Smoke rising above trees in front of the TSBD?

[donald willis]

Did any witness besides Nolan Potter say that he/she saw smoke above the trees in front of the depository?? And if his observation is true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the building??

dcw (and a tip of the hat to Bud!)

[lazu...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:31:45 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:
> Did any witness besides Nolan Potter say that he/she saw smoke above the trees in front of the depository?? And if his observation is true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the building??
>
> dcw (and a tip of the hat to Bud!)

I never heard that.Could you post testimony.

[Ben Holmes]

From a quick look at Google:

From "JFK: The Smoking Gun": Signal Supervisor Holland saw a puff of
smoke ... Newspaper reporter Ed Johnson saw a puff of smoke, as did
bystanders Austin Miller, Royce Skelton, Clemen Johnson, Nolan Potter,
James Simmons, Walter Winborn, Thomas Murphy, Patsy Paschall, and
Richard Dodd.

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=pGrLkMYjn8cC&pg=PT126&lpg=PT126&dq=jfk+nolan+potter&source=bl&ots=je5YM78btE&sig=ylgBWsXtGei7CXwxXpUDZJ39NeU&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=jfk%20nolan%20potter&f=false

Nolan Potter is downright *HATED* by believers...

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:31:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> Did any witness besides Nolan Potter say that he/she saw smoke above the trees in front of the depository?? And if his observation is true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the building??
>
> dcw (and a tip of the hat to Bud!)

Why do you equate smoke with gunsmoke? Didn`t Baker drive his motorcycle under those trees?

[Bud]

I`m not fond of idiots, lurkers, and Ben insists on being one.

Here is the Potter FBI report...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce1418.htm

Clues everywhere for the clueless hobbyists!

[lazu...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:31:45 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:

> Did any witness besides Nolan Potter say that he/she saw smoke above the trees in front of the depository?? And if his observation is true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the building??
>
> dcw (and a tip of the hat to Bud!)

Thanks. I didn't recognize the Potter name. Overwhelming evidence of gunsmoke in the vicinity of the Grassy Knoll.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Your overwhelming evidence has a flaw.

From the report: "POTTER said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building rising above the trees."

"In front of the Texas School Book Depository Building..."

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 07:28:10 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com

You're a moron, aren't you Steve?

You've never bothered to do the research... well, fellow believer
Henry Sienzant did... here's the vantage point of Nolan Potter:

http://simfootball.net/JFK/NPotter.jpg

Now, are you honest enough to assert that smoke seen THAT CAME FROM
THE GRASSY KNOLL would be viewed by Potter as he stated?

Let's look at what the HSCA staff concluded:

(136) Neither Simmons nor Potter testified before the Warren
Commission.
(137) Based on the statements of these witnesses, if the smoke they
reported was in fact the result of gunfire, it would have originated
in the area of the top of the grassy knoll.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pdf/HSCA_Vol12_DealeyPlaza.pdf

Of course, you're not an honest man, so you'll NEVER acknowledge your
ignorance here.

It's for reasons such as *this* post that you're TERRIFIED of
debating... you lose every time.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Potter is being cited by the conspiracists not me. He's *your* source not mine.

If he's not credible then it's your problem. I'm not the one using him.

The conspiracy fanatics are so blinded by their zealotry that they can't keep their stories straight.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The conspiracy advocates cite Potter (above) approvingly as supporting their view that smoke was scene from the GK. He was considered above as a good source.

In fact, they say this: "Nolan Potter is downright *HATED* by believers.."

Then when it's shown that Potter says he saw smoke from the TSBD and NOT the GK they attack Potter as not being credible.

Even though they cited him above to support their view. He's their source not the lone assassin crowd's source.

This is a classic, textbook example of the illogic and incoherence of the conspiracy crowd. They contradict themselves with their own arguments.

[Ben Holmes]

>On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:17:45 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 07:28:10 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com

>>You're a moron, aren't you Steve?

Steve didn't want to answer, so he simply snipped the entire post.

>>You've never bothered to do the research... well, fellow believer
>>Henry Sienzant did... here's the vantage point of Nolan Potter:
>>
>>http://simfootball.net/JFK/NPotter.jpg
>>
>>Now, are you honest enough to assert that smoke seen THAT CAME FROM
>>THE GRASSY KNOLL would be viewed by Potter as he stated?

Nope... Steve isn't.

He's a gutless coward who cannot accept the fact that he's wrong.

>>Let's look at what the HSCA staff concluded:
>>
>>(136) Neither Simmons nor Potter testified before the Warren
>>Commission.
>>(137) Based on the statements of these witnesses, if the smoke they
>>reported was in fact the result of gunfire, it would have originated
>>in the area of the top of the grassy knoll.
>>https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pdf/HSCA_Vol12_DealeyPlaza.pdf
>>
>>Of course, you're not an honest man, so you'll NEVER acknowledge your
>>ignorance here.

Did I predict it or what?!!!!

Cowards always run, that's what cowards do.

>>It's for reasons such as *this* post that you're TERRIFIED of
>>debating... you lose every time.

You snipped *ALL* of the above, refusing to answer... so I added it
back in so everyone can see your cowardice & lies.

> Potter is being cited by the conspiracists not me. He's *your*
> source not mine.

He *IS* your source. You lied about what he stated... why is that
Steve?

Suddenly you don't like Nolan Potter?

Just because you found out the truth?

Always happy to school you Steve...

> If he's not credible then it's your problem. I'm not the one using
> him.

Who said he's not credible??? WHY ARE YOU LYING, STEVE???

**YOU** are the one trying to backtrack on him as a witness right
now... why is that Steve?

> The conspiracy fanatics are so blinded by their zealotry that they
> can't keep their stories straight.

And you're a liar.

You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to document what you just claimed.

Why the fear, Steve?

Why the lies?

[lazu...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:31:45 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:

> Did any witness besides Nolan Potter say that he/she saw smoke above the trees in front of the depository?? And if his observation is true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the building??
>
> dcw (and a tip of the hat to Bud!)

Steve knock off the lone nut horseshit! It is beyond tiresome. If someone is not open to conspiracy. They have no conscience. If someone accepts the Magic Bullet Theory...they will accept anything.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:26:10 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com

wrote:


>On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:17:45 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 07:28:10 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com

>>You're a moron, aren't you Steve?


Steve didn't want to answer, so he simply snipped the entire post.


>>You've never bothered to do the research... well, fellow believer
>>Henry Sienzant did... here's the vantage point of Nolan Potter:
>>
>>http://simfootball.net/JFK/NPotter.jpg
>>
>>Now, are you honest enough to assert that smoke seen THAT CAME FROM
>>THE GRASSY KNOLL would be viewed by Potter as he stated?

Nope... Steve isn't.

He's a gutless coward who cannot accept the fact that he's wrong.


>>Let's look at what the HSCA staff concluded:
>>
>>(136) Neither Simmons nor Potter testified before the Warren
>>Commission.
>>(137) Based on the statements of these witnesses, if the smoke they
>>reported was in fact the result of gunfire, it would have originated
>>in the area of the top of the grassy knoll.
>>https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pdf/HSCA_Vol12_DealeyPlaza.pdf
>>
>>Of course, you're not an honest man, so you'll NEVER acknowledge your
>>ignorance here.

Did I predict it or what?!!!!

Cowards always run, that's what cowards do.


>>It's for reasons such as *this* post that you're TERRIFIED of
>>debating... you lose every time.


You snipped *ALL* of the above, refusing to answer... so I added it
back in so everyone can see your cowardice & lies.

> Potter is being cited by the conspiracists not me. He's *your*
> source not mine.

He *IS* your source. You lied about what he stated... why is that
Steve?

Suddenly you don't like Nolan Potter?

Just because you found out the truth?

Always happy to school you Steve...

> If he's not credible then it's your problem. I'm not the one using
> him.

Who said he's not credible??? WHY ARE YOU LYING, STEVE???

**YOU** are the one trying to backtrack on him as a witness right
now... why is that Steve?

> The conspiracy fanatics are so blinded by their zealotry that they
> can't keep their stories straight.

And you're a liar.

You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to document what you just claimed.

Why the fear, Steve?

Why the lies?

> The conspiracy advocates cite Potter (above) approvingly as
> supporting their view that smoke was scene from the GK. He was
> considered above as a good source.

Indeed, I have no problems whatsoever with witnesses, particularly
when they're corroborated so well, and not called to testify by the
Warren Commission.

>In fact, they say this: "Nolan Potter is downright *HATED* by believers.."

That is indeed the truth.

Even now, you're whining that he's not *your* witness.

> Then when it's shown that Potter says he saw smoke from the TSBD and
> NOT the GK they attack Potter as not being credible.

Molesting the neighborhood children again, I see. Why the perversion,
Steve? In your email, you even went into detail about your molestation
of that 6 year old...

And the *MOMENT* you quote me saying that Potter isn't "credible,"
I'll cut and paste your email here to the forum.

> Even though they cited him above to support their view. He's their
> source not the lone assassin crowd's source.

No stupid, he's a witness, like all witnesses. That you're DESPERATELY
trying to disown him now shows that you took the time to view the
photo of Potter's viewpoint, and read what the HSCA staff had to say.

You were *HAPPY* with Potter when you thought he was in your camp, but
now that you've been schooled, you HATE HIM... just as I first stated.

> This is a classic, textbook example of the illogic and incoherence
> of the conspiracy crowd. They contradict themselves with their own
> arguments.

Where's the "constradiction?"

Why can't you quote it?

Why do you keep snipping ALL the content before answering?

You're just a gutless coward, aren't you Steve?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Sorry, you used Potter to support you view. When it's shown that he didn't see smoke from the GK but from the TSBD you change the topic.

Do you want to respond to my response about Potter? Or not?

I have said here - and on the McAdams site - that I'm open to the possibility that Oswald had help - i.e., there was a conspiracy. But he was not some patsy, some individual framed. He was a willing participant.

But all of this nonsense about two casket and body alteration and faked films is, to use your charming language, bullshit.

You guys have such an emotional investment in believing a conspiracy, in believing that the country was stolen in 1963, that JFK would have led us to peace and prosperity had he not been killed that you can't reason straight. Your arguments are illogical and incoherent. You believe in conspiracy people who say things that are at odds with what others believe. And you believe them as well.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 09:59:22 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 11:55:24 AM UTC-4, lazu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:31:45 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:
>> > Did any witness besides Nolan Potter say that he/she saw smoke above the trees in front of the depository?? And if his observation is true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the building??
>> >
>> > dcw (and a tip of the hat to Bud!)
>>
>> Steve knock off the lone nut horseshit! It is beyond tiresome. If someone is not open to conspiracy. They have no conscience. If someone accepts the Magic Bullet Theory...they will accept anything.
>
> Sorry, you used Potter to support you view. When it's shown that he
> didn't see smoke from the GK but from the TSBD you change the topic.

You're a liar, Steve.

Why do you think you can keep running away and lying in a public
forum?

>Do you want to respond to my response about Potter? Or not?

Already did, in detail... you ran.

> I have said here - and on the McAdams site - that I'm open to the
> possibility that Oswald had help - i.e., there was a conspiracy. But
> he was not some patsy, some individual framed. He was a willing
> participant.

Who cares?

You've REPEATEDLY lied about Nolan Potter. *THAT* is the issue here.

> But all of this nonsense about two casket and body alteration and
> faked films is, to use your charming language, bullshit.

And your repeated *COWARDICE* on the issue shows that *YOU* know
you're on the losing side.

> You guys have such an emotional investment in believing a
> conspiracy, in believing that the country was stolen in 1963, that JFK
> would have led us to peace and prosperity had he not been killed that
> you can't reason straight. Your arguments are illogical and
> incoherent. You believe in conspiracy people who say things that are
> at odds with what others believe. And you believe them as well.

Ad hominem won't change the facts...

Tell us Steve, why do you keep snipping the responses to your posts,
and refuse to answer?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

And to make the obvious point again: someone who posts *here* and defames and smears people who post *elsewhere* has no standing whatsoever to call other people cowards. None.

If you don't have the common basic decency to respond to them at the place they post then you don't have any ethics or integrity at all. None.

[Bud]

If Ben were honest he would acknowledge how unlikely it is that the smoke seen was gunsmoke, lurkers. Modern rifles don`t usually emit the kind of smoke that would stay intact and rise 25-30 feet to be seen from a distance. Here is a video of the CBS rifle testing to give an idea how much smoke is emitted when a Carcano is shot.

https://youtu.be/WovyEqfR8Hg

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:17:01 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

> And to make the obvious point again: someone who posts *here* and
> defames and smears people who post *elsewhere* has no standing
> whatsoever to call other people cowards. None.

**YOU** are posting here.

**YOU** are snipping and running and lying.

**YOU** think you're immune from anyone pointing this out.

**YOU** are wrong.

There's absolutely *NOTHING* I can do or say that affects *YOUR* lying
and cowardice.

> If you don't have the common basic decency to respond to them at the
> place they post then you don't have any ethics or integrity at all.
> None.

Unfortunately for your honesty, you'll NEVER cite such a statement
being made toward a fellow believer who posts in the censored group
comments directed at, or about me.

This shows your COMPLETE hypocrisy.

Now, back to the topic at hand... why did you lie about Nolan Potter?

Why are you snipping the entire post, and refusing to respond to it?

Why the cowardice, Steve?

[donald willis]

Wonder, then, why none of the shooting witnesses saw that bit of smoke from the rifle....

[Bud]

They weren`t standing over Oswald`s shoulder as he shot.

[donald willis]

And yet, and yet--your hero Brennan ID'd O at a lineup.

[Bud]

Did he?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> Sorry, you used Potter to support you view. When it's shown that he didn't see smoke from the GK but from the TSBD you change the topic.

Grand Wizard of Jackasses .John Macadams has wrestled with the smoke problem for some time. At one point he was forced to assert that smoke from behind the GK fence had actually wafted down from the 6th floor window and settled there. If you need to believe something that desperate, you've got nothing left.

>
> I have said here - and on the McAdams site - that I'm open to the possibility that Oswald had help - i.e., there was a conspiracy. But he was not some patsy, some individual framed. He was a willing participant.

No, you're not open to that idea, whether you think you are or not. Because to be open to such an idea means you would *have* to begin to question the flimsiness of the subsequent investigation, and why chain of custody on so much of the physical evidence was either broken or unestablished, or why the WC was so desperate to profile Oswald that they took to interviewing his childhood neighbor over important witnesses in DP, or why the WC lied repeatedly, or why JEH lied repeatedly, or why so many witnesses started dying. You'd have to start questioning WHY there were so many inconsistencies if there were no other conspirators. You'd have to wonder how CE399 became the only bullet in history to remain so pristine after shattering bones. Then you'd have to ask why, if there was another shooter, did the WC or anyone else care? You don't even need to believe in two caskets and fake film.

It's not as easy as you think to believe Oswald might have had help. Because once you believe that, you can't stop the falling dominoes. No no, stick to your LN fantasy, Steve. You're too emotionally invested in going any further than this.

[lazu...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 12:31:45 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:

> Did any witness besides Nolan Potter say that he/she saw smoke above the trees in front of the depository?? And if his observation is true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the building??
>
> dcw (and a tip of the hat to Bud!)

Well said. Off the top of my head and it would take some time, I could probably come up with 50-60 different things from Parkland Hospital and Bethesda's witnesses that indicate conspiracy.There are so many not believable suspicious events that only happen in the JFK Assassination.

[donald willis]

The "revised" DPD scorecard for the lineup DOES include Brennan & Sorrels, his sponsor, though, laughingly, Sorrels wouldn't back up the poor schmuck re his, Brennan's, introducing Sorrels to Norman & Jarman!

dcw

[Bud]

That looks like a lot of retard figuring to me.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:10:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 12:31:44 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
>> <dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Did any witness besides Nolan Potter say that he/she saw smoke above
>> > the trees in front of the depository?? And if his observation is
>> > true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the
>> > building??
>> >
>> >dcw (and a tip of the hat to Bud!)
>>
>> From a quick look at Google:
>>
>> From "JFK: The Smoking Gun": Signal Supervisor Holland saw a puff of
>> smoke ... Newspaper reporter Ed Johnson saw a puff of smoke, as did
>> bystanders Austin Miller, Royce Skelton, Clemen Johnson, Nolan Potter,
>> James Simmons, Walter Winborn, Thomas Murphy, Patsy Paschall, and
>> Richard Dodd.
>>
>> https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=pGrLkMYjn8cC&pg=PT126&lpg=PT126&dq=jfk+nolan+potter&source=bl&ots=je5YM78btE&sig=ylgBWsXtGei7CXwxXpUDZJ39NeU&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=jfk%20nolan%20potter&f=false
>>
>> Nolan Potter is downright *HATED* by believers...
>

> I`m not fond of idiots, lurkers...

Must be quite disturbing to hate yourself...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:33:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

No dufus... honesty has *NOTHING* to do with it... unless it's *YOUR*
lack thereof.

Youtube videos showing smoke from firing have been endlessly posted
before, but it seems that no matter how many times you school a
believer, they don't learn.

You can even view it yourself in a frame from the Weigman film.

So why would I deny what is so self-evidently true with so many
witnesses?

> Modern rifles don`t usually emit the kind of smoke that would stay
> intact and rise 25-30 feet to be seen from a distance.

Then all you have to do is explain the smoke that *IS* seen in the
Weigman video...

Your speculations aren't evidence.

> Here is a video of the CBS rifle testing to give
> an idea how much smoke is emitted when a Carcano is shot.
>
> https://youtu.be/WovyEqfR8Hg

There are, of course, a *NUMBER* of speculations and assumptions being
made... the type of rifle, the type of ammo, and identical weather
conditions...

Nope.

You fail again.


You're DESPERATELY trying to deny what can plainly be seen by anyone
who looks.

As well as the testimony & statements of quite a few Dealey Plaza
witnesses.

I'm not dishonest enough to discount all that.

>> It's for reasons such as *this* post that you're TERRIFIED of
>> debating... you lose every time.

Tell us stump - can you at least publicly acknowledge what Steve
refuses to do?

That Potter is an eyewitness to smoke rising from the Grassy Knoll?

[Ben Holmes]

Looks like Steve ran away.

That's all you need to know - the near CONSTANT cowardice on the part
of believers...

[Bud]

I was speaking hypothetically, lurkers, I didn`t expect honesty from this retard.

> Youtube videos showing smoke from firing have been endlessly posted
> before, but it seems that no matter how many times you school a
> believer, they don't learn.

Two things here lurkers. One, Ben loves to lie. Two, see number one.

The question isn`t whether guns emit some smoke, the question is whether modern ammunition emits the kind of smoke that would rise 25-30 feet in the air intact and be able to be seen from a distance. Again, context is not the friend of the conspiracy retard, and they focus on an irrelevant aspect while ignoring the pertinent.

> You can even view it yourself in a frame from the Weigman film.
>
> So why would I deny what is so self-evidently true with so many
> witnesses?

So what if some witnesses reported seeing smoke, lurkers?

> > Modern rifles don`t usually emit the kind of smoke that would stay
> > intact and rise 25-30 feet to be seen from a distance.
>
>
> Then all you have to do is explain the smoke that *IS* seen in the
> Weigman video...

No, lurkers, I just need to point out that there wasn`t one established instance of gunsmoke being seen that day in Dealey Plaza. Not one. This is just one of the things the retards try to represent as a clue.

People in the media bus said they saw smoke, how far back in the motorcade was that?

> Your speculations aren't evidence.
>
>
> > Here is a video of the CBS rifle testing to give
> > an idea how much smoke is emitted when a Carcano is shot.
> >
> > https://youtu.be/WovyEqfR8Hg
>
>
> There are, of course, a *NUMBER* of speculations and assumptions being
> made... the type of rifle, the type of ammo, and identical weather
> conditions...

There are a number of speculations and assumptions that what was seen was gunsmoke, lurkers. It is only an assumption and speculation that it would be even possible for anyone to see the small amount of smoke a rifle emits from a distance, especially "rising above the trees" like Potter related. These are the ideas of retards, they don`t firm them up, they don`t go anywhere with them but they don`t drop them, either. They just become retard trading cards, brought out as if they are meaningful with no significance shown. I am more than willing to accept that there was smoke seen. Now what, tards?

> Nope.
>
> You fail again.
>
>
> You're DESPERATELY trying to deny what can plainly be seen by anyone
> who looks.
>
> As well as the testimony & statements of quite a few Dealey Plaza
> witnesses.
>
> I'm not dishonest enough to discount all that.

If Ben were honest he would take the position that it is unlikely that the smoke witnesses related seeing was gunsmoke, lurkers. Alas, Ben is not honest.

>
> >> It's for reasons such as *this* post that you're TERRIFIED of
> >> debating... you lose every time.
>
> Tell us stump - can you at least publicly acknowledge what Steve
> refuses to do?
>
> That Potter is an eyewitness to smoke rising from the Grassy Knoll?

For one thing, he said he said he saw smoke rising above the trees in front of the TSBD. That is where Baker dropped his motorcycle. But quibbling over the location of reported smoke is useless when you can make no real determination on the cause of the smoke. I haven`t seen any good reason to believe it was gunsmoke, or even that it *could* be gunsmoke.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

> I was speaking hypothetically, lurkers, I didn`t expect honesty from this retard.

Ad hominem logical fallacy, lurkers.

> Two things here lurkers. One, Ben loves to lie. Two, see number one.

Support this.

>
> The question isn`t whether guns emit some smoke, the question is whether modern ammunition emits the kind of smoke that would rise 25-30 feet in the air intact and be able to be seen from a distance.

LN retards look at all the wrong things, and then look at those wrong things incorrectly.

>
> So what if some witnesses reported seeing smoke, lurkers?

Another LNer just shooting blanks, lurkers.

>
> No, lurkers, I just need to point out that there wasn`t one established instance of gunsmoke being seen that day in Dealey Plaza. Not one. This is just one of the things the retards try to represent as a clue.

Empty claim.

>
> People in the media bus said they saw smoke, how far back in the motorcade was that?

Logical fallacy, lurkers.

>
> There are a number of speculations and assumptions that what was seen was gunsmoke, lurkers. It is only an assumption and speculation that it would be even possible for anyone to see the small amount of smoke a rifle emits from a distance, especially "rising above the trees" like Potter related. These are the ideas of retards, they don`t firm them up, they don`t go anywhere with them but they don`t drop them, either. They just become retard trading cards, brought out as if they are meaningful with no significance shown. I am more than willing to accept that there was smoke seen. Now what, tards?

More bluff and bluster from the LNers, lurkers.

>
> If Ben were honest he would take the position that it is unlikely that the smoke witnesses related seeing was gunsmoke, lurkers. Alas, Ben is not honest.

Another unsupported empty claim, lurkers.

>
> For one thing, he said he said he saw smoke rising above the trees in front of the TSBD. That is where Baker dropped his motorcycle. But quibbling over the location of reported smoke is useless when you can make no real determination on the cause of the smoke. I haven`t seen any good reason to believe it was gunsmoke, or even that it *could* be gunsmoke.

Post your scenario, lone nut troll.

[Jason Burke]

Dang. Why this dude's mama didn't abort him defies all logic.
Seems she got pretty much all of the brain with that rusty coat hanger,
though.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:33:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Anyone notice that everytime I post this cite to Potter's viewpoint,
believers INSTANTLY shut up - and run away?

Dufus pretends to answer below, but he doesn't address Potter's
viewpoint at all.

Which, of course, merely demonstrates stump's inherent dishonesty.

> If Ben were honest he would acknowledge how unlikely it is that
> the smoke seen was gunsmoke, lurkers.

Nope. It wouldn't be honest to "acknowledge" a lie.

You can provide *NO* evidence or citation to support your wacky theory
that it was *NOT* what eyewitnesses said they saw.

> Modern rifles don`t usually emit the kind of smoke that would stay
> intact and rise 25-30 feet to be seen from a distance.

Has very little to do with the rifle, and quite a bit more to do with
the ammo being used.

What "modern rifles" have to do with the rifle being used on the
Grassy Knoll is something you won't say...

> Here is a video of the CBS rifle testing to give an idea how much
> smoke is emitted when a Carcano is shot.

Nope.

Fail.

You've produced ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show that the rifle being used
on the Grassy Knoll was a Mannlicher Carcano.

Nor that the ammo was the same as used by the Grassy Knoll shooter.

> https://youtu.be/WovyEqfR8Hg
>
>> It's for reasons such as *this* post that you're TERRIFIED of
>> debating... you lose every time.

And, of course, everyone can see how you evaded the topic, tried for a
new one, and failed quite miserably.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:36:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:31:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> Did any witness besides Nolan Potter say that he/she saw smoke above the trees in front of the depository?? And if his observation is true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the building??
>>
>> dcw (and a tip of the hat to Bud!)
>

> Why do you equate smoke with gunsmoke? Didn`t Baker drive his
> motorcycle under those trees?

Why do you disbelieve what the eyewitnesses said they saw?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:00:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> That looks like a lot of...


Truth.

That's what it looks like to dufus... the truth.

He ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to state otherwise.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:40:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You've made an unsupported claim.

Then you whine when I don't instantly support your silly and
unsupported claim.

Indeed, what's the most *obvious* possibility when smoke is seen
around rifles firing?

And people smell gunsmoke...

>> Youtube videos showing smoke from firing have been endlessly posted
>> before, but it seems that no matter how many times you school a
>> believer, they don't learn.
>
> Two things here lurkers. One, Ben loves to lie. Two, see number
> one.

Ad hominem fails to refute what I stated.

> The question isn`t whether guns emit some smoke, the question is
> whether modern ammunition emits the kind of smoke that would rise
> 25-30 feet in the air intact and be able to be seen from a distance.
> Again, context is not the friend of the conspiracy retard, and they
> focus on an irrelevant aspect while ignoring the pertinent.

Your unsupported speculation isn't evidence.

>> You can even view it yourself in a frame from the Weigman film.
>>
>> So why would I deny what is so self-evidently true with so many
>> witnesses?
>
> So what if some witnesses reported seeing smoke, lurkers?

So what if some witnesses heard gunfire, lurkers?

>> > Modern rifles don`t usually emit the kind of smoke that would stay
>> > intact and rise 25-30 feet to be seen from a distance.
>>
>>
>> Then all you have to do is explain the smoke that *IS* seen in the
>> Weigman video...
>
> No, lurkers, I just need to point out that there wasn`t one
> established instance of gunsmoke being seen that day in Dealey Plaza.
> Not one. This is just one of the things the retards try to represent
> as a clue.

You're lying again, dufus. You're denying that smoke can be seen in
the Weigman video - and that's simply a **STUPID** lie.

Why are you lying, stump?

> People in the media bus said they saw smoke, how far back in the
> motorcade was that?

More speculation that goes nowhere...

You just HATE the eyewitness testimony & statements, don't you?

>> Your speculations aren't evidence.

And never will be.

>> > Here is a video of the CBS rifle testing to give
>> > an idea how much smoke is emitted when a Carcano is shot.
>> >
>> > https://youtu.be/WovyEqfR8Hg
>>
>> There are, of course, a *NUMBER* of speculations and assumptions being
>> made... the type of rifle, the type of ammo, and identical weather
>> conditions...
>
> There are a number of speculations and assumptions that what was
> seen was gunsmoke, lurkers. It is only an assumption and speculation
> that it would be even possible for anyone to see the small amount of
> smoke a rifle emits from a distance, especially "rising above the
> trees" like Potter related. These are the ideas of retards, they don`t
> firm them up, they don`t go anywhere with them but they don`t drop
> them, either. They just become retard trading cards, brought out as if
> they are meaningful with no significance shown. I am more than willing
> to accept that there was smoke seen. Now what, tards?

No speculation needed.

Rifles were fired.

Gunsmoke was both seen and smelled.

End of story.

>> Nope.
>>
>> You fail again.
>>
>> You're DESPERATELY trying to deny what can plainly be seen by anyone
>> who looks.
>>
>> As well as the testimony & statements of quite a few Dealey Plaza
>> witnesses.
>>
>> I'm not dishonest enough to discount all that.
>
> If Ben were honest he would take the position that it is unlikely
> that the smoke witnesses related seeing was gunsmoke, lurkers. Alas,
> Ben is not honest.

If dufus were honest, he'd acknowledge that those who reported
*smelling* gunsmoke can't be explained away.

And where there's the *smell* of gunsmoke, it doesn't boggle the mind
to hear of those who saw such smoke.

Unless, of course, you're a dishonest bit of scum.

>> >> It's for reasons such as *this* post that you're TERRIFIED of
>> >> debating... you lose every time.
>>
>> Tell us stump - can you at least publicly acknowledge what Steve
>> refuses to do?
>>
>> That Potter is an eyewitness to smoke rising from the Grassy Knoll?
>
> For one thing, he said he said he saw smoke rising above the trees
> in front of the TSBD.

**CITE** a photo showing the distinct difference between smoke rising
above the trees in front of the TSBD, and smoke rising above the
Grassy Knoll.


But you won't.


You won't even dare *try* to explain the difference.


THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.


The HSCA recognized that fact.


But you're too cowardly & dishonest to do likewise.


Why is that, stump?

> That is where Baker dropped his motorcycle. But
> quibbling over the location of reported smoke is useless when you can
> make no real determination on the cause of the smoke. I haven`t seen
> any good reason to believe it was gunsmoke, or even that it *could* be
> gunsmoke.

You're lying again, stump.

And clearly moronic enough to think that those who reported smelling
gunsmoke were too stupid to realize they were smelling motorcycle
exhaust.

You lost again, stump!

[Bud]

Where would Ben be without his loaded questions, lurkers?

Notice Ben isn`t touching a single point I made.

[Bud]

Conspiracy retards always insist on looking at the wrong things, lurkers. *what* the smoke was or *what* caused the smoke is what is relevant.

> Dufus pretends to answer below, but he doesn't address Potter's
> viewpoint at all.

The only way it could be relevant would be if it was gunsmoke, lurkers. Can Ben show that it was gunsmoke? No, he is shooting blanks.

> Which, of course, merely demonstrates stump's inherent dishonesty.

Ben sees looking at information correctly as dishonest, lurkers. Looking at information correctly is detrimental to the silly games he plays with the deaths of these men.

>
> > If Ben were honest he would acknowledge how unlikely it is that
> > the smoke seen was gunsmoke, lurkers.
>
>
> Nope. It wouldn't be honest to "acknowledge" a lie.

Ben sees it as likely that the small amount of smoke that modern weapons emit should stay intact and rise above trees to be seen from a distance. He will believe any stupid thing if he thinks it is supportive of his faith.

> You can provide *NO* evidence or citation to support your wacky theory
> that it was *NOT* what eyewitnesses said they saw.

Can Ben establish what kind of smoke the witnesses saw, lurkers? Until he can do this it is worthless information for giving insight into the event. And since it is worthless for giving insight into the event conspiracy retards focus on it.

>
> > Modern rifles don`t usually emit the kind of smoke that would stay
> > intact and rise 25-30 feet to be seen from a distance.
>
>
> Has very little to do with the rifle, and quite a bit more to do with
> the ammo being used.

Small point, lurkers. When the weapon is fired a small amount of smoke is emitted.

https://youtu.be/tznEcq_r4KA

> What "modern rifles" have to do with the rifle being used on the
> Grassy Knoll is something you won't say...

The retards are willing to posit any ridiculous thing in order to salvage stupid ideas, lurkers. It is pure desperation. This whole complex conspiracy these retards contrive uses a blunderbuss to shoot Kennedy from the knoll. Tell me this isn`t just a retarded hobby.

>
> > Here is a video of the CBS rifle testing to give an idea how much
> > smoke is emitted when a Carcano is shot.
>
>
> Nope.
>
> Fail.
>
> You've produced ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show that the rifle being used
> on the Grassy Knoll was a Mannlicher Carcano.

I don`t really have to show anything, lurkers, these are the ideas of the conspiracy retards. They have to make the case that any smoke reported was gunsmoke.

> Nor that the ammo was the same as used by the Grassy Knoll shooter.

Right lurkers, it wasn`t imaginary.

> > https://youtu.be/WovyEqfR8Hg
> >
> >> It's for reasons such as *this* post that you're TERRIFIED of
> >> debating... you lose every time.
>
> And, of course, everyone can see how you evaded the topic, tried for a
> new one, and failed quite miserably.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. Don wrote...

"And if his observation is true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the building??"

What I wrote spoke to the issue Don raised.

[Bud]

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. None of the ideas I expressed involved the location of the smoke (other than how high it was observed), merely the likelihood of that the smoke that was observed was gunsmoke.

> Then you whine when I don't instantly support your silly and
> unsupported claim.

Let Ben quote the claim he thinks i made, lurkers. I think he has me confused with Steve.

> Indeed, what's the most *obvious* possibility when smoke is seen
> around rifles firing?

Something other than gunsmoke when one looks at the issue realistically rather than desperately trying to bolster stupid ideas.

What would be the *obvious* possibility of the cause of smoke when rifles aren`t being fired? Vehicles. Even cigarettes, pipes and cigars make more smoke than most modern weapons.


> And people smell gunsmoke...

People *said* they did, lurkers. And not the same people who reported the smoke.

> >> Youtube videos showing smoke from firing have been endlessly posted
> >> before, but it seems that no matter how many times you school a
> >> believer, they don't learn.
> >
> > Two things here lurkers. One, Ben loves to lie. Two, see number
> > one.
>
>
> Ad hominem fails to refute what I stated.

Ben refused to support what he stated, lurkers. Nothing new there.

>
> > The question isn`t whether guns emit some smoke, the question is
> > whether modern ammunition emits the kind of smoke that would rise
> > 25-30 feet in the air intact and be able to be seen from a distance.
> > Again, context is not the friend of the conspiracy retard, and they
> > focus on an irrelevant aspect while ignoring the pertinent.
>
>
> Your unsupported speculation isn't evidence.

Ben doesn`t recognize the application of reasoning to information, lurkers. He doesn`t recognize looking at information in the proper context. He is playing games.

> >> You can even view it yourself in a frame from the Weigman film.
> >>
> >> So why would I deny what is so self-evidently true with so many
> >> witnesses?
> >
> > So what if some witnesses reported seeing smoke, lurkers?
>
>
> So what if some witnesses heard gunfire, lurkers?

Again a conspiracy retard can`t make a distinction, lurkers.

> >> > Modern rifles don`t usually emit the kind of smoke that would stay
> >> > intact and rise 25-30 feet to be seen from a distance.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then all you have to do is explain the smoke that *IS* seen in the
> >> Weigman video...
> >
> > No, lurkers, I just need to point out that there wasn`t one
> > established instance of gunsmoke being seen that day in Dealey Plaza.
> > Not one. This is just one of the things the retards try to represent
> > as a clue.
>
>
> You're lying again, dufus. You're denying that smoke can be seen in
> the Weigman video - and that's simply a **STUPID** lie.

Have I said anything about the Weigman video, lurkers? Ben loves to lie. Let Ben support the idea that the smoke seen in the Weigman video is gunsmoke.

> Why are you lying, stump?
>
>
> > People in the media bus said they saw smoke, how far back in the
> > motorcade was that?
>
>
> More speculation that goes nowhere...

The retards hate looking at information in the correct context, lurkers.

> You just HATE the eyewitness testimony & statements, don't you?

It doesn`t bother me at all that people said they saw smoke, lurkers.

>
> >> Your speculations aren't evidence.
>
>
> And never will be.
>
>
>
> >> > Here is a video of the CBS rifle testing to give
> >> > an idea how much smoke is emitted when a Carcano is shot.
> >> >
> >> > https://youtu.be/WovyEqfR8Hg
> >>
> >> There are, of course, a *NUMBER* of speculations and assumptions being
> >> made... the type of rifle, the type of ammo, and identical weather
> >> conditions...
> >
> > There are a number of speculations and assumptions that what was
> > seen was gunsmoke, lurkers. It is only an assumption and speculation
> > that it would be even possible for anyone to see the small amount of
> > smoke a rifle emits from a distance, especially "rising above the
> > trees" like Potter related. These are the ideas of retards, they don`t
> > firm them up, they don`t go anywhere with them but they don`t drop
> > them, either. They just become retard trading cards, brought out as if
> > they are meaningful with no significance shown. I am more than willing
> > to accept that there was smoke seen. Now what, tards?
>
>
> No speculation needed.
>
> Rifles were fired.
>
> Gunsmoke was both seen and smelled.

Empty claims and begging the question, lurkers.

And they hate it when one of their retard trading cards are looked at correctly.

> End of story.
>
>
>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> You fail again.
> >>
> >> You're DESPERATELY trying to deny what can plainly be seen by anyone
> >> who looks.
> >>
> >> As well as the testimony & statements of quite a few Dealey Plaza
> >> witnesses.
> >>
> >> I'm not dishonest enough to discount all that.
> >
> > If Ben were honest he would take the position that it is unlikely
> > that the smoke witnesses related seeing was gunsmoke, lurkers. Alas,
> > Ben is not honest.
>
> If dufus were honest, he'd acknowledge that those who reported
> *smelling* gunsmoke can't be explained away.

But they can be looked at correctly to see what weight each report should be given, lurkers (and note that the tards will isolate and scrutinize information that goes against their silly ideas, but lump together information with no regard for differences when they think it helps their silly ideas). Ben has no interest in such an approach, lurkers, it could only interfere with his silly game playing.

> And where there's the *smell* of gunsmoke, it doesn't boggle the mind
> to hear of those who saw such smoke.

Ben claims an association he can`t show, lurkers.

This is a post hoc fallacy.

> Unless, of course, you're a dishonest bit of scum.

If Ben were honest he would admit how unlikely it is that these reports of smoke were actually gunsmoke, lurkers. Or, he could take a witness like Potter and make the case that it is even *possible* that the smoke he reported *could* be gunsmoke. He does neither.

> >> >> It's for reasons such as *this* post that you're TERRIFIED of
> >> >> debating... you lose every time.
> >>
> >> Tell us stump - can you at least publicly acknowledge what Steve
> >> refuses to do?
> >>
> >> That Potter is an eyewitness to smoke rising from the Grassy Knoll?
> >
> > For one thing, he said he said he saw smoke rising above the trees
> > in front of the TSBD.
>
>
> **CITE** a photo showing the distinct difference between smoke rising
> above the trees in front of the TSBD, and smoke rising above the
> Grassy Knoll.

I don`t have to cite anything but the information the witness gave, lurkers...

"POTTER said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building rising above the trees."

> But you won't.
>
>
> You won't even dare *try* to explain the difference.

The difference in clear, lurkers. One is the information the witness gave and the other is retard figuring.

>
> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers. The trees out in front of the TSBD are not on the grassy knoll. But it is pretty irrelevant since no compelling case can be made that the smoke could be gunsmoke.

>
> The HSCA recognized that fact.
>
>
> But you're too cowardly & dishonest to do likewise.
>
>
> Why is that, stump?

Ben likes to make a series of empty claims that end in a loaded question, lurkers.

>
> > That is where Baker dropped his motorcycle. But
> > quibbling over the location of reported smoke is useless when you can
> > make no real determination on the cause of the smoke. I haven`t seen
> > any good reason to believe it was gunsmoke, or even that it *could* be
> > gunsmoke.
>
>
> You're lying again, stump.
>
> And clearly moronic enough to think that those who reported smelling
> gunsmoke were too stupid to realize they were smelling motorcycle
> exhaust.

Did Potter say he smelled smoke? Did Ben establish a connection between those who saw smoke and those who claimed to smell gunpower? Can the mind make certain assumptions after it becomes clear that there was gunfire that smells being smelled were gunsmoke? Can Ben make a plausible argument that what was seen could be gunsmoke emitted from a weapon? Are all the reports of smoke in the same place at the same time? Would looking at things correctly and in context do harm to the silly games that Ben enjoys playing with the deaths of these men?

>
> You lost again, stump!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 17:34:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> Ben ...

Tut tut tut, moron.

Support your claim.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 12:08:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:36:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:31:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> >> Did any witness besides Nolan Potter say that he/she saw smoke above the trees in front of the depository?? And if his observation is true, wouldn't smoke also have been seen coming from a window of the building??
>> >>
>> >> dcw (and a tip of the hat to Bud!)
>> >
>> > Why do you equate smoke with gunsmoke? Didn`t Baker drive his
>> > motorcycle under those trees?
>>
>> Why do you disbelieve what the eyewitnesses said they saw?
>
> Where would Ben be without his loaded questions, lurkers?

I note for the record that you couldn't refute what I stated.

> Notice Ben isn`t touching a single point I made.

All you need do is say "Yes, I believe the eyewitnesses."

But you can't say that.

You've not been able to refute the truth of what I stated.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 16:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

> I'm a retard and always insist on looking at the wrong things, lurkers.

You've been unable to refute the accuracy and truthfulness of my
observation.