Ben Holmes -- Refuted

[David Von Pein]

At Ben Holmes' forum, we find....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID [at a different forum]:

What caused the bullet hole in JFK's throat then? And where did that bullet go? And why wasn't it in JFK's body at autopsy?


BEN HOLMES THEN SAID [at his own forum]:

The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought...an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest.

It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm.

[...]

This is why [DVP] is too much the coward to post here [at Ben's deserted forum]... he knows that there's absolutely NOTHING he can post that I can't answer in a reasonable, credible way, AND SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.


DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:

Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:

Ben thinks that this statement....

>>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<

...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)

And, incredibly, Ben also seems to think this statement too is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE"....

>>> "It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm." <<<

This one's even more hysterical than the first part about Ben's nonexistent bullet that "ranged downward" into Kennedy's body. Benji has now invented a *second* autopsy from whole cloth and pure speculation (and more desperation). And he's also invented (from whole cloth, of course) a scenario which has some conspirator digging a whole bullet out of JFK's chest/throat. And that, too, per Delusional Benji, is supposedly "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in the JFK case as well. (Can it get much funnier than this?)

Of course, it wasn't Ben's idea to invent the "pre-autopsy autopsy" nonsense. That idea was hatched by David Lifton in the late 1960s for Lifton's book "Best Evidence" [http://best-evidence.blogspot.com]. Ben has merely latched on to Lifton's (and also super-kook Douglas Horne's) coattails and has decided to declare as a FACT the notion that JFK's wounds were altered at some kind of covert "pre-autopsy autopsy" on 11/22/63.

Now THAT'S desperation with a great big capital D, folks.

I've got a good idea for a new Internet series. The title: "Refuting A Kook Named Holmes". I'll start it off with a whole bunch of stuff here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ben+Holmes

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1226.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1227.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

> >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
>
> ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)

So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?

On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.

On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."

CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.

But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" - so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:

Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)

Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)

So who's lying, David?

I'd like you to PUBLICLY RETRACT your lie that there's no evidence for the bullet ranging downward into JFK's chest.

Of course, knowing how dishonest you are, this rebuttal and your retraction will never find it's way on to your many websites...

And if you can't figure out how to spell my name, I'll have to simply start refusing to use your real name either... fair warning.

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:25:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> >
> > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)
>
> So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?
>
> On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.
>
> On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."
>
> CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.
>
> But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" -

Of course not. They barely rise to the level of rumor.

> so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:
>
> Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)
>
> Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)
>
> So who's lying, David?

Do you know the meaning of the word "might"? Raising a possibility is not evidence that that is what occurred.

> I'd like you to PUBLICLY RETRACT your lie that there's no evidence for the bullet ranging downward into JFK's chest.

There is evidence that there was a dog in the limo. I remember in the Beltway Sniper case they were looking for a white van. Turned out the van had nothing to do with the murders, although indications existed in evidence.

The autopsy trumps the assumptions of the doctors working on Kennedy. What was thought at the time becomes meaningless after the truth is determined.

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:25:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

Good boy, Benji. Keep pretending that early news reports and the speculation of the witnesses who only had partial information constitutes good firm "evidence".

And while you're at it, why not say that a Secret Service agent was killed on 11/22/63 too -- which would be just as true as all the "evidence" you have presented about a bullet "ranging downward" into JFK's chest).

IOW, even after a false rumor has been corrected, why not keep propping it up as "evidence", even though you know damn well it is 100% wrong? You just did that with the "evidence" about a bullet "ranging downward into JFK's chest". So why not do it with the dead SS agent rumor too? Or the "LBJ had a heart attack" rumor as well?

You're pathetic, "Benji".

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:55:39 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:25:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> >
> > > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> > >
> > > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)
> >
> > So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?
> >
> > On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.
> >
> > On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."
> >
> > CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.
> >
> > But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" -
>
> Of course not. They barely rise to the level of rumor.

Which is why, of course, I added in sworn testimony to the Warren Commission. But you refuse even to accept sworn testimony as evidence.

You can't even provide a legal citation to the term "evidence" - because you know full well that sworn testimony *IS* considered evidence.

> > so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:
> >
> > Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)
> >
> > Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)
> >
> > So who's lying, David?
>
> Do you know the meaning of the word "might"? Raising a possibility is not evidence that that is what occurred.

Do you know the meaning of "There is NO evidence..."

You're now trying to change "evidence" into facts. But you didn't claim that it didn't FACTUALLY AND HISTORICALLY OCCUR... you claimed that there was "NO EVIDENCE" of a bullet ranging downward.

You lied... you thought I couldn't cite for my statement... and now you're too dishonest to retract your OBVIOUS lie.

Once again I school you on basic evidence... my guess is that you had no idea that the Parkland doctors originally believed that the bullet entering the throat ranged downward in the chest.

So tell us David, WHY ARE YOU REFUSING TO RETRACT AN OBVIOUS AND CLEAR LIE?

> > I'd like you to PUBLICLY RETRACT your lie that there's no evidence for the bullet ranging downward into JFK's chest.
>
> There is evidence that there was a dog in the limo.

Indeed there is. It's in Jean Hill's sworn testimony:

Mrs. HILL - Yes--I saw a dog in the car. They kept asking me, and I even gave that out on a radio or TV interview that I had seen a dog in the car.

Yet when Dr. Clark testifies to that same commission - YOU REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE IT AS EVIDENCE.

So what's the difference between Jean Hill testifying, and Dr. Clark testifying?

Did they swear a different oath?

Was it in a different venue?

Tell us David, people want to understand your lie.

> I remember in the Beltway Sniper case they were looking for a white van. Turned out the van had nothing to do with the murders, although indications existed in evidence.

Confusing facts with evidence.

YOU YOURSELF specified "evidence"...

Lied, didn't you?

> The autopsy trumps the assumptions of the doctors working on Kennedy. What was thought at the time becomes meaningless after the truth is determined.

The autopsy never dissected the path of the bullet. So the autopsy is *SILENT* on this issue.

The "conclusion" of a transiting bullet was never reached during the autopsy... as you well know... so you're lying again. The autopsy has nothing to do with your claim that there is "NO" evidence.

So your assertion right now is that sworn testimony is not "evidence". (even though you CITED Jean Hill's sworn testimony as "evidence.")

YOUR CLAIM IS THAT SWORN TESTIMONY IS *NOT* EVIDENCE.

You're a despicable liar, David. It's just that simple.


And I'll be putting this down in my notebook - for future reference.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:11:18 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:25:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> >
> > > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> > >
> > > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)
> >
> > So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?
> >
> > On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.
> >
> > On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."
> >
> > CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.
> >
> > But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" - so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:
> >
> > Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)
> >
> > Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)
> >
> > So who's lying, David?
> >
> > I'd like you to PUBLICLY RETRACT your lie that there's no evidence for the bullet ranging downward into JFK's chest.
> >
> > Of course, knowing how dishonest you are, this rebuttal and your retraction will never find it's way on to your many websites...
> >
> > And if you can't figure out how to spell my name, I'll have to simply start refusing to use your real name either... fair warning.
>
> Good boy, Benji. Keep pretending that early news reports and the speculation of the witnesses who only had partial information constitutes good firm "evidence".

You're lying again, Davy "The Molester" Pein.

I also cited testimony. Which you agreed was "evidence" in the Jean Hill example.

> And while you're at it, why not say that a Secret Service agent was killed on 11/22/63 too -- which would be just as true as all the "evidence" you have presented about a bullet "ranging downward" into JFK's chest).

Cite the testimony, then yes, that would be "evidence" as well.

> IOW, even after a false rumor has been corrected, why not keep propping it up as "evidence", even though you know damn well it is 100% wrong? You just did that with the "evidence" about a bullet "ranging downward into JFK's chest". So why not do it with the dead SS agent rumor too? Or the "LBJ had a heart attack" rumor as well?

Evidence is not "factual history" - it's "evidence".

You cannot cite a legal definition of "evidence" that does not state that sworn testimony - REGARDLESS OF IT'S ACCURACY OR TRUTHFULNESS - is evidence.

You got caught lying - you've been schooled on a basic fact in this case.

> You're pathetic, "Benji".

Does your neighborhood keep the children away from you, Davy 'Molester'?

[David Von Pein]

Ben doesn't even know he's talking to Bud here. What a pathetic character we've got here.

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 5:24:51 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:55:39 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:25:43 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > >
> > > > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> > > >
> > > > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)
> > >
> > > So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?
> > >
> > > On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.
> > >
> > > On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."
> > >
> > > CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.
> > >
> > > But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" -
> >
> > Of course not. They barely rise to the level of rumor.
>
>
> Which is why, of course, I added in sworn testimony to the Warren Commission. But you refuse even to accept sworn testimony as evidence.
>
> You can't even provide a legal citation to the term "evidence" - because you know full well that sworn testimony *IS* considered evidence.
>
>
> > > so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:
> > >
> > > Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)
> > >
> > > Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)
> > >
> > > So who's lying, David?
> >
> > Do you know the meaning of the word "might"? Raising a possibility is not evidence that that is what occurred.
>
>
> Do you know the meaning of "There is NO evidence..."
>
> You're now trying to change "evidence" into facts. But you didn't claim that it didn't FACTUALLY AND HISTORICALLY OCCUR... you claimed that there was "NO EVIDENCE" of a bullet ranging downward.
>
> You lied... you thought I couldn't cite for my statement... and now you're too dishonest to retract your OBVIOUS lie.
>
> Once again I school you on basic evidence... my guess is that you had no idea that the Parkland doctors originally believed that the bullet entering the throat ranged downward in the chest.
>
> So tell us David, WHY ARE YOU REFUSING TO RETRACT AN OBVIOUS AND CLEAR LIE?

Would you say that there is evidence that Kennedy was struck by an ice bullet just because someone raised this possibility?

>
>
> > > I'd like you to PUBLICLY RETRACT your lie that there's no evidence for the bullet ranging downward into JFK's chest.
> >
> > There is evidence that there was a dog in the limo.
>
> Indeed there is. It's in Jean Hill's sworn testimony:
>
> Mrs. HILL - Yes--I saw a dog in the car. They kept asking me, and I even gave that out on a radio or TV interview that I had seen a dog in the car.
>
> Yet when Dr. Clark testifies to that same commission - YOU REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE IT AS EVIDENCE.

Lets look at the definition of evidence and apply it to the information that Hill supplied...

evidence (noun) the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Does information retain its status as evidence when it is shown to be untrue or is invalidated?

> So what's the difference between Jean Hill testifying, and Dr. Clark testifying?

No difference, both were shown to be wrong by better information.

> Did they swear a different oath?
>
> Was it in a different venue?
>
> Tell us David, people want to understand your lie.
>
>
> > I remember in the Beltway Sniper case they were looking for a white van. Turned out the van had nothing to do with the murders, although indications existed in evidence.
>
>
> Confusing facts with evidence.

The evidence was nullified when better information became available.

> YOU YOURSELF specified "evidence"...
>
> Lied, didn't you?
>
>
> > The autopsy trumps the assumptions of the doctors working on Kennedy. What was thought at the time becomes meaningless after the truth is determined.
>
> The autopsy never dissected the path of the bullet. So the autopsy is *SILENT* on this issue.

Did the autopsy find evidence of a downranging frontal shot?

[David Von Pein]

And I can't wait to hear what Holmes' "evidence" is for the "pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm". Rumor perhaps? Innuendo? David Lifton's theory? Doesn't seem to matter to Holmes. Any half-baked speculation suffices as "evidence" in Holmes' CT fantasy world. Right, "Benjamin"?

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:

> The evidence was nullified when better information became available.

Nope.

No such thing as "evidence" being "nullified".

You cannot cite for such a thing.

Davy Molester has been caught lying... it's as simple as that.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:48:01 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> And I can't wait to hear what Holmes' "evidence" is for the "pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm". Rumor perhaps? Innuendo? David Lifton's theory? Doesn't seem to matter to Holmes. Any half-baked speculation suffices as "evidence" in Holmes' CT fantasy world. Right, "Benjamin"?

You've denied that sworn testimony is evidence.

You're a liar, Davy Molester...

[David Von Pein]

And somebody gave "sworn testimony" that they actually witnessed a "pre-autopsy autopsy", eh? Is that what you think, Benji?

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:23:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>
> > The evidence was nullified when better information became available.
>
> Nope.
>
> No such thing as "evidence" being "nullified".

How can it remain evidence if it is invalidated?

And would you say that a person walking through the woods who said they heard a noise they thought sounded like a bigfoot to be evidence of a bigfoot?

> You cannot cite for such a thing.
>
> Davy Molester has been caught lying... it's as simple as that.

Ben seems to be hitting the bottle.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:48:01 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> And I can't wait to hear what Holmes' "evidence" is for the "pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm". Rumor perhaps? Innuendo? David Lifton's theory? Doesn't seem to matter to Holmes. Any half-baked speculation suffices as "evidence" in Holmes' CT fantasy world. Right, "Benjamin"?

Someone who lies about sworn testimony not being evidence needs to cite for his lie, or retract it.

[Bud]

Ok, lets do it this way. This was your quote...

"Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."

*Exactly* how is this evidence for a downranging bullet? Is the witness taking the position there was one?

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut, Davy the Molester... now you're lying about what I've stated.

Feel free to quote me.

(You must feel terribly disappointed today... you've been proven to be a liar.)

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:36:22 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:23:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> >
> > > The evidence was nullified when better information became available.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > No such thing as "evidence" being "nullified".
>
> How can it remain evidence if it is invalidated?

Cite for your claim...

But you won't... you're lying and you *KNOW* you're lying.

How despicable!

[Ben Holmes]

Did the Parkland doctors believe that there was a downranging bullet?

Yes or no...

Was there sworn testimony to that effect?

Yes or no...

Does one of the definitions of "evidence" include "sworn testimony?"

Yes or no...


Are you a gutless yellow coward who will lie at the drop of the hat?

(No need to answer...)

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 7:08:46 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:56:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:51:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:48:01 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > And I can't wait to hear what Holmes' "evidence" is for the "pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm". Rumor perhaps? Innuendo? David Lifton's theory? Doesn't seem to matter to Holmes. Any half-baked speculation suffices as "evidence" in Holmes' CT fantasy world. Right, "Benjamin"?
> > >
> > > Someone who lies about sworn testimony not being evidence needs to cite for his lie, or retract it.
> >
> > Ok, lets do it this way. This was your quote...
> >
> > "Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."
> >
> > *Exactly* how is this evidence for a downranging bullet? Is the witness taking the position there was one?
>
> Did the Parkland doctors believe that there was a downranging bullet?

I haven`t seen testimony that they believed that.

> Yes or no...

Haven`t seen any. Got any?

> Was there sworn testimony to that effect?

There is no sworn evidence that Clark thought there was a downranging bullet. There is evidence that at one time they thought there *might* have been.

This speaks to what I said earlier when you challenged me to say that I believed the witnesses. I replied that I have a better understanding of what they say. When they use qualifiers like "about" or "might" they are expressing concepts that the conspiracy hobbyists tend to ignore.

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 7:06:13 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:36:22 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:23:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > >
> > > > The evidence was nullified when better information became available.
> > >
> > > Nope.
> > >
> > > No such thing as "evidence" being "nullified".
> >
> > How can it remain evidence if it is invalidated?
>
> Cite for your claim...

I did. I cited the definition of the word "evidence".

evidence (noun) 1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

A witnesses saying something "might" be true is not indicating whether the information is true or valid.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:22:31 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 7:08:46 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:56:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:51:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:48:01 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > And I can't wait to hear what Holmes' "evidence" is for the "pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm". Rumor perhaps? Innuendo? David Lifton's theory? Doesn't seem to matter to Holmes. Any half-baked speculation suffices as "evidence" in Holmes' CT fantasy world. Right, "Benjamin"?
> > > >
> > > > Someone who lies about sworn testimony not being evidence needs to cite for his lie, or retract it.
> > >
> > > Ok, lets do it this way. This was your quote...
> > >
> > > "Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."
> > >
> > > *Exactly* how is this evidence for a downranging bullet? Is the witness taking the position there was one?
> >
> > Did the Parkland doctors believe that there was a downranging bullet?
>
> I haven`t seen testimony that they believed that.

You're lying again, "Bud".

> > Yes or no...
>
> Haven`t seen any. Got any?

You're lying again, "Bud".

I both quoted AND cited the testimony.

> > Was there sworn testimony to that effect?
>
> There is no sworn evidence that Clark thought there was a downranging bullet. There is evidence that at one time they thought there *might* have been.

Once again, another lie...

> This speaks to what I said earlier when you challenged me to say that I believed the witnesses. I replied that I have a better understanding of what they say. When they use qualifiers like "about" or "might" they are expressing concepts that the conspiracy hobbyists tend to ignore.
>
> > Yes or no...

You're answer was a lie.

> > Does one of the definitions of "evidence" include "sworn testimony?"
> >
> > Yes or no...

No answer...

> > Are you a gutless yellow coward who will lie at the drop of the hat?
> >
> > (No need to answer...)

No need to answer because you prove yourself a gutless coward who will lie at the drop of a hat every day.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:26:32 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 7:06:13 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:36:22 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:23:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The evidence was nullified when better information became available.
> > > >
> > > > Nope.
> > > >
> > > > No such thing as "evidence" being "nullified".
> > >
> > > How can it remain evidence if it is invalidated?
> >
> > Cite for your claim...
>
> I did. I cited the definition of the word "evidence".
>
> evidence (noun) 1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

You're lying again, "Bud."

> A witnesses saying something "might" be true is not indicating whether the information is true or valid.

Not applicable.

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 8:01:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:22:31 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 7:08:46 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:56:41 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:51:16 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:48:01 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > And I can't wait to hear what Holmes' "evidence" is for the "pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm". Rumor perhaps? Innuendo? David Lifton's theory? Doesn't seem to matter to Holmes. Any half-baked speculation suffices as "evidence" in Holmes' CT fantasy world. Right, "Benjamin"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Someone who lies about sworn testimony not being evidence needs to cite for his lie, or retract it.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, lets do it this way. This was your quote...
> > > >
> > > > "Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."
> > > >
> > > > *Exactly* how is this evidence for a downranging bullet? Is the witness taking the position there was one?
> > >
> > > Did the Parkland doctors believe that there was a downranging bullet?
> >
> > I haven`t seen testimony that they believed that.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud".
>
>
> > > Yes or no...
> >
> > Haven`t seen any. Got any?
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud".
>
> I both quoted AND cited the testimony.

You have quoted no witness saying they thought there was a downranging bullet. That is jsu a fact. You quoted a witness saying ths...

"Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."

This is *not* a witness attesting to a downranging bullet. Anyone who know the definition of the word "might" knows why this is true.

> > > Was there sworn testimony to that effect?
> >
> > There is no sworn evidence that Clark thought there was a downranging bullet. There is evidence that at one time they thought there *might* have been.
>
> Once again, another lie...
>
>
> > This speaks to what I said earlier when you challenged me to say that I believed the witnesses. I replied that I have a better understanding of what they say. When they use qualifiers like "about" or "might" they are expressing concepts that the conspiracy hobbyists tend to ignore.
> >
> > > Yes or no...
>
> You're answer was a lie.
>
> > > Does one of the definitions of "evidence" include "sworn testimony?"
> > >
> > > Yes or no...
>
>
> No answer...
>
>
> > > Are you a gutless yellow coward who will lie at the drop of the hat?
> > >
> > > (No need to answer...)
>
> No need to answer because you prove yourself a gutless coward who will lie at the drop of a hat every day.

Then prove me wrong. What concept was Dr Clark expressing when he used the word "might"?

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:26:32 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 7:06:13 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:36:22 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:23:04 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:40:43 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The evidence was nullified when better information became available.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope.
> > > > >
> > > > > No such thing as "evidence" being "nullified".
> > > >
> > > > How can it remain evidence if it is invalidated?
> > >
> > > Cite for your claim...
> >
> > I did. I cited the definition of the word "evidence".
> >
> > evidence (noun) 1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

Now dictionaries are lying.

> > A witnesses saying something "might" be true is not indicating whether the information is true or valid.
>
>
> Not applicable.

<snicker> You quote a witness but the words he uses don`t apply?

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> At Ben Holmes' forum, we find....
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID [at a different forum]:
>
> What caused the bullet hole in JFK's throat then? And where did that bullet go? And why wasn't it in JFK's body at autopsy?
>
>
> BEN HOLMES THEN SAID [at his own forum]:
>
> The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought...an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest.
>
> It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm.
>
> [...]
>
> This is why [DVP] is too much the coward to post here [at Ben's deserted forum]... he knows that there's absolutely NOTHING he can post that I can't answer in a reasonable, credible way, AND SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
>
> Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:
>
> Ben thinks that this statement....

>
> >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
>
> ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)
>

> And, incredibly, Ben also seems to think this statement too is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE"....
>
> >>> "It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm." <<<
>
> This one's even more hysterical than the first part about Ben's nonexistent bullet that "ranged downward" into Kennedy's body. Benji has now invented a *second* autopsy from whole cloth and pure speculation (and more desperation). And he's also invented (from whole cloth, of course) a scenario which has some conspirator digging a whole bullet out of JFK's chest/throat. And that, too, per Delusional Benji, is supposedly "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in the JFK case as well. (Can it get much funnier than this?)
>
> Of course, it wasn't Ben's idea to invent the "pre-autopsy autopsy" nonsense. That idea was hatched by David Lifton in the late 1960s for Lifton's book "Best Evidence" [http://best-evidence.blogspot.com]. Ben has merely latched on to Lifton's (and also super-kook Douglas Horne's) coattails and has decided to declare as a FACT the notion that JFK's wounds were altered at some kind of covert "pre-autopsy autopsy" on 11/22/63.
>
> Now THAT'S desperation with a great big capital D, folks.
>
> I've got a good idea for a new Internet series. The title: "Refuting A Kook Named Holmes". I'll start it off with a whole bunch of stuff here....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ben+Holmes


To wrap up this thread, Davy Von Molester has been schooled by the facts in this case... Parkland doctors did indeed believe that a bullet entered the throat, and ranged downward into JFK's chest... exactly as I both stated and now cited/quoted for.

Both "Bud" and David Von Molester are now on record as asserting that sworn testimony isn't evidence.

Neither has been able to cite that sworn testimony isn't legally considered to be evidence - they've simply made up their own definitions on the fly.

And neither have retracted the lies told in this thread...

Quite embarrassing for believers ... they just don't understand honesty.

[Bud]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:48:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > At Ben Holmes' forum, we find....
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID [at a different forum]:
> >
> > What caused the bullet hole in JFK's throat then? And where did that bullet go? And why wasn't it in JFK's body at autopsy?
> >
> >
> > BEN HOLMES THEN SAID [at his own forum]:
> >
> > The wound in JFK's throat was exactly what the doctors who saw it originally thought...an entry wound. That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest.
> >
> > It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > This is why [DVP] is too much the coward to post here [at Ben's deserted forum]... he knows that there's absolutely NOTHING he can post that I can't answer in a reasonable, credible way, AND SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
> >
> > Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:
> >
> > Ben thinks that this statement....
> >
> > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> >
> > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)
> >
> > And, incredibly, Ben also seems to think this statement too is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE"....
> >
> > >>> "It wasn't in JFK's body at the autopsy because it was pulled out in the pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm." <<<
> >
> > This one's even more hysterical than the first part about Ben's nonexistent bullet that "ranged downward" into Kennedy's body. Benji has now invented a *second* autopsy from whole cloth and pure speculation (and more desperation). And he's also invented (from whole cloth, of course) a scenario which has some conspirator digging a whole bullet out of JFK's chest/throat. And that, too, per Delusional Benji, is supposedly "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in the JFK case as well. (Can it get much funnier than this?)
> >
> > Of course, it wasn't Ben's idea to invent the "pre-autopsy autopsy" nonsense. That idea was hatched by David Lifton in the late 1960s for Lifton's book "Best Evidence" [http://best-evidence.blogspot.com]. Ben has merely latched on to Lifton's (and also super-kook Douglas Horne's) coattails and has decided to declare as a FACT the notion that JFK's wounds were altered at some kind of covert "pre-autopsy autopsy" on 11/22/63.
> >
> > Now THAT'S desperation with a great big capital D, folks.
> >
> > I've got a good idea for a new Internet series. The title: "Refuting A Kook Named Holmes". I'll start it off with a whole bunch of stuff here....
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Ben+Holmes
>
>
> To wrap up this thread, Davy Von Molester has been schooled by the facts in this case... Parkland doctors did indeed believe that a bullet entered the throat, and ranged downward into JFK's chest... exactly as I both stated and now cited/quoted for.

Someone with no understanding of the English language might think that. A retard might not be to make the distinction between believing something occurred and thinking the possibility of something that *might* have occurred.

> Both "Bud" and David Von Molester are now on record as asserting that sworn testimony isn't evidence.

It evidence. In this case it is evidence of conjecture. The doctors did not take the position that a bullet ranged down into Kennedy`s chest. Therefore this cannot be evidence of a bullet ranging down into Kennedy`s chest.

Dr Clark said this...

"Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."

This can`t be evidence of a downranging bullet unless Dr Clark takes the *position* that there was a downranging bullet. He clearly does not do that.

> Neither has been able to cite that sworn testimony isn't legally considered to be evidence - they've simply made up their own definitions on the fly.

I used dictionary definitions.

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut... you're lying again, "Bud".

It's a FACT that the Parkland doctors stated that they based their treatment of JFK on their belief that the bullet had ranged downward.

THAT'S A FACT.

It's in the evidence.

And only a moron would attempt to assert that sworn testimony is not evidence.

You cannot cite for your position - as I have for mine.

You lost.

> > Both "Bud" and David Von Molester are now on record as asserting that sworn testimony isn't evidence.
>
> It evidence.

Case closed.

Davy Von Molester stated that it is, and that it is not. You two kooks need to start talking to each other and decide what you believe.

You'll have to point out that *HE* is lying...

[Bud]

They expressed no such belief. They thought there was a possibility that it might have ranged downward. They did not take the position that it had.

> THAT'S A FACT.

Words have meanings. Look up the meaning of the word "might".

> It's in the evidence.
>
> And only a moron would attempt to assert that sworn testimony is not evidence.

Testimony is evidence. It just wasn`t evidence of what you claimed it was evidence of. Doctors looking into possibilities is not support for the idea that a bullet ranged downward into Kennedy`s chest.

> You cannot cite for your position - as I have for mine.

I`ve explained what the quote you cited means to you several times. You are afraid to say what the word "might" means in the passage you quoted...

"Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."

> You lost.
>
>
>
> > > Both "Bud" and David Von Molester are now on record as asserting that sworn testimony isn't evidence.
> >
> > It evidence.
>
>
> Case closed.
>
> Davy Von Molester stated that it is, and that it is not. You two kooks need to start talking to each other and decide what you believe.

It is evidence. It isn`t evidence of the existence of bigfoot, and it isn`t evidence of a downranging frontal shot to Kennedy`s body.

> You'll have to point out that *HE* is lying...

I`ve made two separate points, and that seems to have confused you. If I really wanted to muddy the waters I would point out that under the legal of evidence that any speculation about a downranging bullet would be inadmissible in a court of law, since...

"To be admissible, testimony must be limited to matters of which the witness has personal knowledge..."

The doctors had no knowledge of a downranging bullet.

[Ben Holmes]

It's a FACT that this was mentioned in testimony.

It's a FACT that Davy Von Molester asserted that there was NO evidence for a downranging bullet.

> > It's in the evidence.
> >
> > And only a moron would attempt to assert that sworn testimony is not evidence.
>
> Testimony is evidence.

You're lying again, "Bud".

Davy Von Molester stated that there was NO evidence.

You lost!

[Bud]

You haven`t produced any evidence of a downranging shot. You produced testimony of a doctor speculating about the possibility.


> You lost!

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, "Bud"


> > You lost!

[Bud]

I`ll let the readers decide, the probably know the meaning of the word "might"...

"Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."

A person could say "There might be a 10th planet (above and beyond Pluto) circling our Sun.", that wouldn`t mean they believed it.

>
> > > You lost!

[Ben Holmes]

You're lying again, "Bud"...

[Bud]

It might seem that way to a retard who didn`t know what the word "might" means.

[Ben Holmes]

So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?

On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.

On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."

CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.

But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" - so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:

Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)

Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)

There is indeed testimony (also known as *EVIDENCE*) that a bullet ranged downward in JFK's chest.

Believers can dispute this til the cows come home, but it's still true.

And a good illustration of the basic dishonesty of believers...

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:33:47 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:24:57 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:39:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> > > You're lying again, "Bud"...
> >
> > It might seem that way to a retard who didn`t know what the word "might" means.
>
> So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?
>
> On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.

I think this would be news to Clark. He testified that he looked at the President`s pupils and examined the head wound. Other doctors were working on other areas.

> On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."

This seems to be something he picked up from Perry. He testified to the WC...

"Dr. CLARK - As I recall, Dr. Perry stated that there was a small wound h the President's throat, that he made the incision for the tracheotomy through this wound. He discovered that the trachea was deviated so he felt that the missile had entered the President's chest."

Perry told the WC...

"Dr. PERRY - No, sir. I was unable to determine that since I did not ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile."

> CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.

Seems a rumor going around.

> But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" - so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:
>
> Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)
>
> Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)

The key word is "might". Facts are facts and possibilities are possibilities. A expressed possibility can only be evidence of an expressed possibility.

> There is indeed testimony (also known as *EVIDENCE*) that a bullet ranged downward in JFK's chest.
>
> Believers can dispute this til the cows come home, but it's still true.
>
> And a good illustration of the basic dishonesty of believers...

You need to explain the word "might" in the passage you quoted. Until you show you understand what was said you can`t claim that others are being dishonest about it.

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

Dr. CLARK - The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube . I then examined the President briefly.
My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation.
I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.

[Ben Holmes]

Nothing you quoted was a defense for your lie.

[Bud]

It covers what I said.

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:51:16 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 2:48:01 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > And I can't wait to hear what Holmes' "evidence" is for the "pre-autopsy autopsy that took place between 6:40 and 8:00pm". Rumor perhaps? Innuendo? David Lifton's theory? Doesn't seem to matter to Holmes. Any half-baked speculation suffices as "evidence" in Holmes' CT fantasy world. Right, "Benjamin"?
>
> Someone who lies about sworn testimony not being evidence needs to cite for his lie, or retract it.

I find it truly amusing that Davy Von Molester has apparently left the building.

Not a new phenomena - he's been putting on his disappeared act for several years now at any place where he might have to respond to me.

Knowledgeable critics have no fear of believers - yet the reverse is not true... believers fear and run away from knowledgeable critics.

Ad hominem attacks, changing the topic, simple refusal to answer, and outright lying are the favored weapons employed by believers.

The truth is all critics need.

And despite the wacky claims by believers, sworn testimony has ALWAYS been considered "evidence."

[Ben Holmes]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 10:14:48 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> >
> > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying, because such a desperate theory put forth by Benji is most certainly NOT supported by the "evidence" in this case at all. There is NO evidence that any bullet "ranged downward toward JFK's chest". None. Ben is engaging in nothing but blatant speculation and wishful thinking, and nothing more. (As per usual.)
>

> So you're calling Kemp Clark, one of the doctors in attendance, a liar?
>
> On the 27th of November, the New York Times reported "Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one bullet struck him at about the necktie knot, "It ranged downward in his chest and did not exit" the surgeon said.
>

> On that same day the New York Herald Tribune stated: "on the basis of accumulated data, investigators have concluded that the first shot fired as the Presidential car was approaching, struck the President in the neck, just above the knot of his necktie, then ranged downward into his body."
>

> CBS, NBC, the BBC, and L'Express quoted Dr. Clark as saying that the bullet had entered Kennedy's neck from in front and entered the chest.
>

> But perhaps all of these don't strike you as "evidence" - so let's look at what is PROVABLY evidence - sworn testimony:
>
> Dr. Clark: Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest. For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed. (6H28)
>
> Dr. Clark: ... It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest. (6H28)
>

> So who's lying, David?
>
> I'd like you to PUBLICLY RETRACT your lie that there's no evidence for the bullet ranging downward into JFK's chest.
>
> Of course, knowing how dishonest you are, this rebuttal and your retraction will never find it's way on to your many websites...
>
> And if you can't figure out how to spell my name, I'll have to simply start refusing to use your real name either... fair warning.

A warning that Davy Von Molester failed to heed.

Still no retraction for Davy's lie.

[Bud]

<snicker> Why is Ben now resorting to pontificating? Anyone who has seen him try to argue ideas knows the answer to that.

[Ben Holmes]

> DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
>
> Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:
>
> Ben thinks that this statement....
>

> >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
>

> ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying...

Notice that even when I provide both quotes & cites to the evidence for a bullet that "ranged downward" - Davy Von Molester refuses to retract his lie.

He's been schooled on the evidence in this case time and time again by myself, yet NEVER retracts his incorrect assertions.

This explains why he's quite nervous about responding to my series refuting Vincent Bugliosi... you see, *I'VE* read Reclaiming History too... and I know the actual evidence.

Knowledgeable critics frighten knowledgeable believers... there's no other explanation for their cowardice.

Nor will any other *credible* explanation be forthcoming.

[Bud]

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:03:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
> >
> > Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:
> >
> > Ben thinks that this statement....
> >
> > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> >
> > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying...
>
> Notice that even when I provide both quotes & cites to the evidence for a bullet that "ranged downward" - Davy Von Molester refuses to retract his lie.

You are too stupid to realize that the doctors only thought at one time that the bullet *might( have ranged downward. This is not evidence that one did.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:06:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:03:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
> > >
> > > Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:
> > >
> > > Ben thinks that this statement....
> > >
> > > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> > >
> > > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying...
> >
> > Notice that even when I provide both quotes & cites to the evidence for a bullet that "ranged downward" - Davy Von Molester refuses to retract his lie.
>
> You are too stupid to realize that the doctors only thought at one time that the bullet *might( have ranged downward. This is not evidence that one did.

This is evidence that a bullet could have "ranged downward" - the very evidence that Davy Von Molester asserted didn't exist.

Davy pretended that I'd just invented this possibility out of whole cloth, with nothing as a foundation for it.

You're doing the same thing - despite KNOWING THE FACTS TO BE OTHERWISE.

Both of you are despicable liars.

> > He's been schooled on the evidence in this case time and time again by myself, yet NEVER retracts his incorrect assertions.
> >
> > This explains why he's quite nervous about responding to my series refuting Vincent Bugliosi... you see, *I'VE* read Reclaiming History too... and I know the actual evidence.
> >
> > Knowledgeable critics frighten knowledgeable believers... there's no other explanation for their cowardice.
> >
> > Nor will any other *credible* explanation be forthcoming.

Yep... my crystal ball was right yet again...

[Bud]

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:47:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:06:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:03:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
> > > >
> > > > Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:
> > > >
> > > > Ben thinks that this statement....
> > > >
> > > > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> > > >
> > > > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying...
> > >
> > > Notice that even when I provide both quotes & cites to the evidence for a bullet that "ranged downward" - Davy Von Molester refuses to retract his lie.
> >
> > You are too stupid to realize that the doctors only thought at one time that the bullet *might( have ranged downward. This is not evidence that one did.
>
>
> This is evidence that a bullet could have "ranged downward" -

Wrong, stupid. Clark`s testimony is evidence that at one time they thought a bullet *might* have ranged downward.

> the very evidence that Davy Von Molester asserted didn't exist.
>
> Davy pretended that I'd just invented this possibility out of whole cloth, with nothing as a foundation for it.

Thats the sound of the goalposts being moved. The assertion by you that DVP contested was this...

"That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest."

Not possibly. You stated that it had.

> You're doing the same thing - despite KNOWING THE FACTS TO BE OTHERWISE.

I understand what the word "might" means. If you did you would understand why you are wrong.

I`ll give this analogy again...

You hear a noise in a closet. You think the noise *might* indicate that someone is in the closet. You open the closet door and see that there is not anyone in the closet. Is the noise evidence of someone in the closet? No, it never was evidence of someone in the closet, the only thing it ever was was an indication of the *possibility* that there was someone in the closet.

> Both of you are despicable liars.
>
>
> > > He's been schooled on the evidence in this case time and time again by myself, yet NEVER retracts his incorrect assertions.
> > >
> > > This explains why he's quite nervous about responding to my series refuting Vincent Bugliosi... you see, *I'VE* read Reclaiming History too... and I know the actual evidence.
> > >
> > > Knowledgeable critics frighten knowledgeable believers... there's no other explanation for their cowardice.
> > >
> > > Nor will any other *credible* explanation be forthcoming.
>
> Yep... my crystal ball was right yet again...

Shifting the burden again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 1:42:11 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:47:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:06:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:03:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
> > > > >
> > > > > Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ben thinks that this statement....
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> > > > >
> > > > > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying...
> > > >
> > > > Notice that even when I provide both quotes & cites to the evidence for a bullet that "ranged downward" - Davy Von Molester refuses to retract his lie.
> > >
> > > You are too stupid to realize that the doctors only thought at one time that the bullet *might( have ranged downward. This is not evidence that one did.
> >
> >
> > This is evidence that a bullet could have "ranged downward" -
>
> Wrong, stupid. Clark`s testimony is evidence that at one time they thought a bullet *might* have ranged downward.

Tut tut tut... you're still getting confused.

There's a difference between historical FACT and "evidence".

You and Davy keep trying to change the topic to historical FACT, and claim that no bullet ranged downward.

That's a completely separate argument.

YOU ADMIT IN VIRTUALLY EVERY POST THAT THERE WAS SWORN TESTIMONY ABOUT A BULLET RANGING DOWNWARD... DAVY LIED AND CLAIMED THAT NO SUCH SWORN TESTIMONY EXISTED.

Both of you are lying.

You lost again!

[Bud]

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:57:55 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 1:42:11 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:47:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:06:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:03:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ben thinks that this statement....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying...
> > > > >
> > > > > Notice that even when I provide both quotes & cites to the evidence for a bullet that "ranged downward" - Davy Von Molester refuses to retract his lie.
> > > >
> > > > You are too stupid to realize that the doctors only thought at one time that the bullet *might( have ranged downward. This is not evidence that one did.
> > >
> > >
> > > This is evidence that a bullet could have "ranged downward" -
> >
> > Wrong, stupid. Clark`s testimony is evidence that at one time they thought a bullet *might* have ranged downward.
>
> Tut tut tut... you're still getting confused.
>
> There's a difference between historical FACT and "evidence".
>
> You and Davy keep trying to change the topic to historical FACT, and claim that no bullet ranged downward.
>
> That's a completely separate argument.

You are trying to prop up a strawman. The issue is what Clark *actually* said. It isn`t about what was found out later, the thinking of the doctors *at the time* thought it a *possibility*. So what Clark offered was only evidence of the *possibility* of a downranging bullet, not the reality of one.

> YOU ADMIT IN VIRTUALLY EVERY POST THAT THERE WAS SWORN TESTIMONY ABOUT A BULLET RANGING DOWNWARD... DAVY LIED AND CLAIMED THAT NO SUCH SWORN TESTIMONY EXISTED.

There is testimony that a one time they thought there *might* have been a bullet that ranged downward. That is not evidence that one did.

[Ben Holmes]

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:15:34 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 4:57:55 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 1:42:11 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:47:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:06:56 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 11:03:20 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please note the multiple lies uttered by Ben Holmes above:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ben thinks that this statement....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> "That bullet ranged downward toward JFK's chest." <<<
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...is "SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE" in this case. Of course Ben is lying...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Notice that even when I provide both quotes & cites to the evidence for a bullet that "ranged downward" - Davy Von Molester refuses to retract his lie.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are too stupid to realize that the doctors only thought at one time that the bullet *might( have ranged downward. This is not evidence that one did.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is evidence that a bullet could have "ranged downward" -
> > >
> > > Wrong, stupid. Clark`s testimony is evidence that at one time they thought a bullet *might* have ranged downward.
> >
> > Tut tut tut... you're still getting confused.
> >
> > There's a difference between historical FACT and "evidence".
> >
> > You and Davy keep trying to change the topic to historical FACT, and claim that no bullet ranged downward.
> >
> > That's a completely separate argument.
>
> You are trying to prop up a strawman.

You're lying again, "Bud."

It's a FACT that I'm speaking of evidence, and you're trying to twist it into historical facts.

The moment you use the word "might" or "possibility" - you're demonstrating it.

It's a FACT that there's evidence for a down ranging bullet. It's in the testimony... always HAS been in the testimony - and both you and Davy are ignorant liars constantly being schooled by me on the evidence.

[Bud]

Unfortunately you are stuck with the words the witness used. Here they are again...

"It was the assumption, based on the previously described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have entered the President's chest."

This is *not* evidence of a downranging bullet. This is clearly evidence that at the time they thought it was possible a bullet had ranged downward.

Looking at the legal definition of evidence...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence

"To be admissible, testimony must be limited to matters of which the witness has personal knowledge, meaning matters that the witness learned about using any of his or her senses."

Clark would be allowed to attest to what he knew, that at the time they thought there might have been a bullet that ranged downward. Since he had no knowledge of a downranging bullet he could not attest to one. If the witnesses can`t attest to one then there is no evidence of one.

[Ben Holmes]

Define "evidence".

But my crystal ball tells me you'll evade again...

[Bud]

<snicker> The retard snips out the link where I gave the legal definition of evidence and then challenges me to give the definition for "evidence".

[Ben Holmes]

Yes it is.

> This is clearly evidence that at the time they thought it was possible a bullet had ranged downward.

There's that word "possible" again.

You lost!

> Looking at the legal definition of evidence...
>
> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
>
> "To be admissible, testimony must be limited to matters of which the witness has personal knowledge, meaning matters that the witness learned about using any of his or her senses."

I find it amusing that you clearly aren't even smart enough to be citing the relevant section - which is the section on EXPERT WITNESSES.

The doctor's testimony would be fully admissible, and was sworn testimony, which is one of the definitions of "evidence".

> Clark would be allowed to attest to what he knew, that at the time they thought there might have been a bullet that ranged downward.

You're lying again, "Bud." Go back to YOUR OWN CITE, and read the section on Expert Witnesses.

> Since he had no knowledge of a downranging bullet he could not attest to one. If the witnesses can`t attest to one then there is no evidence of one.

You're lying again, "Bud."

From your own citation:
"Courts do not require experts to have firsthand knowledge of facts, data, or opinions because experts in the field do not always rely on such firsthand knowledge. For instance, physicians routinely make diagnoses based on information from several sources, such as hospital records, X-ray reports, and opinions from other physicians."

> > It's a FACT that there's evidence for a down ranging bullet. It's in the testimony... always HAS been in the testimony - and both you and Davy are ignorant liars constantly being schooled by me on the evidence.

Still an absolutely accurate assessment.

Davy implied that I'd made up the "downranging bullet" out of my own imagination, yet I've proven such a claim not to be true.

WHERE DID THE IDEA OF A DOWNRANGING BULLET COME FROM, "BUD?"

[Bud]

You go the doctor because you have a headache. There can be thousands of causes, from a brain tumor to a hangover. If he listed all the possibilities do you think that would be evidence of each one?

> You lost!
>
>
> > Looking at the legal definition of evidence...
> >
> > http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
> >
> > "To be admissible, testimony must be limited to matters of which the witness has personal knowledge, meaning matters that the witness learned about using any of his or her senses."
>
>
> I find it amusing that you clearly aren't even smart enough to be citing the relevant section - which is the section on EXPERT WITNESSES.

I quoted from the right section. Clark was a witness to what he observed. Expert witnesses are called in to review evidence, not testify about their own experience in relation to the case. Guys like Michael Baden are expert witnesses.

> The doctor's testimony would be fully admissible,

Empty claim. I don`t see why a judge wouldn`t rule against allowing into evidence speculation about a downranging bullet. Clark had no knowledge of such a thing to impart.

> and was sworn testimony, which is one of the definitions of "evidence".
>
>
> > Clark would be allowed to attest to what he knew, that at the time they thought there might have been a bullet that ranged downward.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud." Go back to YOUR OWN CITE, and read the section on Expert Witnesses.

Quote something from there and use it to form an argument.

>
> > Since he had no knowledge of a downranging bullet he could not attest to one. If the witnesses can`t attest to one then there is no evidence of one.
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."
>
> From your own citation:
> "Courts do not require experts to have firsthand knowledge of facts, data, or opinions because experts in the field do not always rely on such firsthand knowledge. For instance, physicians routinely make diagnoses based on information from several sources, such as hospital records, X-ray reports, and opinions from other physicians."

I *think* they are talking about experts who are called in to review evidence in a case and to testify about the evidence as an expert.

Without 8 years of law school, I expect there is a difference between a expert witness and a witness to an event who has expertise in a relevant field.

I see at the bottom it has this...

"The American Medical Association maintains guidelines for physicians who testify both as treating physician experts and as nontreating expert witnesses. Many state medical associations also have guidelines for doctors who testify."

Apparently they do differentiate between the two.

> > > It's a FACT that there's evidence for a down ranging bullet. It's in the testimony... always HAS been in the testimony - and both you and Davy are ignorant liars constantly being schooled by me on the evidence.
>
> Still an absolutely accurate assessment.
>
> Davy implied that I'd made up the "downranging bullet" out of my own imagination, yet I've proven such a claim not to be true.
>
> WHERE DID THE IDEA OF A DOWNRANGING BULLET COME FROM, "BUD?"

The is speculation about such a thing in evidence. There is no evidence for such a thing in evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

[Jason Burke]

Okay. It's now been determined without a doubt that Bennie is truly
retarded.
Where do we go from here?

[Ben Holmes]

When you use the word "possible" or "maybe" or "might", or any similar descriptive terminology, you've left the field of sworn testimony.

> > You lost!
> >
> >
> > > Looking at the legal definition of evidence...
> > >
> > > http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
> > >
> > > "To be admissible, testimony must be limited to matters of which the witness has personal knowledge, meaning matters that the witness learned about using any of his or her senses."
> >
> >
> > I find it amusing that you clearly aren't even smart enough to be citing the relevant section - which is the section on EXPERT WITNESSES.
>

> I quoted from the right section. Clark was a witness...

Clark was an EXPERT witness.

His "opinion" was fully admissible in any court in the land.

It *IS* evidence.

Lied, didn't you?

[Bud]

What judge ruled that?

> His "opinion" was fully admissible in any court in the land.

What judge ruled that?

> It *IS* evidence.

What judge ruled that?

> Lied, didn't you?

I`m actually uncertain on this. Reading the definition of "Expert Witness" didn`t help.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Expert+witnesses

Passages like this support my contention that they are talking about "hired guns" type witnesses unconnected to the case...

"Experts are usually paid handsomely for their services and may be asked by the opposition the amount they are receiving for their work on the case."

Other parts seem to speak against. Still think it is likely that there is a difference between an expert giving first hand testimony about his experiences and an expert witness, who is called in to apply his expertise to the evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

No ruling needed.

What a kook!