How Benny Got The Name of Yellow Pants (AKA The Day Benny Ran!)

[tims...@gmail.com]

Hi All,

Some of you might have seen the recent discussion re Yellow Pants and
how Ben Holmes earned this name. Basically, Ben was positing a theory
that the presence of *A Lady In Yellow Pants* in the Nix film, and her
absence from the Zapruder film at around the Z 369 point was an
indicator that the Z film was a forgery, as the two films should have
matched at that point.

I recently went back and reviewed some of the threads from March 2008
where Z 369 and *The Lady In Yellow Pants* in the Nix film was
discussed. For those interested, here is the lady herself:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0049a.htm

She is the figure closest to Main Street in the above frames from Nix.

Steve Barber started a thread called *Where in [sic] this *lady in
yellow pants* Ben Holmes is talking about?* and at post # 29 I simply
asked if *The Lady In Yellow Pants* was the same figure appearing on
page 21 of the UPI book Four Days, which basically features a color
copy of the above Nix frame.

This provoked a quite mirth inducing response from Benny's sidekick,
David (aeffects) Healy, who claimed at post # 55 that Four Days was
published in black & white and didn't have any color plates, stupidly
getting mixed up with the book Four Dark Days In History.

To cover himself, Healy then claimed at post # 66 to have a
collector's dream *galley proof copy* of Four Days which WAS in black
and white, an absurd claim that Holmes backed him up on, being a
fellow liar and Z film alterationist adherent.

If you are interested, have a look at the exchanges between Holmes and
myself between posts # 59 and # 70 where Holmes finally puts me in the
killfilter. If you can be bothered reading Benny's patented swamp
posts right through, you will see that the reason he gave was that I'd
made an ad hominem attack on him by calling him *Benny* instead of
Ben!

It was surprising that Ben would be upset about *ad hominem* attacks,
given that by post # 68 he had already directed the following terms at
either myself or LN posters in general:

Trolls

Incredibly illiterate or a liar

Illiteracy

Most LNT'ers [sic] are illiterate or liars anyway

Trolls

Why bother to lie?

Prove you a liar

Either you're a liar or the troll being quoted is a liar

Cowards & liars

Just a liar

Gutless coward

Of course, the REAL reason lil' Benny put me in the killfilter was
because he realised that his theory was wrong and he needed to close
down discussion quick before he had to admit his mistake. Yellow Pants
was standing MUCH too far back on the Dealey Plaza grass to ever
appear in the Zapruder film and as the horrible truth dawned on Benny
he hid behind claiming to be insulted by ad hominem!

For those interested, here is the thread that Steve Barber started all
those years ago:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/54ac0ee8510baee4/32582336742cb27b?lnk=gst&q=where+in+this+lady#32582336742cb27b

2018 and Benny is STILL refusing to admit his mistake over Yellow Pants!

Talk about a gutless coward!

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!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Good work Tim!


Always fun to revisit this hilarious chapter in the discussions that have occurred at acj involving Benny Holmes, the reigning resident KlOWn of KonSpiRAcY.

This beat-down of Holmes was perhaps the BEST all-time beat-down in this group. Holmes richly earned his moniker, "Yellow Pants."

Ben will NEVER live it down. All he had to do was admit he made a mistake, but Ben continued to flail about until he had no choice but to kill file you.

What's extra fun is that Ben still boldly claims he wasn't wrong. Talk about a glutton for punishment!

Boris the Truther, are you paying attention?

I predict Ben will spin the entire disaster into a victory.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Boris the Truther, are you paying attention?

Sure am. I'm noticing Tim's inability to defend Z-film forgery, manifest in obsessing over one detail rather than, say, lack of first frame flash.

I'm noticing an odd obsession over Ben by believers, like he must butt-hurt you real bad.

I'm noticing that LNers can only cite for unimportant nonsense, but when asked to cite for a lie (like Chuck's lies about all the claims he says I make about 9/11) has to do the tail-tuck thing like a bitch and slink away.

I'm noticing believers bandy around the "it's not our burden to prove" and "I don't have to prove anything" line when they can't defend something, but have no problem citing posts from years ago if they think they can build a case.

And on that note...

I'm noticing Chucky still hasn't answered my question about the lead snowstorm x-ray.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:54:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Actually, I "live it down" each time all you cowards refuse to cite
the thread, and respond in the original thread answering what I
*ACTUALLY* said...

Run cowards... RUN!!!

[Mark Ulrik]

Ben, if you need to refresh your memory about what you said in those old threads, then you might find the timeline I just posted helpful. It contains a good many quotes and cites.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OxN8mCRUvhg/r2uKt_KHAwAJ

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

More stuff for me to do, even though Boris the Truther admits there have been dozens of posts on the subject when he types key words into the acj search box.

Why don't you tell us the significance? Give us the background, the conclusions you draw from it, etc.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
wrote:

>Ben, if you need to refresh your memory...

Why would I require the services of a liar?

If you had any honesty, you'd simply respond to my original post.

That way, everyone could read what I *actually* wrote.

But you're not very honest, are you Mark?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Why don't you post your original post? Let's see who's being honest.

Shouldn't be that difficult since you apparently keep all your "research" on a flash drive.

I predict you'll run from producing your original post because this is your usual "schtick." Simply claim others are not responding to your original post; the one post that shows none of your subsequent posts that are being discussed are relevant to your "original" post.

You're a clown, Holmes.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:09:43 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Nah... no need to waste my time when you'd merely snip it and run away
again.

Why is there no 'first frame flash' on Z-133?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Just wanted to take a moment and observe the title of this thread, i.e.,
"(AKA The Day Benny Ran!)"

Which implies a singular. As in, a momentous one-off. In contrast, to say something like "The Day the LNer Ran" would be absurd. They run every single day.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > I'm noticing Chucky still hasn't answered my question about the lead snowstorm x-ray.
>
> More stuff for me to do,

This is a hilarious complaint, coming from someone who demands CTers write entire essays and thinks that would be "a good start."

Also note that by "stuff", Chucky means "answer a question." Which he can't do. So he calls it "stuff."

Chucky whines, but now he whines like a teenager as well.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:12:28 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm noticing Chucky still hasn't answered my question about the lead snowstorm x-ray.
> >
> > More stuff for me to do,
>
> This is a hilarious complaint, coming from someone who demands CTers write entire essays and thinks that would be "a good start."
>
> Also note that by "stuff", Chucky means "answer a question." Which he can't do. So he calls it "stuff."

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Sirhan still sits in a jail cell, convicted by a jury in RFK's death.

History books record Oswald as JFK's killer, the historically accepted narrative for over 54 years.

No history books record controlled demolitions as the reason the WTCs fell.

Boris the Truther doesn't understand that the questions have been answered.

This doesn't mean ALL questions have been answered; how would that even be possible? But all the essential questions to figure out what happened in the events above have been answered, solutions found, and cases settled.

So, yeah, if you have questions, answer them. Tell us how your answers to the questions overturn the standard solutions recorded for the above events.

Here's a tip for you if you'd like to break the 0-for 54 year streak you JFK Truthers are on, the 0-for 50 year streak with RFK, and the 0-since 2001 streak with 9-11:

Instead of asking a question next time, how about offering a solution? The so-called lead snowstorm looks suspicious to you? Show the research that leads you in another direction and tie it together with the other pieces of evidence. Do you find it suspicious that RFK was shot from point blank and witnesses say Sirhan was never closer than three feet or so? Okay, intsead of raising the suspicion (which we've all heard), tell us who could've fired the point-blank bullet. There were only so many people right in that area. Who did it? Cesar the guard? Rosey Grier? Show us the interviews, etc. Suspicious as to why people heard "explosions" inside the WTCs as they fell? Fine, present your research on what demo companies in the country could've offered the expertise. Find out who they were and what they say. Run simulations showing how nanothermite can be placed inside 1300 foot tall skyscrapers with no one noticing. Simulate nanothermite taking down a much smaller structure and showing this is even feasible. Rent supercomputer time at a university and plug in your calculations to see what university-level research would tell you about how this would work, etc.

Your burden is extraordinarily high to overturn the accepted narratives in the cases you are (ahem...) WHINING about, yet you offer nothing but questions for others to answer.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:47:30 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:12:28 AM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I'm noticing Chucky still hasn't answered my question about the lead snowstorm x-ray.
>> >
>> > More stuff for me to do,
>>
>> This is a hilarious complaint, coming from someone who demands CTers write entire essays and thinks that would be "a good start."
>>
>> Also note that by "stuff", Chucky means "answer a question." Which he can't do. So he calls it "stuff."
>
>Methinks you doth protest too much.
>
>Sirhan still sits in a jail cell, convicted by a jury in RFK's death.
>
>History books record Oswald as JFK's killer, the historically accepted narrative for over 54 years.

You're lying again, Chuckly.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:56:31 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

Indeed.

None of the believers in this forum are capable of debate. They
ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to defend their faith.

And that fact tells the tale.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Translation: If Ben could even find the post, it would show his new pal Boris the Truther Ben's own dishonesty.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:57:11 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

No translation needed. You refused to answer - as usual.

WHAT AN AMAZING COWARD YOU ARE, CHUCKLY!!!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

As if there's anything we need to do. History records Oswald as JFK's killer, Sirhan as RFK's killer, and 9-11 was an al Qaeda inspired terror attack---no planted demo charges, no missiles hitting the Pentagon.

Don't like it?

Carry your burden and overturn the historical narrative on all of these cases.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

A troll starts lying...

>
> History books record Oswald as JFK's killer, the historically accepted narrative for over 54 years.

And a flat earth was the historically accepted narrative for a thousand years.

>
> Do you find it suspicious that RFK was shot from point blank and witnesses say Sirhan was never closer than three feet or so?

Obviously. But what's even more telling...you don't.

>
> Okay, intsead of raising the suspicion (which we've all heard), tell us who could've fired the point-blank bullet. There were only so many people right in that area. Who did it? Cesar the guard? Rosey Grier?

Can you shoot someone point-blank from behind when you're standing in front? If the answer is "no", the "who" is irrelevant.

>
> Your burden is extraordinarily high to overturn the accepted narratives in the cases you are (ahem...) WHINING about, yet you offer nothing but questions for others to answer.

Anyone notice how LONG Chucky's post was? He could have presented evidence to support his case in less than half the time.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:05:12 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> A troll starts lying...
>
> >
> > History books record Oswald as JFK's killer, the historically accepted narrative for over 54 years.
>
> And a flat earth was the historically accepted narrative for a thousand years.

Apples and oranges. Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

>
> >
> > Do you find it suspicious that RFK was shot from point blank and witnesses say Sirhan was never closer than three feet or so?
>
> Obviously. But what's even more telling...you don't.

Because you're Begging the Question by concluding Sirhan couldn't have fired the fatal shot.

>
> >
> > Okay, intsead of raising the suspicion (which we've all heard), tell us who could've fired the point-blank bullet. There were only so many people right in that area. Who did it? Cesar the guard? Rosey Grier?
>
> Can you shoot someone point-blank from behind when you're standing in front? If the answer is "no", the "who" is irrelevant.

So why raise the issue since you're only intent on avoiding it?

>
> >
> > Your burden is extraordinarily high to overturn the accepted narratives in the cases you are (ahem...) WHINING about, yet you offer nothing but questions for others to answer.
>
> Anyone notice how LONG Chucky's post was? He could have presented evidence to support his case in less than half the time.

Anyone notice Boris the Truther refuses to post his case(s) for any of the whacky things he alleges?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Apples and oranges. Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.

Chuck now admits whining about "historically accepted narrative" (which isn't even true) is avoiding the issue. And doesn't even realize he just admitted it.

> >
> > >
> > > Do you find it suspicious that RFK was shot from point blank and witnesses say Sirhan was never closer than three feet or so?
> >
> > Obviously. But what's even more telling...you don't.
>
> Because you're Begging the Question by concluding Sirhan couldn't have fired the fatal shot.

This is the stupidest thing you've said all week. You clearly don't know what Begging the Question means, or if you do you are morally bankrupt.
It's not physically possible to do something behind someone's back when you are standing a meter in front of them. Any child would understand this.

> >
> > Can you shoot someone point-blank from behind when you're standing in front? If the answer is "no", the "who" is irrelevant.

Chucky doesn't answer.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:30:50 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Apples and oranges. Avoiding the Issue logical fallacy.
>
> Chuck now admits whining about "historically accepted narrative" (which isn't even true) is avoiding the issue. And doesn't even realize he just admitted it.

Not at all.

>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you find it suspicious that RFK was shot from point blank and witnesses say Sirhan was never closer than three feet or so?
> > >
> > > Obviously. But what's even more telling...you don't.
> >
> > Because you're Begging the Question by concluding Sirhan couldn't have fired the fatal shot.
>
> This is the stupidest thing you've said all week. You clearly don't know what Begging the Question means, or if you do you are morally bankrupt.
> It's not physically possible to do something behind someone's back when you are standing a meter in front of them. Any child would understand this.

And you just Begged the Question again. You're assuming your conclusion that Sirhan couldn't have fired that shot. Thanks for playing.

>
> > >
> > > Can you shoot someone point-blank from behind when you're standing in front? If the answer is "no", the "who" is irrelevant.
>
> Chucky doesn't answer.

Asked and answered. You haven't established RFK didn't turn, you've haven't established a second gunman, you haven't established any of the things you're concluding, thus I'm correct in asserting you are Begging the Question.

In fact, Sirhan said he fired the shots, Sirhan said there was no conspiracy.


Try and keep up, Boris.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> In fact, Sirhan said he fired the shots, Sirhan said there was no conspiracy.

A normal and unbiased person might conclude that Sirhan's not "all there" mentally. But he's just stable enough for you believe everything he says. Despite what the evidence shows.

Paradoxically, you don't believe Oswald's "patsy" claim. Despite what the evidence shows.

I ask....

>
> Can you shoot someone point-blank from behind when you're standing in front? If the answer is "no", the "who" is irrelevant.

Chucky lies...

>
> Asked and answered. You haven't established RFK didn't turn...

It wasn't answered. I asked if someone *could*. I didn't ask if someone did.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 2:01:31 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In fact, Sirhan said he fired the shots, Sirhan said there was no conspiracy.
>
> A normal and unbiased person might conclude that Sirhan's not "all there" mentally. But he's just stable enough for you believe everything he says. Despite what the evidence shows.

This is where you guys go off the rails. He was convicted of murder, Boris!

>
> Paradoxically, you don't believe Oswald's "patsy" claim. Despite what the evidence shows.

You can't even analyze Oswald's patsy claim correctly.

>
> I ask....
>
> >
> > Can you shoot someone point-blank from behind when you're standing in front? If the answer is "no", the "who" is irrelevant.
>
> Chucky lies...
>
> >
> > Asked and answered. You haven't established RFK didn't turn...

When you establish a second gunman perhaps you'll have some ground to stand on, Boris.

>
> It wasn't answered. I asked if someone *could*. I didn't ask if someone did.

Lol, but you believe someone fired from behind point blank. You must know how insane this is given the people closest to RFK who would be on your suspects list, so it's just more games.

[Bud]

Ben likes to pretend his retard talking points trump everything, lurkers.

Why doesn`t Ben show us all the first frame flashes that occur in all the starts in
Zapruder`s home movie?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:55:28 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:56:31 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >Just wanted to take a moment and observe the title of this thread, i.e.,
> >"(AKA The Day Benny Ran!)"
> >
> > Which implies a singular. As in, a momentous one-off. In contrast,
> > to say something like "The Day the LNer Ran" would be absurd. They run
> > every single day.
>
> Indeed.
>
> None of the believers in this forum are capable of debate.

Ben`s idea of "debate" to hurl ad hominem, lurkers.

> They
> ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to defend their faith.

Against what, lurkers? There is nothing else on the table up for consideration.

> And that fact tells the tale.

This is a conspiracy forum, lurkers. The tards have to put a case on the table for consideration. Ben`s cobbled together shooting scenario ("I say a shot came from here, I say a shot came from there") doesn`t begin to explain this event. That this lame offering is all they have to offer after over five decades show how bankrupt their position is. And that fact tells the tale.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:02:55 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 12:55:28 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:56:31 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Just wanted to take a moment and observe the title of this thread, i.e.,
>> >"(AKA The Day Benny Ran!)"
>> >
>> > Which implies a singular. As in, a momentous one-off. In contrast,
>> > to say something like "The Day the LNer Ran" would be absurd. They run
>> > every single day.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> None of the believers in this forum are capable of debate. They
>> ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to defend their faith.
>>
>> And that fact tells the tale.
>
>As if there's anything we need to do.

Yep... there is.

And the fact that you refuse to defend your case shows that you can't.

That fact tells the tale.

> History records Oswald as JFK's killer, Sirhan as RFK's killer, and
> 9-11 was an al Qaeda inspired terror attack---no planted demo charges,
> no missiles hitting the Pentagon.

History also records a flat earth, Christopher Columbus discovered
America, and water conducts electricity.

Carry your burden, coward!

[tims...@gmail.com]

What a load of GARBAGE, Holmes!

The matter of "The Lady In Yellow Pants" and Zapruder film alteration was discussed.

You lost and you ran away, citing "ad hominem".

It's as simple as that.

Anyone who can read Mark Ulrik's timeline post can see what REALLY happened, Holmes.

Case CLOSED on your cowardice and deceit!

Informative Regards,

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, 21 June 2018 03:55:28 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:56:31 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Just wanted to take a moment and observe the title of this thread, i.e.,
>> >"(AKA The Day Benny Ran!)"
>> >
>> > Which implies a singular. As in, a momentous one-off. In contrast,
>> > to say something like "The Day the LNer Ran" would be absurd. They run
>> > every single day.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> None of the believers in this forum are capable of debate. They
>> ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to defend their faith.
>>
>> And that fact tells the tale.
>
>What a load of GARBAGE, Holmes!

And yet, still completely true.

> The matter of "The Lady In Yellow Pants" and Zapruder film
> alteration was discussed.

Actually, most ran.

This is why you refuse to go back to that thread.

>You lost and you ran away, citing "ad hominem".

You're lying again, Timmy.

>It's as simple as that.
>
>Anyone who can read Mark Ulrik's timeline post can see what REALLY happened, Holmes.

Anyone who believes a liar gets what they deserve.

>Case CLOSED on your cowardice and deceit!

The fact that you can't explain why Z-133 doesn't show any 'first
frame flash' is proof that you're lying.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

So Tim Brennan, is this yellow pants thing the key point for you which decomposes all conspiracies and proves the LN narrative indefinitely? Is that why you cling to it like Al Bundy clung to the faded glory of four touchdowns in one game? Was your father Howard Brennan? If so, why did he confide he was scared for his family?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> This is where you guys go off the rails. He was convicted of murder, Boris!

Naturally, his defense team didn't even try to refute the existing evidence. Did you know that Sirhan could be guilty AND have help at the same time? It's true. The two possibilities *can* co-exist.

>
> You can't even analyze Oswald's patsy claim correctly.

By all means help me out, Professor Linguistics. Oh wait, that's "more work for you," so we shouldn't expect you'll do anything other than make baseless claims.

> >
> > >
> > > Can you shoot someone point-blank from behind when you're standing in front? If the answer is "no", the "who" is irrelevant.
> >
>

> When you establish a second gunman perhaps you'll have some ground to stand on, Boris.

The answer to that question does establish a second gunman. The proof of that is you refuse to answer it every single time.

>
> Lol, but you believe someone fired from behind point blank.

Actually, I don't believe it. Since I acknowledge Sirhan as the shooter, I have NO IDEA how a bullet was fired behind RKF's ear from a distance of two inches. So it's not so much a belief as it is I'm *forced* to acknowledge what the autopsy report says.

>
> You must know how insane this is given the people closest to RFK who would be on your suspects list, so it's just more games.

Why did Oswald run to the theater after the assassination?

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:24:28 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> So Tim Brennan, is this yellow pants thing the key point for you which decomposes all conspiracies and proves the LN narrative indefinitely?

It doesn`t tell you the slightest thing about the assassination. It tells you everything you need to know about Ben Holmes.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:34:43 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This is where you guys go off the rails. He was convicted of murder, Boris!
>
> Naturally, his defense team didn't even try to refute the existing evidence. Did you know that Sirhan could be guilty AND have help at the same time? It's true. The two possibilities *can* co-exist.

Explain how.

>
> >
> > You can't even analyze Oswald's patsy claim correctly.
>
> By all means help me out, Professor Linguistics. Oh wait, that's "more work for you," so we shouldn't expect you'll do anything other than make baseless claims.

Dazzle us. Tell us what concept Oswald was going for when he said...

"They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I`m just a patsy."

> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you shoot someone point-blank from behind when you're standing in front? If the answer is "no", the "who" is irrelevant.
> > >
> >
> > When you establish a second gunman perhaps you'll have some ground to stand on, Boris.
>
> The answer to that question does establish a second gunman. The proof of that is you refuse to answer it every single time.

Why do you idiots always ask loaded questions? You have to first establish as fact that S-S was standing right in front of RFK when he shot.

> >
> > Lol, but you believe someone fired from behind point blank.
>
> Actually, I don't believe it. Since I acknowledge Sirhan as the shooter, I have NO IDEA how a bullet was fired behind RKF's ear from a distance of two inches.

Yet despite all the problems with the idea you cling to it. RFK would be the focus of the people in the room. If you can`t explain how a gun was put a couples inches away from his head and fired and no one noticed this occurrence perhaps you should question whether it occurred. This is called reasoning.

> So it's not so much a belief as it is I'm *forced* to acknowledge what the autopsy report says.

Are you also forced to agree with JFK`s autopsy that found he was shot twice from behind?

> >
> > You must know how insane this is given the people closest to RFK who would be on your suspects list, so it's just more games.
>
> Why did Oswald run to the theater after the assassination?

These idiots can`t even figure out the easy ones.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:34:43 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > This is where you guys go off the rails. He was convicted of murder, Boris!
>
> Naturally, his defense team didn't even try to refute the existing evidence. Did you know that Sirhan could be guilty AND have help at the same time? It's true. The two possibilities *can* co-exist.

You're right. Explain why his defense team didn't bring this up.

>
> >
> > You can't even analyze Oswald's patsy claim correctly.
>
> By all means help me out, Professor Linguistics. Oh wait, that's "more work for you," so we shouldn't expect you'll do anything other than make baseless claims.

You're the one making claims, you should be the one offering explanations.

>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you shoot someone point-blank from behind when you're standing in front? If the answer is "no", the "who" is irrelevant.
> > >
> >
> > When you establish a second gunman perhaps you'll have some ground to stand on, Boris.
>
> The answer to that question does establish a second gunman. The proof of that is you refuse to answer it every single time.

Fringe Reset/Harris Award. You haven't established Sirhan didn't shoot RFK in the head. Sirhan says he did it, and a jury agreed.

>
> >
> > Lol, but you believe someone fired from behind point blank.
>
> Actually, I don't believe it. Since I acknowledge Sirhan as the shooter, I have NO IDEA how a bullet was fired behind RKF's ear from a distance of two inches.

Then if you have NO idea, ONE idea is that Sirhan fired the shot in question.

So it's not so much a belief as it is I'm *forced* to acknowledge what the autopsy report says.

How about this: Sirhan was a few inches closer than what SOME of the eyewitnesses remembered or reported, and RFK did twist his body when Sirhan yelled, "Kennedy! You SOB!" and started firing, his arm outstretched, utter chaos and mayhem resulting, with people trying to grab Sirhan, people falling, pushing into one another, etc. After all, Sirhan's own investigator said Sirhan told him he tried to shoot RFK right between the eyes, "but that SOB turned at the last second."

>
> >
> > You must know how insane this is given the people closest to RFK who would be on your suspects list, so it's just more games.
>
> Why did Oswald run to the theater after the assassination?

What an odd question to ask in the middle of my observation about whom the suspects must be for a second shooter. You obviously don't want to go there.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> You're right. Explain why his defense team didn't bring this up.

Probably because they figured such an argument wouldn't make their client somehow *less* guilty. So they opted for the insanity plea, aka the pussiest plea in the legal justice system.

>
> You're the one making claims, you should be the one offering explanations.

I did. You're the one saying I didn't do it correctly. Now you want *me* to explain away *your* judgement. Just how insane are you?

>
> You haven't established Sirhan didn't shoot RFK in the head.

The physical impossibility does a good job of that for me. Unless Sirhan is also Mr. Tickle from the Roger Hargreaves book.

>
> Sirhan says he did it, and a jury agreed.

Your vote of confidence in Sirhan is touching, honestly.

>
> Then if you have NO idea, ONE idea is that Sirhan fired the shot in question.

Not possible, unfortunately.

>
> How about this: Sirhan was a few inches closer than what SOME of the eyewitnesses remembered or reported, and RFK did twist his body when Sirhan yelled, "Kennedy! You SOB!" and started firing, his arm outstretched, utter chaos and mayhem resulting, with people trying to grab Sirhan, people falling, pushing into one another, etc. After all, Sirhan's own investigator said Sirhan told him he tried to shoot RFK right between the eyes, "but that SOB turned at the last second."

Sounds like an empty claim to me.

>
> Why did Oswald run to the theater after the assassination?
>
> What an odd question to ask in the middle of my observation about whom the suspects must be for a second shooter. You obviously don't want to go there.

Just a question I wanted to throw out there. Surely you don't think I'm crazy enough to believe YOU would answer it.

[Jason Burke]

Boris is *almost* as retarded as Bennie-boy.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 10:58:04 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You're right. Explain why his defense team didn't bring this up.
>
> Probably because they figured such an argument wouldn't make their client somehow *less* guilty. So they opted for the insanity plea, aka the pussiest plea in the legal justice system.

It wasn`t a macho contest, they were fighting for their client`s life. They have 8 years of law school, you have what you`ve seen in TV.

> >
> > You're the one making claims, you should be the one offering explanations.
>
> I did. You're the one saying I didn't do it correctly. Now you want *me* to explain away *your* judgement. Just how insane are you?
>
>
> >
> > You haven't established Sirhan didn't shoot RFK in the head.
>
> The physical impossibility does a good job of that for me.

Show that it is physically impossible.

> Unless Sirhan is also Mr. Tickle from the Roger Hargreaves book.
>
> >
> > Sirhan says he did it, and a jury agreed.
>
> Your vote of confidence in Sirhan is touching, honestly.

You stupidity is astounding. Oswald says he didn`t do it, that gets carved in stone.

> > Then if you have NO idea, ONE idea is that Sirhan fired the shot in question.
>
> Not possible, unfortunately.

Show this.

> >
> > How about this: Sirhan was a few inches closer than what SOME of the eyewitnesses remembered or reported, and RFK did twist his body when Sirhan yelled, "Kennedy! You SOB!" and started firing, his arm outstretched, utter chaos and mayhem resulting, with people trying to grab Sirhan, people falling, pushing into one another, etc. After all, Sirhan's own investigator said Sirhan told him he tried to shoot RFK right between the eyes, "but that SOB turned at the last second."
>
> Sounds like an empty claim to me.

Because you are an idiot playing silly retard games. What could be more supported than the statements of the prime suspect caught at the scene of the crime after firing a gun at the victim, what could be more relevant?

> >
> > Why did Oswald run to the theater after the assassination?
> >
> > What an odd question to ask in the middle of my observation about whom the suspects must be for a second shooter. You obviously don't want to go there.
>
> Just a question I wanted to throw out there.

"What about this, huh, huh?"

Same thing you did to me when you demanded out of the blue that I explain the SBT to you. Why do you think other people owe you answers you are too stupid to come to yourself and that you are going to reject anyway?

> Surely you don't think I'm crazy enough to believe YOU would answer it.

Only an idiot would ask that question.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Okay, I'm going to "pivot" and keep the thread about Benny and his Yellow Pants fiasco. If you want to take up Sirhan and RFK, let's post at one of the RFK threads already started.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:34:42 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>
>> This is where you guys go off the rails. He was convicted of murder, Boris!
>
> Naturally, his defense team didn't even try to refute the existing
> evidence. Did you know that Sirhan could be guilty AND have help at
> the same time? It's true. The two possibilities *can* co-exist.

Brilliantly stated.

And I predict, not a *SINGLE* believer will publicly acknowledge this
absolutely truthful statement.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 19:28:57 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 8:34:43 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > This is where you guys go off the rails. He was convicted of murder, Boris!
>>
>> Naturally, his defense team didn't even try to refute the existing
>> evidence. Did you know that Sirhan could be guilty AND have help at
>> the same time? It's true. The two possibilities *can* co-exist.
>
>You're right.

And I was wrong. But... of course... the debate is now over.

> Explain why his defense team didn't bring this up.

They didn't know. And by the time they found out, it wasn't germane to
the new issue... which was *NOT* guilt or innocence.

You can no longer whine that a conspiracy took place by whining about
Sirhan Sirhan's assertions and court conclusions...

(But you will...)

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 05:20:34 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

Having lost the Sirhan debate with his admission - Chuckly now turns
to another way of looking stupid.

Why isn't 'first frame flash' seen in Z-133?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Fringe Reset/Harris Award.


Where's the "original" post you keep complaining is being misrepresented about your Yellow Pants fiasco?

I'm happy to post about Sirhan on one of the other threads about RFK. Let's keep this one about you and your Yellow Pants disaster.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:47:23 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

Since this has **NEVER** been answered, you're simply lying again,
Chuckly.

Amusingly, you are denying science... you believe that inertia isn't
scientific.

You're a science denier.

> Where's the "original" post you keep complaining is being
> misrepresented about your Yellow Pants fiasco?

No "complaining" needed. The fact that none of you morons will cite it
shows that *YOU* are afraid of the topic.

Not me.

I've challenged you REPEATEDLY to bring up that thread... post an
answer to what I stated.

> I'm happy to post about Sirhan on one of the other threads about
> RFK. Let's keep this one about you and your Yellow Pants disaster.

No you aren't.

You're TERRIFIED of even publicly acknowledging where the fatal bullet
struck, and what it's trajectory was.

You lost the moment you admitted that Sirhan Sirhan's guilt doesn't
preclude other shooters.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I've posted at the Sirhan threads. Let's keep this one about your Yellow Pants fiasco. Care to discuss Z 369?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:00:03 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

But you haven't ANSWERED.

> Let's keep this one about your
> Yellow Pants fiasco. Care to discuss Z 369?

You dare not quote me on the issue.

Why the cowardice, Chuckly?

[Bud]

Of course, lurkers. And Oswald could have had help also. Nobody has put a compelling argument on the table in either case.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Of course, lurkers. And Oswald could have had help also. Nobody has put a compelling argument on the table in either case.

It's not that hard, Dud. Just pick yourself up a store mannequin, stand about a yard in front of it, and see if you can hit it point-blank from behind. Surely it's easy enough to do that, and would shut us up in quick order. Oh, but I know...it's not your burden to do it. Obvs.

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 2:54:16 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Of course, lurkers. And Oswald could have had help also. Nobody has put a compelling argument on the table in either case.
>
> It's not that hard, Dud. Just pick yourself up a store mannequin, stand about a yard in front of it, and see if you can hit it point-blank from behind. Surely it's easy enough to do that, and would shut us up in quick order. Oh, but I know...it's not your burden to do it. Obvs.

You talk a lot but you show nothing.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> >
> > It's not that hard, Dud. Just pick yourself up a store mannequin, stand about a yard in front of it, and see if you can hit it point-blank from behind. Surely it's easy enough to do that, and would shut us up in quick order. Oh, but I know...it's not your burden to do it. Obvs.
>
> You talk a lot but you show nothing.

You do all the showing for me. When you respond with stupid comments like that, you "show" how ignorant and weak you are. You see, I *can't* show that it's impossible to shoot at something from the front and hit it from behind, because you cannot prove a negative. All I would have to do is miss on purpose, which would prove my point that it can't be done. That's why it's important for YOU to prove that it CAN be done. See how that "carry your burden" horseshit can backfire sometimes?

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 9:06:28 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not that hard, Dud. Just pick yourself up a store mannequin, stand about a yard in front of it, and see if you can hit it point-blank from behind. Surely it's easy enough to do that, and would shut us up in quick order. Oh, but I know...it's not your burden to do it. Obvs.
> >
> > You talk a lot but you show nothing.
>
> You do all the showing for me. When you respond with stupid comments like that, you "show" how ignorant and weak you are. You see, I *can't* show that it's impossible to shoot at something from the front and hit it from behind,

If you can`t support your ideas STFU.

> because you cannot prove a negative. All I would have to do is miss on purpose, which would prove my point that it can't be done. That's why it's important for YOU to prove that it CAN be done.

Shifting the burden.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

Sorry, but I had to share this response with everyone in my online research groups. We're all having a good laugh at you right now. Even though I admit it's not classy to mock the handicapped.

[Bud]

Isn`t "online research group" synonymous with "conspiracy retard circle jerk"?

> We're all having a good laugh at you right now. Even though I admit it's not classy to mock the handicapped.

You seldom say anything, why is that? Clearly you are as bad with ideas as Ben. Instead of asking other people to explain simple things to you, maybe you should find a hobby that doesn`t require thinking. Stamp collecting, for instance, Ben is a stamp collector, maybe he can give you some pointers.

[Jason Burke]

On 6/22/2018 10:50 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 12:09:33 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> It's not that hard, Dud. Just pick yourself up a store mannequin, stand about a yard in front of it, and see if you can hit it point-blank from behind. Surely it's easy enough to do that, and would shut us up in quick order. Oh, but I know...it's not your burden to do it. Obvs.
>>>>>
>>>>> You talk a lot but you show nothing.
>>>>
>>>> You do all the showing for me. When you respond with stupid comments like that, you "show" how ignorant and weak you are. You see, I *can't* show that it's impossible to shoot at something from the front and hit it from behind,
>>>
>>> If you can`t support your ideas STFU.
>>>
>>>> because you cannot prove a negative. All I would have to do is miss on purpose, which would prove my point that it can't be done. That's why it's important for YOU to prove that it CAN be done.
>>>
>>> Shifting the burden.
>>>
>>>> See how that "carry your burden" horseshit can backfire sometimes?
>>
>> Sorry, but I had to share this response with everyone in my online research groups.
>
> Isn`t "online research group" synonymous with "conspiracy retard circle jerk"?

Why, yes, yes it is.
Although I doubt The Spider has anyone to jerk with. So let's go with
"conspiracy retard masturbatory fantasy".

>
>> We're all having a good laugh at you right now. Even though I admit it's not classy to mock the handicapped.
>

> You seldom say anything, why is that? Clearly you are as bad with ideas as Ben. Instead of asking other people to explain simple things to you, maybe you should find a hobby that doesn`t require thinking. Stamp collecting, for instance, Ben is a stamp collector, maybe he can give you some pointers..
>

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Isn`t "online research group" synonymous with "conspiracy retard circle jerk"?

No.

Why did Oswald run to the movie theater after the assassination?

[Jason Burke]

On 6/22/2018 4:20 PM, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Isn`t "online research group" synonymous with "conspiracy retard circle jerk"?
>
> No.

Wrong. Try again.

>
> Why did Oswald run to the movie theater after the assassination?
>

You got a theory, shithead?

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 21 June 2018 11:24:28 UTC+10, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> So Tim Brennan, is this yellow pants thing the key point for you which decomposes all conspiracies and proves the LN narrative indefinitely?

Hi Boris,

No, it doesn't do that. What the *Yellow Pants* thing DOES do is to show a JFK-CT blowhard, Ben Holmes, up for what he is - a liar and a poor researcher.

His knowledge of the Nix and Zapruder films and how they relate to each other was shown to be so POOR that he had to make an excuse and run for his killfilter to stifle further discussion!

Any person (ie Holmes) who can't even do BASIC stuff like count the number of lamp posts in Dealey Plaza, or work out where Orville Nix was standing when he shot his film, is the absolute LAST person who should be mouthing off about JFK assassination film alteration.

He simply DOESN'T know what he is talking about, as *The Lady In Yellow Pants* fiasco demonstrated.

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]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:00:11 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Thursday, 21 June 2018 11:24:28 UTC+10, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> So Tim Brennan, is this yellow pants thing the key point for you which decomposes all conspiracies and proves the LN narrative indefinitely?
>
>Hi Boris,
>

>No, it doesn't do that. What the *Yellow Pants* thing DOES do ...

Why are you terrified of posting in the original thread so everyone
can see *BOTH* sides?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Hi Boris,

Hi, Tim! I'm so pleased to see your whole point of contention is something about a lady with yellow pants, in relation to something one person said. Trying to turn a JFK forum into a Ben forum is pretty desperate and also tabloid gossip. There have been a lot of topics discussed here, which you've remained mysterious silent on. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on some of THOSE things, like the lead snowstorm x-ray, or the hard evidence showing the SBT to be a fact. But of course I won't.

Is that stuff about Mark Lane at the bottom your automated signature? That's cool. I tried making one of those signatures myself about Bugliosi's lies, but his book is 2,000 and I just didn't have the space!

Keep up the good fight over little nothing inconsequential details.

Cheers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:50:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> Instead of asking other people to explain simple things to you,

But you *DON'T*.

Nothing is "simple" in this case, because you refuse to explain
*ANYTHING*.

Such amusing cowardice.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Au contraire... he just illustrated how easy it would be for a
believer to shut critics up.

Yet not a single believer will ever do this experiment.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:30:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:42:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:09:43 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 01.09.08 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> >> >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:54:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 5:25:18 PM UTC-5, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> Hi All,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Some of you might have seen the recent discussion re Yellow Pants and
>> >> >> >> how Ben Holmes earned this name. Basically, Ben was positing a theory
>> >> >> >> that the presence of *A Lady In Yellow Pants* in the Nix film, and her
>> >> >> >> absence from the Zapruder film at around the Z 369 point was an
>> >> >> >> indicator that the Z film was a forgery, as the two films should have
>> >> >> >> matched at that point.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I recently went back and reviewed some of the threads from March 2008
>> >> >> >> where Z 369 and *The Lady In Yellow Pants* in the Nix film was
>> >> >> >> discussed. For those interested, here is the lady herself:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0049a.htm
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> She is the figure closest to Main Street in the above frames from Nix.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Steve Barber started a thread called *Where in [sic] this *lady in
>> >> >> >> yellow pants* Ben Holmes is talking about?* and at post # 29 I simply
>> >> >> >> asked if *The Lady In Yellow Pants* was the same figure appearing on
>> >> >> >> page 21 of the UPI book Four Days, which basically features a color
>> >> >> >> copy of the above Nix frame.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This provoked a quite mirth inducing response from Benny's sidekick,
>> >> >> >> David (aeffects) Healy, who claimed at post # 55 that Four Days was
>> >> >> >> published in black & white and didn't have any color plates, stupidly
>> >> >> >> getting mixed up with the book Four Dark Days In History.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> To cover himself, Healy then claimed at post # 66 to have a
>> >> >> >> collector's dream *galley proof copy* of Four Days which WAS in black
>> >> >> >> and white, an absurd claim that Holmes backed him up on, being a
>> >> >> >> fellow liar and Z film alterationist adherent.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If you are interested, have a look at the exchanges between Holmes and
>> >> >> >> myself between posts # 59 and # 70 where Holmes finally puts me in the
>> >> >> >> killfilter. If you can be bothered reading Benny's patented swamp
>> >> >> >> posts right through, you will see that the reason he gave was that I'd
>> >> >> >> made an ad hominem attack on him by calling him *Benny* instead of
>> >> >> >> Ben!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It was surprising that Ben would be upset about *ad hominem* attacks,
>> >> >> >> given that by post # 68 he had already directed the following terms at
>> >> >> >> either myself or LN posters in general:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Trolls
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Incredibly illiterate or a liar
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Illiteracy
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Most LNT'ers [sic] are illiterate or liars anyway
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Trolls
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why bother to lie?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Prove you a liar
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Either you're a liar or the troll being quoted is a liar
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Cowards & liars
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Just a liar
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Gutless coward
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Of course, the REAL reason lil' Benny put me in the killfilter was
>> >> >> >> because he realised that his theory was wrong and he needed to close
>> >> >> >> down discussion quick before he had to admit his mistake. Yellow Pants
>> >> >> >> was standing MUCH too far back on the Dealey Plaza grass to ever
>> >> >> >> appear in the Zapruder film and as the horrible truth dawned on Benny
>> >> >> >> he hid behind claiming to be insulted by ad hominem!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> For those interested, here is the thread that Steve Barber started all
>> >> >> >> those years ago:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/54ac0ee8510baee4/32582336742cb27b?lnk=gst&q=where+in+this+lady#32582336742cb27b
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2018 and Benny is STILL refusing to admit his mistake over Yellow Pants!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Talk about a gutless coward!

>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 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!
>> >> >> >

>> >> >> >Good work Tim!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Always fun to revisit this hilarious chapter in the discussions that
>> >> >> > have occurred at acj involving Benny Holmes, the reigning resident
>> >> >> > KlOWn of KonSpiRAcY.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This beat-down of Holmes was perhaps the BEST all-time beat-down in
>> >> >> > this group. Holmes richly earned his moniker, "Yellow Pants."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ben will NEVER live it down. All he had to do was admit he made a
>> >> >> > mistake, but Ben continued to flail about until he had no choice but
>> >> >> > to kill file you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually, I "live it down" each time all you cowards refuse to cite
>> >> >> the thread, and respond in the original thread answering what I
>> >> >> *ACTUALLY* said...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Run cowards... RUN!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >Ben, if you need to refresh your memory...
>> >>
>> >> Why would I require the services of a liar?
>> >>
>> >> If you had any honesty, you'd simply respond to my original post.
>> >>
>> >> That way, everyone could read what I *actually* wrote.
>> >>
>> >> But you're not very honest, are you Mark?
>> >
>> >
>> >Why don't you post your original post? Let's see who's being honest.
>>
>>
>> Nah... no need to waste my time when you'd merely snip it and run away
>> again.
>>
>> Why is there no 'first frame flash' on Z-133?
>
> I'm a retard, lurkers.


Not an answer.


> Why doesn`t Ben show us all the first frame flashes that occur in all the starts in
> Zapruder`s home movie?

I can... but this is simply stump's avoidance tactic.

Why is there no 'first frame flash' on Z-133?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:55:28 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:56:31 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Just wanted to take a moment and observe the title of this thread, i.e.,
>> >"(AKA The Day Benny Ran!)"
>> >
>> > Which implies a singular. As in, a momentous one-off. In contrast,
>> > to say something like "The Day the LNer Ran" would be absurd. They run
>> > every single day.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> None of the believers in this forum are capable of debate.
>
> Ben`s idea of "debate" to hurl ad hominem, lurkers.

Why doesn't Z-133 show 'first frame flash?"

[Bud]

I don`t have to explain anything, lurkers. This is a conspiracy forum, these retards have to put a case on the table for consideration.

> Such amusing cowardice.

[Bud]

No lurkers, he said things but showed nothing.

> Yet not a single believer will ever do this experiment.

If these retards think owning a mannequin and show how this gives insight into this event. These tards can only make these lame attempts to shift the burden.

[Bud]

Empty claim, lurkers. ben`s position requires a first frame flash every time Zapruder`s camera starts. Let him show them in all of Zapruder`s home movies.

[Bud]

I have no ideas that require that information, lurkers.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> If these retards think owning a mannequin and show how this gives insight into this event. These tards can only make these lame attempts to shift the burden.

You *can't* be this dumb. Okay fine, then shift the burden back to me. Now it's on me to prove it's impossible stand a yard in front of someone and shoot them point-blank from behind. Where do I start?

[Bud]

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 7:33:53 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > If these retards think owning a mannequin and show how this gives insight into this event. These tards can only make these lame attempts to shift the burden.
>
> You *can't* be this dumb. Okay fine, then shift the burden back to me. Now it's on me to prove it's impossible stand a yard in front of someone and shoot them point-blank from behind. Where do I start?

What did you offer? Empty claims.

1. Establish as fact exactly where Sirhan Sirhan was standing when the shot behind RFK`s ear was fired.

2. Establish as fact exactly where RFK was standing when the shot behind his ear was fired.

3. Establish as fact exactly how RFK`s body was positioned when the shot behind his ear was fired.

4. Establish as fact exactly where Sirhan Sirhan`s gun was positioned when the shot behind RFK ear was fired.

You make pretend you`ve done all this when you`ve done none of it. And you get upset if I don`t pretend along with you.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Why were YOU so TERRIFIED that you had to run from the original thread in the first place, Holmes, and skulk behind a killfilter for a decade?

Your stated reason for running was that someone had made an *ad hominem* attack on you by calling you *Benny* instead of *Ben*!

How WEAK is that, Holmes? Especially when YOU had already trotted out a plethora of ad hominem attacks on the same thread AND given tacit approval to the FILTH spouted by your then sidekick David *aeffects* Healy (AKA Dave/Ringo).

Besides which, Holmes, I HAVE posted in the original thread and so has Mark Ulrik. Why haven't you turned up there yet, Holmes.

Looks like the TERRIFIED one is YOU, Holmes.

Informative Regards,

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> 1. Establish as fact exactly where Sirhan Sirhan was standing when the shot behind RFK`s ear was fired.
>
> 2. Establish as fact exactly where RFK was standing when the shot behind his ear was fired.
>
> 3. Establish as fact exactly how RFK`s body was positioned when the shot behind his ear was fired.
>
> 4. Establish as fact exactly where Sirhan Sirhan`s gun was positioned when the shot behind RFK ear was fired.

Without a video recording of the event, all of those things would be impossible to establish by fact in a way which would satisfy you, because all you would do once I established something counter to the official narrative would be to deny it. Which makes your list disingenuous. You've already denied all the witnesses who assert Sirhan was too far from Kennedy to fire point-blank into him. And now you're about to deny more experts and witnesses. Watch...

"Senator Kennedy was shot four times from behind. Three of the bullets entered his body, and one went through his suit coat at the right upper seam. In addition to that, five other victims were shot, and no single bullet hit more than one person. Therefore, there were 9 bullets into people that had to be accounted for. That was the minimum amount of bullets. Sirhan's gun only held eight bullets."

- Robert Joling, forensic expert

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go2WLCrmE5w

"Sirhan Sirhan was to my left and Senator Kennedy was to my right, and I was in the middle, and as I ran towards him I started to hear shots. And my eyes turned right to Sirhan Sirhan, who was standing on a metal steam table, and Rafer Johnson and Rosey Grier ran to subdue him, but there was those shots coming from my right, in back of the senator. I was about 6 to 7 feet in back of him. And it sounded like between 10 and 14—well, 12 and 14 shots."

- Nina Rhodes-Hughes, witness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNJehGOF0Nw

"[The FBI report] was devastating. It was 14 different statements that they misconstrued, misrepresented what I said. I promise you I said between 12 and 14 shots, and they put down that I said 8."

- Nina Rhodes-Hughes, witness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNJehGOF0Nw


And then, of course, there's the whole Stretch Armstrong feat of shooting him from behind, which you have no problem believing because the victim's surname was Kennedy.

>
> You make pretend you`ve done all this when you`ve done none of it. And you get upset if I don`t pretend along with you.

I'm not upset. Your silly denials just give me more opportunities to segue into the evidence.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Au contraire... he just illustrated how easy it would be for a
> believer to shut critics up.
>
> Yet not a single believer will ever do this experiment.

Gotta hand it to Bud, he put the burden right back on me where it belongs, and I tried and tried and tried to shoot that mannequin from behind while standing in front, and I failed every time. I guess I can't prove it.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 8:23:37 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > 1. Establish as fact exactly where Sirhan Sirhan was standing when the shot behind RFK`s ear was fired.
> >
> > 2. Establish as fact exactly where RFK was standing when the shot behind his ear was fired.
> >
> > 3. Establish as fact exactly how RFK`s body was positioned when the shot behind his ear was fired.
> >
> > 4. Establish as fact exactly where Sirhan Sirhan`s gun was positioned when the shot behind RFK ear was fired.
>
>
> Without a video recording of the event, all of those things would be impossible to establish by fact

So how would me getting a mannequin provide me with the information I need to determine what occurred?

>in a way which would satisfy you, because all you would do once I established something counter to the official narrative would be to deny it. Which makes your list disingenuous.

To a conspiracy retard it is dishonest to proceed with facts in hand.

> You've already denied all the witnesses who assert Sirhan was too far from Kennedy to fire point-blank into him. And now you're about to deny more experts and witnesses. Watch...
>
> "Senator Kennedy was shot four times from behind. Three of the bullets entered his body, and one went through his suit coat at the right upper seam.

In which case he was shot three times, not four.

> In addition to that, five other victims were shot, and no single bullet hit more than one person. Therefore, there were 9 bullets into people that had to be accounted for. That was the minimum amount of bullets. Sirhan's gun only held eight bullets."

As the retard flits away to a different issue altogether. We are talking about the shot behind RFK`s ear. Explain to me how me getting a mannequin will provide me with insight into this wound.

> - Robert Joling, forensic expert
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go2WLCrmE5w
>
> "Sirhan Sirhan was to my left and Senator Kennedy was to my right, and I was in the middle, and as I ran towards him I started to hear shots. And my eyes turned right to Sirhan Sirhan, who was standing on a metal steam table, and Rafer Johnson and Rosey Grier ran to subdue him, but there was those shots coming from my right, in back of the senator. I was about 6 to 7 feet in back of him. And it sounded like between 10 and 14—well, 12 and 14 shots."

And you think this establishes exact positions throughout the event?

You realize that some witnesses have Sirhan Sirhan getting down off that table and rushing forward before shooting, right? So how does here placing S/S on the table help establish shooting positions?

> - Nina Rhodes-Hughes, witness
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNJehGOF0Nw
>
> "[The FBI report] was devastating. It was 14 different statements that they misconstrued, misrepresented what I said. I promise you I said between 12 and 14 shots, and they put down that I said 8."

How does this speak to whether S/S shot RFK behind the ear?

> - Nina Rhodes-Hughes, witness
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNJehGOF0Nw
>
>
> And then, of course, there's the whole Stretch Armstrong feat of shooting him from behind, which you have no problem believing because the victim's surname was Kennedy.

You shown nothing regarding the positioning just prior to RFK getting shot behind the ear.

> >
> > You make pretend you`ve done all this when you`ve done none of it. And you get upset if I don`t pretend along with you.
>
> I'm not upset. Your silly denials just give me more opportunities to segue into the evidence.

Try to make it pertaining to what is being discussed next time.

[Bud]

Do conspiracy retards ever support one of their ideas?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> So how would me getting a mannequin provide me with the information I need to determine what occurred?

Oh boy. Well for starters, it would prove the shots weren't possible, because you could stand in front of it and shoot at it all day and night, and not hit it from behind. I think what you're insisting here is if you were ever punched in the back of the head, you would blame the guy standing in front of you. You're kind of a sucker, aren't you?

>
> >
> > "[The FBI report] was devastating. It was 14 different statements that they misconstrued, misrepresented what I said. I promise you I said between 12 and 14 shots, and they put down that I said 8."
>
> How does this speak to whether S/S shot RFK behind the ear?

Not a fan of math, are you?

>
> And you think this establishes exact positions throughout the event?
>

> You shown nothing regarding the positioning just prior to RFK getting shot behind the ear.

Oh, that's the game then. So with no video footage available, you want me to place which exact floor tiles RFK was standing on, and to you this somehow trumps every witness who said Sirhan was standing too far away, and that too many shots were fired. You're sort of pathetic.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:19:21 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > So how would me getting a mannequin provide me with the information I need to determine what occurred?
>
> Oh boy. Well for starters, it would prove the shots weren't possible,

But you just admitted you had no facts to work with.

"Without a video recording of the event, all of those things would be impossible to establish by fact..."

> because you could stand in front of it and shoot at it all day and night,

I don`t know where Sirhan Sirhan was positioned when RFK was shot behind the ear and neither do you.

> and not hit it from behind. I think what you're insisting here is if you were ever punched in the back of the head, you would blame the guy standing in front of you. You're kind of a sucker, aren't you?

You`re an idiot with no facts. I`m just letting you blather on without them.

>
> >
> > >
> > > "[The FBI report] was devastating. It was 14 different statements that they misconstrued, misrepresented what I said. I promise you I said between 12 and 14 shots, and they put down that I said 8."
> >
> > How does this speak to whether S/S shot RFK behind the ear?
>
> Not a fan of math, are you?

We are talking about one. The fatal shot delivered behind RFK`s ear.

> >
> > And you think this establishes exact positions throughout the event?
> >
> > You shown nothing regarding the positioning just prior to RFK getting shot behind the ear.
>
> Oh, that's the game then.

Yes, either you can establish things as fact or you can make empty claims. Clearly you`ve oped for the latter.

> So with no video footage available,

You can make empty claims until you are blue in the face.

> you want me to place which exact floor tiles RFK was standing on,

Your ideas require exactitude, you are claiming exactitude. When challenged, you quickly admit you can`t support exactitude.

> and to you this somehow trumps every witness who said Sirhan was standing too far away,

What witness said that Sirhan Sirhan was too far away to shoot RFK?

> and that too many shots were fired. You're sort of pathetic.

You sure it just isn`t your ideas?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> But you just admitted you had no facts to work with.
>
> "Without a video recording of the event, all of those things would be impossible to establish by fact..."

False. This is what I said:

"Without a video recording of the event, all of those things would be impossible to establish by fact **in a way which would satisfy you**"

Which in retrospect was needless to say, because 4K quality video footage of a second shooter wouldn't satisfy you. Your faith is too strong.

>
> I don`t know where Sirhan Sirhan was positioned when RFK was shot behind the ear and neither do you.

Luckily we have witnesses. You know, all the ones you ignore?

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "[The FBI report] was devastating. It was 14 different statements that they misconstrued, misrepresented what I said. I promise you I said between 12 and 14 shots, and they put down that I said 8."
> > >
> > > How does this speak to whether S/S shot RFK behind the ear?
> >
> > Not a fan of math, are you?
>
> We are talking about one. The fatal shot delivered behind RFK`s ear.

One? One out of...how many did Nina Rhodes-Hughes say again?

>
> Your ideas require exactitude, you are claiming exactitude. When challenged, you quickly admit you can`t support exactitude.

Uh-huh...how many shots were identified by Philip Van Praag and witnesses again?

>
> > and to you this somehow trumps every witness who said Sirhan was standing too far away,
>
> What witness said that Sirhan Sirhan was too far away to shoot RFK?

None. He wasn't too far away to shoot RFK.

If you mean which witnesses said Sirhan was too far away to shoot him point-blank, and from behind, well...I just cited one. You did the block/ignore/delete dance and shuffled along. It was sad.

And amusing.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 8:19:21 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > So how would me getting a mannequin provide me with the information I need to determine what occurred?
>
> Oh boy. Well for starters, it would prove the shots weren't possible, because you could stand in front of it and shoot at it all day and night, and not hit it from behind.

Sirhan says Bobby turned. He told his own investigator that he tried to shoot RFK right between t he eyes "But that Son of a Bitch turned at the last second."

I think what you're insisting here is if you were ever punched in the back of the head, you would blame the guy standing in front of you. You're kind of a sucker, aren't you?

RFK turned.

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > "[The FBI report] was devastating. It was 14 different statements that they misconstrued, misrepresented what I said. I promise you I said between 12 and 14 shots, and they put down that I said 8."

Asked and answered. The circled holes in the woodwork were from a cop, badge 723, who thought these were bullet holes in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. This even caused confusion within the FBI who initially presumed the cop who circled the holes was part of a forensic team. He was not. The FBI inadvertently created the illusion of a conspiracy where none existed.

> >
> > How does this speak to whether S/S shot RFK behind the ear?
>
> Not a fan of math, are you?

Fringe Reset/Harris Award/Holmes Pivot. Boris wishes to talk about anything outside of his hero Sirhan.

>
> >
> > And you think this establishes exact positions throughout the event?
> >
> > You shown nothing regarding the positioning just prior to RFK getting shot behind the ear.
>
> Oh, that's the game then. So with no video footage available,

You'd claim it was altered.

you want me to place which exact floor tiles RFK was standing on,

Straw Man fallacy.

and to you this somehow trumps every witness who said Sirhan was standing too far away, and that too many shots were fired.

Other witnesses said Sirhan alone fired the shots and RFK had turned. Audio records eight shots.

You're sort of pathetic.

Ad hominem.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> RFK turned.

Enough to get four shots with the fatal being point-blank, you know you are between a rock and a hard place.

>
> Asked and answered. The circled holes in the woodwork were from a cop, badge 723, who thought these were bullet holes in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. This even caused confusion within the FBI who initially presumed the cop who circled the holes was part of a forensic team. He was not. The FBI inadvertently created the illusion of a conspiracy where none existed.

Changing a witness's statement is conspiratorial BY DEFINITION. And unethical. Oh, and forbidden. That's important.

>
> Fringe Reset/Harris Award/Holmes Pivot. Boris wishes to talk about anything* outside of his hero Sirhan.

(*evidence)

> >
> > Oh, that's the game then. So with no video footage available,
>
> You'd claim it was altered.

It's amusing you make this straw man argument, and then in your *very next response* accuse me of making a straw man argument. Your lack of introspection is astounding.

>
> you want me to place which exact floor tiles RFK was standing on,
>
> Straw Man fallacy.

Not really. The idiot wants me to "Establish as fact exactly where RFK was standing." You did read the second demand on his list, did you not?

>
> Audio records eight shots.

A provable lie. And I don't even have to search further than the source I *just* cited to prove that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go2WLCrmE5w

Notably 2:48 - 4:03.

At 5:39 Philip Van Praag explains why his findings differ from that of the FBI.


Also 3:10 of the following...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNJehGOF0Nw


>
> Ad hominem.

Oh! So Bud's lost every debate thus far then? Thanks.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 19:22:24 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 8:19:21 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > So how would me getting a mannequin provide me with the information I need to determine what occurred?
>>
>> Oh boy. Well for starters, it would prove the shots weren't possible, because you could stand in front of it and shoot at it all day and night, and not hit it from behind.
>
>Sirhan says Bobby turned. He told his own investigator that he tried to shoot RFK right between t he eyes "But that Son of a Bitch turned at the last second."
>
> I think what you're insisting here is if you were ever punched in the back of the head, you would blame the guy standing in front of you. You're kind of a sucker, aren't you?
>
>RFK turned.

Chuckly believes that RFK turned 180 degrees.

Because *that* is what it would take to get the forward and upward
trajectory.

Chuckly's a moron.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:26:09 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

All you have to do is lie, and claim that the mannequin turned away
from you when you fired...

Check with Chuckly - he'll give you the right phrasing to use...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:23:29 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, 23 June 2018 23:48:45 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:00:11 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 21 June 2018 11:24:28 UTC+10, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> So Tim Brennan, is this yellow pants thing the key point for you which decomposes all conspiracies and proves the LN narrative indefinitely?
>> >
>> >Hi Boris,
>> >
>> >No, it doesn't do that. What the *Yellow Pants* thing DOES do ...
>>
>> Why are you terrified of posting in the original thread so everyone
>> can see *BOTH* sides?
>

>Why were YOU ...

Tut tut tut Timmy... answer the question. Why are you terrified of

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:42:24 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > RFK turned.
>
> Enough to get four shots with the fatal being point-blank, you know you are between a rock and a hard place.

Three shots. One went through his clothing.

>
> >
> > Asked and answered. The circled holes in the woodwork were from a cop, badge 723, who thought these were bullet holes in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. This even caused confusion within the FBI who initially presumed the cop who circled the holes was part of a forensic team. He was not. The FBI inadvertently created the illusion of a conspiracy where none existed.
>
> Changing a witness's statement is conspiratorial BY DEFINITION. And unethical. Oh, and forbidden. That's important.

Fringe Reset.

>
> >
> > Fringe Reset/Harris Award/Holmes Pivot. Boris wishes to talk about anything* outside of his hero Sirhan.
>
> (*evidence)
>
> > >
> > > Oh, that's the game then. So with no video footage available,
> >
> > You'd claim it was altered.
>
> It's amusing you make this straw man argument,

Yes, there is some straw there. My bad. But based on what I know from your writings on conspiracies, I'm betting you'd claim a potential film of Sirhan shooting RFK was altered. Better?

and then in your *very next response* accuse me of making a straw man argument. Your lack of introspection is astounding.
>
> >
> > you want me to place which exact floor tiles RFK was standing on,
> >
> > Straw Man fallacy.
>
> Not really.

Um, yeah. Really.

The idiot wants me to "Establish as fact exactly where RFK was standing." You did read the second demand on his list, did you not?

Because it's your claim that the shot was impossible from Sirhan, asshole. We don't know with certainty the positioning, etc. We have conflicting witness statements. You are making the incredible claim, so you have the incredible burden.

>
> >
> > Audio records eight shots.
>
> A provable lie.

Audio records eight shots.

And I don't even have to search further than the source I *just* cited to prove that.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go2WLCrmE5w
>
> Notably 2:48 - 4:03.
>
> At 5:39 Philip Van Praag explains why his findings differ from that of the FBI.

You can always find an expert, but if yours was correct, the case would be reopened. Other experts say eight shots, and this matches what Sirhan's pistol held.

>
>
> Also 3:10 of the following...
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNJehGOF0Nw
>
>
> >
> > Ad hominem.
>
> Oh! So Bud's lost every debate thus far then? Thanks.

You're 0-for 50 years on RFK, 0-for 54 years with JFK. You're the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:57:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 19:22:24 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 8:19:21 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So how would me getting a mannequin provide me with the information I need to determine what occurred?
> >>
> >> Oh boy. Well for starters, it would prove the shots weren't possible, because you could stand in front of it and shoot at it all day and night, and not hit it from behind.
> >
> >Sirhan says Bobby turned. He told his own investigator that he tried to shoot RFK right between t he eyes "But that Son of a Bitch turned at the last second."
> >
> > I think what you're insisting here is if you were ever punched in the back of the head, you would blame the guy standing in front of you. You're kind of a sucker, aren't you?
> >
> >RFK turned.
>
> Chuckly believes that RFK turned 180 degrees.

Witnesses said he turned.

>
> Because *that* is what it would take to get the forward and upward
> trajectory.

You don't know that. The logical inference if RFK didn't turn and Sirhan's gun couldn't reach is that someone literally right next to RFK fired point blank into his head. Would you agree with that? If you do, give us the names of the POSSIBLE suspects. Cesar the guard was there, members of RFK's immediate entourage, his guards, etc. Give us the names.
>
> Chuckly's a moron.

Ben is trapped. He's hemmed in by admitting Sirhan fired and that the fatal shot was point blank. That means no grassy knoll shooter, etc. This was up close and personal. Give. Us. Names.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:04:48 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

> You can always find an expert, but if yours was correct, the case
> would be reopened.

**PROVABLY** a lie.

The longest and most in-depth investigation asked the Justice
department to do some investigations... can you cite what was done?

For example, with the Bronson film?

So you *KNOW* that you're lying, don't you?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:08:50 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 9:57:14 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 19:22:24 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 8:19:21 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > So how would me getting a mannequin provide me with the information I need to determine what occurred?
>> >>
>> >> Oh boy. Well for starters, it would prove the shots weren't possible, because you could stand in front of it and shoot at it all day and night, and not hit it from behind.
>> >
>> >Sirhan says Bobby turned. He told his own investigator that he tried to shoot RFK right between t he eyes "But that Son of a Bitch turned at the last second."
>> >
>> > I think what you're insisting here is if you were ever punched in the back of the head, you would blame the guy standing in front of you. You're kind of a sucker, aren't you?
>> >
>> >RFK turned.
>>
>> Chuckly believes that RFK turned 180 degrees.
>
>Witnesses said he turned.

Cite *ANYONE* who stated that he turned completely around.

>> Because *that* is what it would take to get the forward and upward
>> trajectory.
>
> You don't know that.

Yes moron, I do.

> The logical inference if RFK didn't turn and Sirhan's gun couldn't
> reach is that someone literally right next to RFK fired point blank
> into his head. Would you agree with that?

Yep... perfectly logical.

> If you do, give us the names of the POSSIBLE suspects. Cesar the
> guard was there, members of RFK's immediate entourage, his guards,
> etc. Give us the names.

Nope. Not needed. This is a common logical fallacy.

You cannot overturn the autopsy report by appeals to ignorance...

>> Chuckly's a moron.
>
> Ben is trapped. He's hemmed in by admitting Sirhan fired and that
> the fatal shot was point blank. That means no grassy knoll shooter,
> etc. This was up close and personal. Give. Us. Names.

Chuckly's still a moron. Chuckly believes if one person admits to
firing a weapon, that no-one else was capable of firing *their* weapon
at the same time and place.

Silly, I know... but Chuckly's an example of our failing educational
system.

[tims...@gmail.com]

I HAVE already posted there, Holmes.

Where are you?

Skulking behind your killfilter again, Yellow Pants?

Wear TLIYP like a crown of THORNS Benny!

Chortlin' 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 mate Mark Lane lied!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:43:18 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, 26 June 2018 13:01:03 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:23:29 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, 23 June 2018 23:48:45 UTC+10, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:00:11 -0700 (PDT), tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, 21 June 2018 11:24:28 UTC+10, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> So Tim Brennan, is this yellow pants thing the key point for you which decomposes all conspiracies and proves the LN narrative indefinitely?
>> >> >
>> >> >Hi Boris,
>> >> >
>> >> >No, it doesn't do that. What the *Yellow Pants* thing DOES do ...
>> >>
>> >> Why are you terrified of posting in the original thread so everyone
>> >> can see *BOTH* sides?
>> >
>> >Why were YOU ...
>>
>> Tut tut tut Timmy... answer the question. Why are you terrified of
>> posting in the original thread so everyone can see *BOTH* sides?
>
>I HAVE already posted there, Holmes.

You're lying again, Timmy.

And the proof of this is your refusal to cite that thread.

Why are you so terrified, Timmy? Do you think I'm going to show up at
your door with a Mannlicher Carcano?

[tims...@gmail.com]

Er, Holmes, how have I refused to cite the original thread when I have linked to it in the FIRST post of this very thread??

You've had AMPLE opportunity to get your lying yellow panted ass down there, Holmes, but that's simply the LAST thing you want to do, eh Benny?

The whole matter of The Lady In Yellow Pants simply TERRIFIES you Benny.

EVERYBODY can see that, Yellow Pants.

Informative 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!!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Bump.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 10:10:10 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > But you just admitted you had no facts to work with.
> >
> > "Without a video recording of the event, all of those things would be impossible to establish by fact..."
>
> False. This is what I said:
>
> "Without a video recording of the event, all of those things would be impossible to establish by fact **in a way which would satisfy you**"

This was my challenge...

1. Establish as fact exactly where Sirhan Sirhan was standing when the shot behind RFK`s ear was fired.

2. Establish as fact exactly where RFK was standing when the shot behind his ear was fired.

3. Establish as fact exactly how RFK`s body was positioned when the shot behind his ear was fired.

4. Establish as fact exactly where Sirhan Sirhan`s gun was positioned when the shot behind RFK ear was fired.

Feel free to establish these things as fact in a way that doesn`t satisfy me.

> Which in retrospect was needless to say, because 4K quality video footage of a second shooter wouldn't satisfy you. Your faith is too strong.

Your empty claims are too weak. You say things but establish nothing.

> >
> > I don`t know where Sirhan Sirhan was positioned when RFK was shot behind the ear and neither do you.
>
> Luckily we have witnesses.

Good luck using them to establishing precise details in a surprise attack as fact.

> You know, all the ones you ignore?
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "[The FBI report] was devastating. It was 14 different statements that they misconstrued, misrepresented what I said. I promise you I said between 12 and 14 shots, and they put down that I said 8."
> > > >
> > > > How does this speak to whether S/S shot RFK behind the ear?
> > >
> > > Not a fan of math, are you?
> >
> > We are talking about one. The fatal shot delivered behind RFK`s ear.
>
> One?

Yes, I even specified which one, are you stupid?

> One out of...how many did Nina Rhodes-Hughes say again?

And yet you still put faith in witnesses.

If witnesses were reliable they`d all be saying the same thing this woman is. Are they?

>
> >
> > Your ideas require exactitude, you are claiming exactitude. When challenged, you quickly admit you can`t support exactitude.
>
> Uh-huh...how many shots were identified by Philip Van Praag and witnesses again?

Why are you asking me questions rather than supporting your ideas?

> >
> > > and to you this somehow trumps every witness who said Sirhan was standing too far away,
> >
> > What witness said that Sirhan Sirhan was too far away to shoot RFK?
>
> None. He wasn't too far away to shoot RFK.
>
> If you mean which witnesses said Sirhan was too far away to shoot him point-blank, and from behind, well...I just cited one. You did the block/ignore/delete dance and shuffled along. It was sad.

You are stupid enough to believe that if someone says something that makes it fact. I`m not, especially under these circumstances.

> And amusing.

Your witness had Sirhan Sirhan on a table and then tackled. He wasn`t on a table when he was firing shots.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:26:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 12:34:13 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 10:50:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Instead of asking other people to explain simple things to you,
>>
>> But you *DON'T*.
>>
>> Nothing is "simple" in this case, because you refuse to explain
>> *ANYTHING*.
>
> I don`t have to explain anything, lurkers.


Yes moron, you do.

Clearly you don't think too highly of the lurkers you're constantly
appealing to.


> This is a conspiracy forum


Indeed it is. And for months, you refused to cite the meaning of the
term.

Quite the coward, aren't you stump?


> I'm a retard.


Your intellectual challenges are of no interest to anyone else.


>> Such amusing cowardice.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:29:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 12:34:20 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:00:20 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 2:54:16 PM UTC-4, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course, lurkers. And Oswald could have had help also. Nobody has put a compelling argument on the table in either case.
>> >>
>> >> It's not that hard, Dud. Just pick yourself up a store mannequin,
>> >> stand about a yard in front of it, and see if you can hit it
>> >> point-blank from behind. Surely it's easy enough to do that, and would
>> >> shut us up in quick order. Oh, but I know...it's not your burden to do
>> >> it. Obvs.
>> >
>> > You talk a lot but you show nothing.

>>
>> Au contraire... he just illustrated how easy it would be for a
>> believer to shut critics up.
>

> No lurkers, he said things but showed nothing.


And yet, Boris just shut you up. You ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to address the
topic.

>> Yet not a single believer will ever do this experiment.
>

> I'm a retard.

Not relevant.

What would be relevant is you addressing the issue. Explain to Boris
how such a simple experiment wouldn't work...

Boris PROVABLY shut you up, and you're clearly lying about that fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:30:59 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 12:34:29 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:30:41 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 11:42:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:09:43 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 9:08:25 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 05:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Mark Ulrik <m...@xml.dk>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >onsdag den 20. juni 2018 kl. 01.09.08 UTC+2 skrev Ben Holmes:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:54:02 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 5:25:18 PM UTC-5, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Hi All,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Some of you might have seen the recent discussion re Yellow Pants and
>> >> >> >> >> how Ben Holmes earned this name. Basically, Ben was positing a theory
>> >> >> >> >> that the presence of *A Lady In Yellow Pants* in the Nix film, and her
>> >> >> >> >> absence from the Zapruder film at around the Z 369 point was an
>> >> >> >> >> indicator that the Z film was a forgery, as the two films should have
>> >> >> >> >> matched at that point.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I recently went back and reviewed some of the threads from March 2008
>> >> >> >> >> where Z 369 and *The Lady In Yellow Pants* in the Nix film was
>> >> >> >> >> discussed. For those interested, here is the lady herself:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0049a.htm
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> She is the figure closest to Main Street in the above frames from Nix.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Steve Barber started a thread called *Where in [sic] this *lady in
>> >> >> >> >> yellow pants* Ben Holmes is talking about?* and at post # 29 I simply
>> >> >> >> >> asked if *The Lady In Yellow Pants* was the same figure appearing on
>> >> >> >> >> page 21 of the UPI book Four Days, which basically features a color
>> >> >> >> >> copy of the above Nix frame.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> This provoked a quite mirth inducing response from Benny's sidekick,
>> >> >> >> >> David (aeffects) Healy, who claimed at post # 55 that Four Days was
>> >> >> >> >> published in black & white and didn't have any color plates, stupidly
>> >> >> >> >> getting mixed up with the book Four Dark Days In History.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> To cover himself, Healy then claimed at post # 66 to have a
>> >> >> >> >> collector's dream *galley proof copy* of Four Days which WAS in black
>> >> >> >> >> and white, an absurd claim that Holmes backed him up on, being a
>> >> >> >> >> fellow liar and Z film alterationist adherent.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> If you are interested, have a look at the exchanges between Holmes and
>> >> >> >> >> myself between posts # 59 and # 70 where Holmes finally puts me in the
>> >> >> >> >> killfilter. If you can be bothered reading Benny's patented swamp
>> >> >> >> >> posts right through, you will see that the reason he gave was that I'd
>> >> >> >> >> made an ad hominem attack on him by calling him *Benny* instead of
>> >> >> >> >> Ben!
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> It was surprising that Ben would be upset about *ad hominem* attacks,
>> >> >> >> >> given that by post # 68 he had already directed the following terms at
>> >> >> >> >> either myself or LN posters in general:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Trolls
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Incredibly illiterate or a liar
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Illiteracy
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Most LNT'ers [sic] are illiterate or liars anyway
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Trolls
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Why bother to lie?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Prove you a liar
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Either you're a liar or the troll being quoted is a liar
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Cowards & liars
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Just a liar
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Gutless coward
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Of course, the REAL reason lil' Benny put me in the killfilter was
>> >> >> >> >> because he realised that his theory was wrong and he needed to close
>> >> >> >> >> down discussion quick before he had to admit his mistake. Yellow Pants
>> >> >> >> >> was standing MUCH too far back on the Dealey Plaza grass to ever
>> >> >> >> >> appear in the Zapruder film and as the horrible truth dawned on Benny
>> >> >> >> >> he hid behind claiming to be insulted by ad hominem!
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> For those interested, here is the thread that Steve Barber started all
>> >> >> >> >> those years ago:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/54ac0ee8510baee4/32582336742cb27b?lnk=gst&q=where+in+this+lady#32582336742cb27b
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> 2018 and Benny is STILL refusing to admit his mistake over Yellow Pants!
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Talk about a gutless coward!

>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> 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!
>> >> >> >> >

>> >> >> >> >Good work Tim!
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Always fun to revisit this hilarious chapter in the discussions that
>> >> >> >> > have occurred at acj involving Benny Holmes, the reigning resident
>> >> >> >> > KlOWn of KonSpiRAcY.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > This beat-down of Holmes was perhaps the BEST all-time beat-down in
>> >> >> >> > this group. Holmes richly earned his moniker, "Yellow Pants."
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Ben will NEVER live it down. All he had to do was admit he made a
>> >> >> >> > mistake, but Ben continued to flail about until he had no choice but
>> >> >> >> > to kill file you.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Actually, I "live it down" each time all you cowards refuse to cite
>> >> >> >> the thread, and respond in the original thread answering what I
>> >> >> >> *ACTUALLY* said...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Run cowards... RUN!!!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Ben, if you need to refresh your memory...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why would I require the services of a liar?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you had any honesty, you'd simply respond to my original post.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That way, everyone could read what I *actually* wrote.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But you're not very honest, are you Mark?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Why don't you post your original post? Let's see who's being honest.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nah... no need to waste my time when you'd merely snip it and run away
>> >> again.
>> >>
>> >> Why is there no 'first frame flash' on Z-133?
>> >
>> > I'm a retard, lurkers.
>>
>>
>> Not an answer.
>>
>>
>> > Why doesn`t Ben show us all the first frame flashes that occur in all the starts in
>> > Zapruder`s home movie?
>>
>> I can...
>
> Empty claim, lurkers. ben`s position requires a first frame flash
> every time Zapruder`s camera starts. Let him show them in all of
> Zapruder`s home movies.


Easily done. As Roland Zavada has stated: "First frame density
difference is seen at ALL tails to head transitions."

Except, of course, Z-133.

Now... lie and tell everyone that you don't know who Roland Zavada
is...

You lost.

>> but this is simply stump's avoidance tactic.
>>
>> Why is there no 'first frame flash' on Z-133?

The question sill remains... unanswered. And I predict, stump will
*NEVER* answer it. Nor will Chuckly, David Chester Pein, Mark, Timmy,
or anyone else...

ALL of you are cowards...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 15:32:02 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 12:34:43 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:37:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 1:55:28 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:56:31 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Just wanted to take a moment and observe the title of this thread, i.e.,
>> >> >"(AKA The Day Benny Ran!)"
>> >> >
>> >> > Which implies a singular. As in, a momentous one-off. In contrast,
>> >> > to say something like "The Day the LNer Ran" would be absurd. They run
>> >> > every single day.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed.
>> >>
>> >> None of the believers in this forum are capable of debate.
>> >
>> > Ben`s idea of "debate" to hurl ad hominem, lurkers.
>>
>> Why doesn't Z-133 show 'first frame flash?"
>
> I have no ideas that require that information, lurkers.

Of course you do. You pretend that the extant Z-film is authentic and
not changed...

That makes you a liar... as if anyone couldn't already figure that
out.