On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 08:51:31 -0700 (PDT),
chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:
>On Thursday, August 23, 2018 at 9:23:46 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:10:52 -0700 (PDT),
chucksch...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:24:07 PM UTC-5,
borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It's called weighing evidence Boris.
>> >>
>> >> Which is something you don't do with ANY evidence pointing to a second gunman, or any self-proclaimed "freaky looking sh!t".
>> >
>> >Everything you point you make has been addressed ENDLESSLY. Sorry if you don't see it that way.
>>
>> You're lying again, Chuckles.
>>
>> You won't DARE even try to cite where you listed the "persuasive
>> evidence" the Warren Commission referred to.
>
>Answered endlessly. Fringe Reset/Holmes Pivot.
You're a liar, Chuckles. It's *NEVER* been answered. There is **NO**
list of eyewitnesses whom the Warren Commission questioned about the
SBT that you, or any other believer has ever posted.
And the PROOF that you're lying is that you refuse to document any
such answer.
So you're a PROVEN liar.
>> Because it's **NEVER** been answered by **ANY** believer.
>
>Of course it's been answered.
Yet you can't seem to document that "answer"... why is that, coward?
>> Ditto with a long line of other questions... such as:
>>
>> The time the coffin entered Bethesda.
>
> You and I have discussed it at this forum, right here. I don't if an
> exact time that would satisfy you is able to be established.
No such "discussion" has ever taken place... nor will you be able to
cite such a "discussion."
The question has been ASKED many times, you've run every single time.
So you're simply lying again, Chuckles.
>> The largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray.
>
> Discussed many many times right here. I just typed "6.5mm virtually
> round object" in the acj. search box above and found all sorts of
> references with many answers. Do not pretend you haven't heard answers
> such as Custer saying Ebersole declared it was an artifact. If you say
> you haven't heard this answer before from multiple sources, you truly
> are a liar.
ROTFLMAO!!!
All you have is HEARSAY???!!
Why did McAdams run from that question?
Even Pud ran... **YOU** certainly can't document where you've
addressed this.
But... now that you're on record as stating that the 6.5mm virtually
round object *IS* the largest foreign object seen in the film, you
need to explain why Dr. Humes claimed in sworn testimony that the
largest fragment seen was the "7x2mm" fragment.
You'll run, of course...
Just as all other believers have run.
> Now lie and say you haven't heard it before or ask yourself why you
> keep bringing it up year after year after year when you've already
> heard the answer(s).
It's not the answer. The experts on the HSCA panel declared it to be a
bullet fragment.
Even the very *idea* that a "artifact" just happened to be in the
appropriate location, and to be the size it needed to be, is so
incredible as to be *COMPLETELY* unbelievable.
Yet you believe it!!!
AMAZING!
So tell us why the HSCA concluded the obvious, and you didn't?
(Don't worry, I expect you to run again...)
>> The location of the larger fragments in the lateral X-ray trail of
>> bullet fragments.
Dead silence.
>> How Oswald could name the two people who passed the lunchroom.
Dead silence.
>> Why the Warren Commission lied about their own testimony.
Dead silence.
>> Why the HSCA blatantly lied about the medical evidence, then
>> classified it.
Dead silence.
>> Where the majority of witnesses pointed to as the shooting location
>> who were documented in the first two days.
Dead silence.
>> What causes 'first frame flash,' and why it's not seen in Z-133.
Dead silence.
>> Why Bugliosi lied about Carrico & Perry's observations.
Dead silence.
>> I can go on, I've barely touched the number of questions that
>> believers have **NEVER** answered. And you won't answer any of them,
>> nor will you cite where they *were* answered.
>
>I can go on forever, too,
Yet you refused to do so... why the cowardice, coward?
> but for the interested lurker, Ben has a sickness called
> conspiracism, a disease whereby the afflicted holds a world view that
> sees history primarily through spiderwebs of other secret
> conspiracies, covering up other secret events, with disparate players
> all cooperating in fantastic alliances that often contradict each
> other, and the conspiracism-afflicted party (Ben, Boris, etc.) is
> uniquely qualified to see the connections that the ordinary sheeple
> going about their day tending to their families or running their
> business or studying in school, etc. don't see.
Ad hominem merely shows that you can't explain the evidence.
>> But you can't post a question that critics cannot answer.
>
> 1.) Taking into consideration the documented height of the
> windshield strike mark you presume to be a frontal bullet shot that
> passed through the windshield and struck JFK in the throat, please
> provide the research that documents the correct angles and placement a
> south knoll shooter would've needed to be at to A.) strike the
> windshield as measured, and B.) hit JFK in the throat. I expect to see
> the work of surveyors, photogrammetry experts, etc. which is exactly
> the type of experts the WC and HSCA employed for various reenactments
> and research. For example, what is the relative height of the throat
> wound to the bullet strike the windshield.
Once again, you ask a question that you yourself can't answer. And the
Warren Commission *COMPLETELY FAILED* to get the measurements needed
to answer this question to your satisfaction. Since the Warren
Commission *FAILED* to get even the most basic measurements needed to
answer this question - you can't answer it, and it would involve more
resources than I care to take on to answer it myself.
An analogy to your question would be the following:
Taking into consideration that uke is a Sandan, what's the appropriate
defense to a Migi Uchimata.
There's a precise and accurate answer to this question... and you'll
refuse to answer it. Because it would take just as long a time period,
and cost just as much to get the correct answer as it would for me to
hire surveyers & "photogrammetry experts" to find the answer to your
question.
Note the difference in questions... I'm asking questions where there
*ARE* known answers.
You're simply too much a coward to answer 'em.
>> Watch! I've predicted it!
Quite successfully, as usual.
> I posted one, I'll skip the rest. They've all been answered for
> decades, but not to your satisfaction.
They've NEVER been answered, and the PROOF that you're lying is your
inability to cite any such answers.
>I don't expect you to answer mine.
I'll answer yours just as quickly as you'll answer mine.
But the sad fact is - you can't ask questions that critics are
incapable of answering when it comes to the evidence in this case.