Ben, I snipped it!

And in saying what you just did to Dave Von Pein, you just proved my
point, Ben!

You can not talk to anyone in here who disagrees with you without
referring to them as "Coward" "Yellow" or flat out name calling.

You continually insult people, which proves my point: That you simply
cannot be trusted where the word "debate" is concerned!

Steve

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 4:44:12 PM4/15/06
to
In article <1145132685....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Steve says...

>
>
>
> Yeah, Ben, I snipped it!


Coward, aren't you?


>And in saying what you just did to Dave Von Pein, you just proved my
>point, Ben!


What, that Davey-boy is a coward? He clearly is. I merely point it out.


>You can not talk to anyone in here who disagrees with you without
>referring to them as "Coward" "Yellow" or flat out name calling.


I only point out what *their* behavior indicates... if you can't live with it,
then by all means, you have just three choices:

1. Don't snip and either respond completely, or show future readers that you are
*not* responding to specific points made.

2. Go back to the censored group, and have fun there...

3. Come on over to California, and see if you can make me retract what I've
stated.

Perhaps there are other options, but those are the major ones... take your pick.


> You continually insult people, which proves my point: That you simply
>cannot be trusted where the word "debate" is concerned!


And LNT'ers are simply cowards and liars, who cannot respond TO THE EVIDENCE AND
TESTIMONY - nor support their own words when challenged.

How embarrassing it must be...


> Steve

Steve

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 5:06:05 PM4/15/06
to
You are an Internet bully, Ben.

You proved my point, 100%.

Just keep spouting off at the mouth, and prove it some more.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 7:12:41 PM4/15/06
to
In article <1145135165....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, Steve says...

>
>You are an Internet bully, Ben.


Nah... I just tell the truth. If hearing the truth makes me an "internet
bully", then so be it. Rather silly, I'd suspect...


>You proved my point, 100%.


You're point being that you can't answer a post without snipping the entire
content, and refusing to debate point by point?

That's pretty much the definition of an "Internet Coward".


>Just keep spouting off at the mouth, and prove it some more.

Jump in anytime, Steve... and make statements about the murder and coverup of
our President, and I'll be happy to correct any omission, misrepresentations, or
outright lies. My pleasure...

Steve

unread,
Apr 15, 2006, 7:55:07 PM4/15/06
to
You are an Internet bully, Ben.

You proved my point, 100%.


Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 12:31:56 AM4/17/06
to
In article <1145145307....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, Steve says...

>
>You are an Internet bully, Ben.
>
>You proved my point, 100%.
>
>
>Just keep spouting off at the mouth, and prove it some more.


Snip away, coward...

Bud

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 8:26:40 AM4/17/06
to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> Once again, Davey-boy was too yellow to answer my post without snipping.
>
>
> He doesn't mind being correctly identified as a coward, evidently.
>
>
> In article <1145079569.5...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, David VP
> says...
> >
> >> The 6.5mm virtually-round object is another bit of evidence that has *no*
> >> explanation outside of a coverup..."
> >
> >Even when said object CANNOT BE DEFINITIVELY IDENTIFIED AT ALL?? (Which
> >it cannot and has not been.)
>
>
> Untrue. Both the experts of the Clark Panel, and the HSCA, stated that it was a
> fragment of a bullet. Why lie about it?
>
> You're *stuck* with that identification.

Why does Ben feel and LN can`t reject portions of what any official
source said? I never liked the working speed of Oz`s MC as determined
by the FBI and contained in the WCR. Doesn`t mean I reject their
findings.

> >You must be crackers with such reasoning.
>
> <non-relevant content snipped>
>
> >Plus -- Re. the 6.5mm-shaped "object" on the X-ray
>
> Come now... both the Clark Panel and the HSCA *STATED* that this was a bullet
> fragment. If you are *denying* this - please let the lurkers know just what
> sort of forensic expertise you've been hiding from everyone is.

It had chracteristics of it being a bullet fragment, so they called
it one. But that explaination doesn`t make sense, so it can be
rejected.

> > ---- Can any CTer
> >tell us, logically, WHY the plotters/photo-fakers were so reckless as
> >to let that little item slip through their dastardly conspiratorial
> >fingers?
>
> What do you mean... "slip" through their fingers? They were intent on framing
> LHO - to the extent of showing where the bullet hit, and verifying it's caliber.

<snicker> Kook logic. There was a half a bullet found inside the
limo, verifying it caliber, what does this object do that that doesn`t?

> It worked quite well, too... both the Clark Panel and the HSCA moved the entry
> point *UP* from where the prosectors placed it, *ENTIRELY* on the basis of this
> object.
>
> >That is, why is that 6.5mm item (that you say leads to
> >"conspiracy" and is potentially PLOT-BLOWING in nature) even ON that
> >X-ray AFTER the "faked" X-rays were "faked" by the "fakers"?
>
> How silly!!! This *IS* part of the alteration of the X-rays...
>
> >Why is it even there for all the world to see and say "Hey, lookie what
> >we've got here"?
>
>
> Quite clearly, so that the Clark Panel and the HSCA could conclude what they
> did. Is that too difficult for you? Does simple logic pass you by?
>
> Do you *enjoy* looking like a fool?
>
>
> >Didn't the person faking/phonying-up that particular X-ray get the
> >"We're Framing Only Lee Oswald Tomorrow" memo from Patsy HQ on
> >Thursday, November 21st? He must not have, huh?
>
> A completely meaningless non-sequitur...
>
> Once again, all you can offer is speculation... but here are the FACTS:
>
> 1. This object was identified by *ALL* investigations that looked at it as a
> bullet fragment.
>
> 2. No-one saw it on the night of the autopsy, despite an almost frantic search
> for bullets or bullet fragments.

This is a lie, and Ben knows it, as I`ve pointed it out to him
before. The x-ray tech taking the x-rays said he pointed the object out
to the chief radiologist, who declared it an artifact. Presumably he
would have told thye autopists the same thing, who would then ignore
the object (especially if they looked in that area and saw no such
fragment). When asked about the object decades later, what reason would
they have to remember it if the chief radilogist told them it wasn`t
real the day of the autopsy?


> Those are the facts, and ones that the LNT'er camp has no answer for.
>
> If you'd like, you can look up what John McAdams had to say... perhaps he can
> guide you if you can't find this in the LNT'er handbook.
>
> But just like you're going to do, McAdams ran off... refused to respond...

Yah, he must have figured out what he was dealing with.

> >> Eyewitness accounts are *most* valuable in a case like this, where
> >> there's an excellent probability that physical evidence was tampered with.
> >
> >I, too, think that eyewitness and earwitness testimony is valuable.
>
>
> And yet, you're too much of a coward to leave the *REST* of my statements
> intact, and either respond or refuse to respond...
>
> Yellow coward, aren't you?
>
>
> >But, as probably everybody else agrees as well, to a much more limited
> >point and (naturally) limited reliability factor than that of other
> >types of physical evidence in a murder case (such as guns, bullets,
> >shells, prints, etc.).
>
>
> None of which can be entered into evidence without eyewitness testimony.

Here we see a kook trying to disregard the physical evidence on the
grounds of a legal technicality. If you are really trying to approach
this case to figure out what happened, you wouldn`t be trying to throw
out evidence, or find reasons to disregard it. You`d approach each
piece of evidence on the grounds of what is likely and rational. This
is what the kooks can`t do, they leap towards conspiracy every chance
they can, concocting far-fetched scenarios that they`ve convinced
themselves are "likely" and "rational". Thats why it is useless to
argue this case with kooks, they have no ratonality to apply to the
case, they can`t see what an unlikey proposition they are presenting.

The true kook latchs onto to poorly worded sentence for all its
worth.

> >and the Z-Film).
>
> Again, untrue... as has been frequently pointed out on this forum... it's quite
> clear in the Z-film where the back of JFK's head has been blasted out.

Looks like the side to me. And the blood mist is forward of the
head. One can only imagine if that mist was to the rear of Kennedy`s
head, it would be touted as proof positive of a rear exiting bullet.

Robert Harris

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 12:59:33 PM4/17/06
to


But it does make sense, Bud. It makes all the sense in the world.

The upper rear of JFK's head was devastated, by the second headshot.
Look at Zframes in the 330's - 335 and 337 are the clearest.

Now, look at 317 and at the Moorman photo taken about that same time.
How does the BOH look then?

The upper rear of the head was blasted open by the second headshot,
which came from the front and blew blood and other material all over
the motorcycle officers to the left-rear, and into the grass on the
other side of Elm St.

One piece wound up directly behind JFK, at the right handhold on the
trunk. Even FBI SA Frazier admitted that sizable pieces of brain
tissue were blown onto the trunk.

I suspect that a frangible bullet of some kind was used for that shot,
but whatever it was, it left a small hole and fragment in the cowlick
area, in the upper rear of the head.

In addition to what we see in the Zfilm, Bud, Dr. Boswell confirmed
that upper-rear damage in his illustration, so we know with absolute
certainty, that it existed.

But none of that damage existed at 317, Bud. Absolutely NOTHING was
blown to the rear during the explosion at 313.


Robert Harris

There is NO question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/

Bud

unread,
Apr 17, 2006, 6:12:51 PM4/17/06
to

So, you think an autopsy can be conducted from a blurry 8mm film?

> In addition to what we see in the Zfilm, Bud, Dr. Boswell confirmed
> that upper-rear damage in his illustration, so we know with absolute
> certainty, that it existed.

<snicker> I`m just a layman, but it looks like "absolute certainty"
is a rare commodity when it comes to the medical evidence. Seems to me
that every part of it can be argued against using another part of it,
leaving it a pretty useless muddle.

Robert Harris

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 11:44:17 AM4/19/06
to
In article <1145311971....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:

Oh?

So, are you suggesting that Dr. Boswell's diagram which contained very
precise measurements, was a hoax?

Or perhaps you think that the Zfilm was altered to make it appear that
the upper rear of the head was blown out?


> Seems to me
> that every part of it can be argued against using another part of it,
> leaving it a pretty useless muddle.

No, I think what you are referring to is tactic #174 from the disinfo
101 handbook. Try to make it appear that nothing can be proven and
nothing can ever, ever be resolved. Do everything in your power to
discourage people from looking seriously at this evidence.

Is that what you were thinking of Bud?

In reality, a great many of these issues are not only resolvable, but
are so obvious that they should be far beyond controversy. Take for
example, the unanimous testimonies of the nonvictims in the limo,
clearly placing a gunshot immediately prior, or almost simultaneous
with, the fatal headshot.

Then couple that with their nearly simultaeous reactions to that same
shot, which was in turn simultaneous with Zapruder's reaction that was
confirmed by Dr. Luis Alvarez.

If this were any other case, no one in his right mind, would dispute the
obvious fact, that a gunshot provoked those reactions.

But here in La La land, we are not allowed to confirm anything. And in
all fairness Bud, many of the buffs here are every bit as narrow minded
about these things as you are.


Robert Harris

Robert Harris

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 11:46:13 AM4/19/06
to
In article <1145132685....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote:

> Yeah, Ben, I snipped it!
>
> And in saying what you just did to Dave Von Pein, you just proved my
> point, Ben!
>
> You can not talk to anyone in here who disagrees with you without
> referring to them as "Coward" "Yellow" or flat out name calling.


Oh, you mean like your repeated "liar, liar" accusations against me, in
spite of the fact that you cannot cite a single verbatim statement I
ever made, that was a lie??

Is that the kind of "name calling" you meant, Steve?


Robert Harris

Steve

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 12:11:36 PM4/19/06
to
In article <1145132685.200377.14...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,


"Steve" <sbar...@i71.net> wrote:
> Yeah, Ben, I snipped it!

> And in saying what you just did to Dave Von Pein, you just proved my
> point, Ben!


> You can not talk to anyone in here who disagrees with you without
> referring to them as "Coward" "Yellow" or flat out name calling.

Oh, you mean like your repeated "liar, liar" accusations against me, in

spite of the fact that you cannot cite a single verbatim statement I
ever made, that was a lie??

Is that the kind of "name calling" you meant, Steve?


Robert Harris


Steve writes:

You know that I am referring to the fact that you have lied, and
continue to do so, concerning the "reggie" topic, Bob. I am only
stating the fact in calling you a liar, since you continue to deny this.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 12:20:17 PM4/19/06
to
In article <reharris1-1080C...@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Robert Harris says...

>
>In article <1145132685....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
> "Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, Ben, I snipped it!
>>
>> And in saying what you just did to Dave Von Pein, you just proved my
>> point, Ben!
>>
>> You can not talk to anyone in here who disagrees with you without
>> referring to them as "Coward" "Yellow" or flat out name calling.
>
>
>Oh, you mean like your repeated "liar, liar" accusations against me, in
>spite of the fact that you cannot cite a single verbatim statement I
>ever made, that was a lie??
>
>Is that the kind of "name calling" you meant, Steve?


There are some people around here that don't seem to understand that this is a
*written* forum of conversation - and that *everything* asserted is archived,
and can very quickly be quoted *exactly*.

And yet, those who shout "liar" - when they refuse to *quote* the exact words,
along with a citation that *proves* them a liar - are lazy at best. In most
cases, of course, they're simply liars.

By the way, Robert; I like your new signature line... ("There is NO question
that an honest man will evade"), where'd it go?


>Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>>
>> You continually insult people, which proves my point: That you simply
>> cannot be trusted where the word "debate" is concerned!
>>
>> Steve

Bud

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 4:35:45 PM4/19/06
to

No, that would have looked like this..."Boswell`s diagram was a
hoax." Are you suggesting that Boswell`s diagram is consistant with all
of the medical evidence?

> Or perhaps you think that the Zfilm was altered to make it appear that
> the upper rear of the head was blown out?

No, I think a blurry 8mm film shot from a distance is a pretty poor
way to conduct an autopsy.

> > Seems to me
> > that every part of it can be argued against using another part of it,
> > leaving it a pretty useless muddle.
>
> No, I think what you are referring to is tactic #174 from the disinfo
> 101 handbook.

I`ll have to borrow that from you sometime.

> Try to make it appear that nothing can be proven and
> nothing can ever, ever be resolved.

Yah, it`s little `ol me that is making it appear that way. Not over
40 years of claims and counter claims, people only looking at the
protions that support their own viewpoints.

> Do everything in your power to
> discourage people from looking seriously at this evidence.

Oh stop it with the dramatics, I could care less who looks at what.
Bunch of crap to make the claim that you kooks look serious at the
evidence, your treatment of Oz`s participation shows how interested you
folks are in resolving this thing.

> Is that what you were thinking of Bud?

Saying what I am thinking isn`t usually a problem.

> In reality, a great many of these issues are not only resolvable, but
> are so obvious that they should be far beyond controversy.

<snicker> If only those fools would adopt your viewpoints, eh?

> Take for
> example, the unanimous testimonies of the nonvictims in the limo,
> clearly placing a gunshot immediately prior, or almost simultaneous
> with, the fatal headshot.

Wouldn`t there have to be a gunshot simultaneous with the fatal
headshot?

> Then couple that with their nearly simultaeous reactions to that same
> shot, which was in turn simultaneous with Zapruder's reaction that was
> confirmed by Dr. Luis Alvarez.

I`m not buying that theory.

> If this were any other case, no one in his right mind, would dispute the
> obvious fact, that a gunshot provoked those reactions.

You are aware of other cases where a big deal is made of the
movements of people involved in a shooting that lasts less than 10
seconds?

> But here in La La land, we are not allowed to confirm anything. And in
> all fairness Bud, many of the buffs here are every bit as narrow minded
> about these things as you are.

Why thank you Robert, I appreciate you lumping me in with some of
the kooks.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 5:07:21 PM4/19/06
to
As long as the good guys post, this forum won't be dead- Ben David H.,
Myself, Gary, Derek, Bob H., Walt.

aeffects

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 6:51:41 PM4/19/06
to

The actual document is handy, covers the 'initial' 10+ points, quite
thoroughly. Would you like to see them? Reads like a Lone neuter
mantra.....

Do a quick 'google': CIA Document #1035-960

gott'a do everything for you whinners....

Bud

unread,
Apr 19, 2006, 8:03:03 PM4/19/06
to

C`mon stoner, I`ve been reading these crackpot sites for years, of
course I`ve seen that mentioned a half dozen times. Like Operation
Northwood, kooks use it to justify anything that pops into their heads.
It still doesn`t make the combination locks on your thermos necessary.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Aug 5, 2006, 6:34:44 PM8/5/06
to
David VP wrote:
>>> "The 6.5mm virtually-round object is another bit of evidence that has *no* explanation
>>> outside of a coverup..."
>
> Even when said object CANNOT BE DEFINITIVELY IDENTIFIED AT ALL?? (Which
> it cannot and has not been.)
>
> You must be crackers with such reasoning.
>
> It sounds like the same CT "reasoning" re. Badge Man's "existence" ...
> i.e., Badge Man has no logical explanation outside of a conspiracy (per
> CTers).
>
> When, in fact, BM has many other logical and just-as-acceptable anti-CT
> explanations -- such as shadows, photographic grain from Miss Moorman's
> el-cheapo Polaroid camera/film stock, sunlight, glare, or all of the
> above (which are, in fact, explanations that seem much more logical to
> me than a killer showing himself above the fence line to be
> photographed in broad daylight).
>

Badge Man is only an optical illusion. Your strawman arguments are fiction.

> And -- Even if "Badge Dude" IS a human figure...that STILL doesn't make
> "him" a killer. Even if it was a person behind the fence, the CTers are
> still a long way from placing a verifiable gun in his hands....and an
> even longer way away from having a gunshot from this guy striking JFK
> in the head (which we know never happened based on the verifiable
> evidence in this case).
>

Any more than Black Dog Man must be a killer. But you can't even see him.

0 new messages