Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Warren Commission Believers Just Aren't Getting It!
229 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Dec 14, 2013, 1:06:37 PM12/14/13
to
> But you don't know Wilson's process is "valid" and "trusted."
>
> Better analogy: you buy a piece of meat from a butcher, and when you
> get it home you find it rotten.
>
> This would make anything you might buy from that butcher suspect.
>
> The next piece of meat might be fine, but the fact that *any* piece of
> rotten meat was sold suggests problems with sanitation that would
> affect other meat in the shop.
>
> Some of Wilson's "findings" are the rotten meat.
>
> The *ought* to make you suspicious about everything he says.
I'm amused that John has stated this, yet cannot apply it to Posner,
Bugliosi, the WC, the HSCA, etc... all of whom made outrageously
untruthful statements about the evidence in this case.
How can you believe someone who claims that Perry & Carrico described the
original bullet wound in JFK's throat as "ragged"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
>
> Better analogy: you buy a piece of meat from a butcher, and when you
> get it home you find it rotten.
>
> This would make anything you might buy from that butcher suspect.
>
> The next piece of meat might be fine, but the fact that *any* piece of
> rotten meat was sold suggests problems with sanitation that would
> affect other meat in the shop.
>
> Some of Wilson's "findings" are the rotten meat.
>
> The *ought* to make you suspicious about everything he says.
I'm amused that John has stated this, yet cannot apply it to Posner,
Bugliosi, the WC, the HSCA, etc... all of whom made outrageously
untruthful statements about the evidence in this case.
How can you believe someone who claims that Perry & Carrico described the
original bullet wound in JFK's throat as "ragged"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Mike
Dec 14, 2013, 3:37:35 PM12/14/13
to
which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
Bud
Dec 14, 2013, 7:27:37 PM12/14/13
to
On Saturday, December 14, 2013 1:06:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > But you don't know Wilson's process is "valid" and "trusted."
>
> >
>
> > Better analogy: you buy a piece of meat from a butcher, and when you
>
> > get it home you find it rotten.
>
> >
>
> > This would make anything you might buy from that butcher suspect.
>
> >
>
> > The next piece of meat might be fine, but the fact that *any* piece of
>
> > rotten meat was sold suggests problems with sanitation that would
>
> > affect other meat in the shop.
>
> >
>
> > Some of Wilson's "findings" are the rotten meat.
>
> >
>
> > The *ought* to make you suspicious about everything he says.
>
>
>
> I'm amused that John has stated this, yet cannot apply it to Posner,
>
> Bugliosi, the WC, the HSCA, etc... all of whom made outrageously
>
> untruthful statements about the evidence in this case.
You don`t seem to object when Lane does it.
> > But you don't know Wilson's process is "valid" and "trusted."
>
> >
>
> > Better analogy: you buy a piece of meat from a butcher, and when you
>
> > get it home you find it rotten.
>
> >
>
> > This would make anything you might buy from that butcher suspect.
>
> >
>
> > The next piece of meat might be fine, but the fact that *any* piece of
>
> > rotten meat was sold suggests problems with sanitation that would
>
> > affect other meat in the shop.
>
> >
>
> > Some of Wilson's "findings" are the rotten meat.
>
> >
>
> > The *ought* to make you suspicious about everything he says.
>
>
>
> I'm amused that John has stated this, yet cannot apply it to Posner,
>
> Bugliosi, the WC, the HSCA, etc... all of whom made outrageously
>
> untruthful statements about the evidence in this case.
> How can you believe someone who claims that Perry & Carrico described the
>
> original bullet wound in JFK's throat as "ragged"?
OHLeeRedux
Dec 14, 2013, 7:32:12 PM12/14/13
to
Mike
- show quoted text -
"evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind. Even when the HSCA
accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
- show quoted text -
What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence. The only
which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
"evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind. Even when the HSCA
accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
tims...@gmail.com
Dec 14, 2013, 7:33:28 PM12/14/13
to
uses the word *ragged* in them.
The REAL liars in the case are people like Mark Lane.
Corrective Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Mark Ulrik
Dec 14, 2013, 7:41:09 PM12/14/13
to
Den lørdag den 14. december 2013 19.06.37 UTC+1 skrev Ben Holmes:
>
> > But you don't know Wilson's process is "valid" and "trusted."
> >
> > Better analogy: you buy a piece of meat from a butcher, and when you
> > get it home you find it rotten.
> >
> > This would make anything you might buy from that butcher suspect.
> >
> > The next piece of meat might be fine, but the fact that *any* piece of
> > rotten meat was sold suggests problems with sanitation that would
> > affect other meat in the shop.
> >
> > Some of Wilson's "findings" are the rotten meat.
> >
> > The *ought* to make you suspicious about everything he says.
>
> I'm amused that John has stated this, yet cannot apply it to Posner,
> Bugliosi, the WC, the HSCA, etc... all of whom made outrageously
> untruthful statements about the evidence in this case.
> How can you believe someone who claims that Perry & Carrico described the
> original bullet wound in JFK's throat as "ragged"?
This is kind of ironic, considering some of the claims that you've made
>
> > But you don't know Wilson's process is "valid" and "trusted."
> >
> > Better analogy: you buy a piece of meat from a butcher, and when you
> > get it home you find it rotten.
> >
> > This would make anything you might buy from that butcher suspect.
> >
> > The next piece of meat might be fine, but the fact that *any* piece of
> > rotten meat was sold suggests problems with sanitation that would
> > affect other meat in the shop.
> >
> > Some of Wilson's "findings" are the rotten meat.
> >
> > The *ought* to make you suspicious about everything he says.
>
> I'm amused that John has stated this, yet cannot apply it to Posner,
> Bugliosi, the WC, the HSCA, etc... all of whom made outrageously
> untruthful statements about the evidence in this case.
> How can you believe someone who claims that Perry & Carrico described the
> original bullet wound in JFK's throat as "ragged"?
over the years.
Bud
Dec 15, 2013, 8:32:12 PM12/15/13
to
acoustic evidence doesn`t hold up, the witnesses saying they thought the
sound of the shots originated from the knoll is weak, the photography
images represented to show shooters in uncompelling and physical evidence
is non-existent. That such a complex and dangerous plan would hinge on
things like this shooter not being captured or any of the numerous people
taking photographs getting a clear photo of the shooter is a lame idea.
This dead horse has been beat by conspiracy hobbyists for decades, but
it`s never getting up and finishing the race.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 15, 2013, 11:21:18 PM12/15/13
to
On 12/14/2013 7:32 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Mike
> - show quoted text -
> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>
>
> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence. The only
> "evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
> shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
> were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>
> Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
Do you get paid to make up this crap? Who said "sitting"?
> Mike
> - show quoted text -
> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>
>
> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence. The only
> "evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
> shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
> were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>
> Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
> floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
> right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
> over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
>
> The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind. Even when the HSCA
> accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
> shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
> because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>
> The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
>
Anthony Marsh
Dec 16, 2013, 3:16:48 PM12/16/13
to
will spot him on the sixth floor and report him? How does he know the
three men on the fifth floor won't catch him?
How come Baker doesn't shoot Oswald. How come Smith doesn't shoot the
fake SS agent?
OHLeeRedux
Dec 16, 2013, 5:38:53 PM12/16/13
to
Anthony Marsh
kill JFK.
> floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
> right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
> over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
>
You don't make sense. Everyone was watching the motorcade.
People can do more than one thing at a time. Brennan was watching the
motorcade but still managed to see a man with a rifle in the TSBD, whether
he was sitting or not.
> The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind. Even when the HSCA
> accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
> shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
> because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>
They dare not admit that it hit W&A said it hit.
That makes no sense at all.
> The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
>
The Warren Commission was told to ignore evidence of conspiracy.
Prove it. Show us the memo.
On 12/14/2013 7:32 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Mike
> - show quoted text -
> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>
>
> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence. The only
> "evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
> shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
> were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>
> Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
Do you get paid to make up this crap? Who said "sitting"?
Good point. No one said "sitting" so therefore there was a conspiracy to
> Mike
> - show quoted text -
> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>
>
> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence. The only
> "evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
> shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
> were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>
> Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
Do you get paid to make up this crap? Who said "sitting"?
kill JFK.
> floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
> right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
> over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
>
You don't make sense. Everyone was watching the motorcade.
motorcade but still managed to see a man with a rifle in the TSBD, whether
he was sitting or not.
> The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind. Even when the HSCA
> accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
> shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
> because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>
They dare not admit that it hit W&A said it hit.
> The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
>
The Warren Commission was told to ignore evidence of conspiracy.
Ben Holmes
Dec 16, 2013, 7:14:22 PM12/16/13
to
In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
says...
Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
about Jack Ruby...
>The only
>"evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
>shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
>were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>
>Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
>floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
>right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
>over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
>
>The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind.
As they didn't look at the throat wound, and dissect it... this is
meaningless.
Can you explain why the prosectors were ordered not to dissect the throat?
>Even when the HSCA
>accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
>shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
>because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>
>The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
The Warren Commission demonstrated a *PATTERN* of evidence avoidance that
is quite obvious. Even some of the staff were complaining that what they
were doing would reflect poorly on them. Liebler did a memo on this, for
example...
says...
>
>Mike
>- show quoted text -
>What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>
>
>Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>Mike
>- show quoted text -
>What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>
>
>Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
about Jack Ruby...
>The only
>"evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
>shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
>were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>
>Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
>floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
>right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
>over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
>
>The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind.
meaningless.
Can you explain why the prosectors were ordered not to dissect the throat?
>Even when the HSCA
>accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
>shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
>because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>
>The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
is quite obvious. Even some of the staff were complaining that what they
were doing would reflect poorly on them. Liebler did a memo on this, for
example...
Bud
Dec 16, 2013, 8:51:48 PM12/16/13
to
string of strawmen instead.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 16, 2013, 8:56:20 PM12/16/13
to
On 12/16/2013 5:38 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Anthony Marsh
> On 12/14/2013 7:32 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> Mike
>> - show quoted text -
>> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence. The only
>> "evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
>> shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
>> were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>>
>> Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
>
> Do you get paid to make up this crap? Who said "sitting"?
>
>
> Good point. No one said "sitting" so therefore there was a conspiracy to
> kill JFK.
>
That's not the point. The point is you making up crap. Don't say
> Anthony Marsh
> On 12/14/2013 7:32 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> Mike
>> - show quoted text -
>> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence. The only
>> "evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
>> shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
>> were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>>
>> Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
>
> Do you get paid to make up this crap? Who said "sitting"?
>
>
> Good point. No one said "sitting" so therefore there was a conspiracy to
> kill JFK.
>
something unless you can back it up.
You are a major source of misinformation.
>> floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
>> right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
>> over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
>>
>
> You don't make sense. Everyone was watching the motorcade.
>
>
> People can do more than one thing at a time. Brennan was watching the
> motorcade but still managed to see a man with a rifle in the TSBD, whether
> he was sitting or not.
>
>
>> The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind. Even when the HSCA
>> accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
>> shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
>> because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>>
>
> They dare not admit that it hit W&A said it hit.
>
> That makes no sense at all.
>
>
>
>> The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
>>
>
> The Warren Commission was told to ignore evidence of conspiracy.
>
>
> Prove it. Show us the memo.
>
You are so clueless. That's why you are a WC defender.
OHLeeRedux
Dec 16, 2013, 11:34:36 PM12/16/13
to
This memo, Anthony, where Katzenbach says that "all of the facts
surrounding President Kennedy's assassination be made public"?
Where he says that "a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
assassination" should be made public?
What he talks about cutting off is the speculation and rumor eminating
from the Dallas PD, an organization that was skilled at investigating
local crimes, but had no expertise dealing with situations that carried
international implications.
Appoint a prestigious committee, get the facts out to the public, and put
an end to these unsubstantiated rumors coming out of a local police
department that might start World War III.
That's what Katzenbach was saying.
It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy’s
Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
statement to this effect be made now.
The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not
have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such
that he would have been convicted at trial.
Speculation about Oswald’s motivation ought to be cut off, and we should
have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy
or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right–wing conspiracy to
blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about
too pat — too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas
police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it
was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.
The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction.
Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the
world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President
is murdered.
I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as
possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to
inconsistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police
officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the
whole job.The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential
Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence
and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages.
It [sic] think it can await publication of the FBI report and public
reaction to it here and abroad.I think, however, that a statement that all
the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way
should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or
Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Deputy Attorney General
surrounding President Kennedy's assassination be made public"?
Where he says that "a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
assassination" should be made public?
What he talks about cutting off is the speculation and rumor eminating
from the Dallas PD, an organization that was skilled at investigating
local crimes, but had no expertise dealing with situations that carried
international implications.
Appoint a prestigious committee, get the facts out to the public, and put
an end to these unsubstantiated rumors coming out of a local police
department that might start World War III.
That's what Katzenbach was saying.
It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy’s
Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
statement to this effect be made now.
The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not
have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such
that he would have been convicted at trial.
Speculation about Oswald’s motivation ought to be cut off, and we should
have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy
or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right–wing conspiracy to
blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about
too pat — too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas
police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it
was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.
The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction.
Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can scarcely let the
world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President
is murdered.
I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as
possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to
inconsistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police
officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the
whole job.The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential
Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence
and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages.
It [sic] think it can await publication of the FBI report and public
reaction to it here and abroad.I think, however, that a statement that all
the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way
should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or
Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.
Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Deputy Attorney General
BT George
Dec 17, 2013, 8:09:23 PM12/17/13
to
was NO time to let wild rumors get out of hand and create a "Red Scare"
that could have untold consequences. In context, the meaning of his
statement, "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin;
that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the
evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." is clearly
defined by the preceding and follow remarks.
In particular, it should be noted that the prior statement said (all
emphasis mine), "It is important that ALL of the facts surrounding
President Kennedy’s Assassination be made public in a way which will
satisfy people in the United States and abroad that ALL the facts have
been told..." followed later by, "The matter has been handled thus far
with neither dignity nor conviction. FACTS have been mixed with RUMOUR and
SPECULATION."
The twisting of the plain meaning and context of his words by many in the
CT community is difficult to characterize as anything other than willful.
I think it is shameful that so many men, who appear to have been operating
both responsibly and in good faith, have in the aftermath been made out to
be underhanded and devious plotters scheming to keep the truth away from
the American people.
BT George
tims...@gmail.com
Dec 17, 2013, 8:11:34 PM12/17/13
to
hide from each and every response?
When you're not changing the topic, that is.
Or is it just a sudden thing?
Concerned Regards,
cmikes
Dec 17, 2013, 8:44:45 PM12/17/13
to
Peter Makres
Dec 19, 2013, 10:56:50 AM12/19/13
to
>
>
>
> BT George
Ben Holmes
Dec 19, 2013, 11:16:46 AM12/19/13
to
In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
I do find it amusing to point out in such a simple manner just how Warren
Commission believers have a faith not supported by the facts.
>>The only
>>"evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
>>shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
>>were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>>
>>Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
>>floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
>>right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
>>over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
>>
>>The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind.
>
>
>As they didn't look at the throat wound, and dissect it... this is
>meaningless.
>
>Can you explain why the prosectors were ordered not to dissect the throat?
Dead silence again...
>>Even when the HSCA
>>accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
>>shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
>>because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>>
>>The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
>
>The Warren Commission demonstrated a *PATTERN* of evidence avoidance that
>is quite obvious. Even some of the staff were complaining that what they
>were doing would reflect poorly on them. Liebler did a memo on this, for
>example...
More dead silence...
>
>In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
>says...
>>
>>Mike
>>- show quoted text -
>>What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>>which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>>
>>
>>Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
>
>
>Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>
>Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
>
>Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
>about Jack Ruby...
Dead silence...
>In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
>says...
>>
>>Mike
>>- show quoted text -
>>What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>>which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>>
>>
>>Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
>
>
>Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>
>Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
>
>Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
>about Jack Ruby...
I do find it amusing to point out in such a simple manner just how Warren
Commission believers have a faith not supported by the facts.
>>The only
>>"evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
>>shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
>>were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>>
>>Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
>>floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
>>right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
>>over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
>>
>>The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind.
>
>
>As they didn't look at the throat wound, and dissect it... this is
>meaningless.
>
>Can you explain why the prosectors were ordered not to dissect the throat?
>>Even when the HSCA
>>accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
>>shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
>>because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>>
>>The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
>
>The Warren Commission demonstrated a *PATTERN* of evidence avoidance that
>is quite obvious. Even some of the staff were complaining that what they
>were doing would reflect poorly on them. Liebler did a memo on this, for
>example...
Mike
Dec 19, 2013, 1:55:41 PM12/19/13
to
John McAdams likes to talk about "convergence".
The first stage of convergence that is needed and demanded by the his
(McAdams) own evidence is a convergence to the HSCA conclusion of a Grassy
Knoll shot.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 19, 2013, 4:51:59 PM12/19/13
to
On 12/19/2013 11:16 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
>> says...
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> - show quoted text -
>>> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>>> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
>>
>>
>> Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>>
>> Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
>>
>> Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
>> about Jack Ruby...
>
>
> Dead silence...
>
> I do find it amusing to point out in such a simple manner just how Warren
> Commission believers have a faith not supported by the facts.
>
>
Because no one wants to talk to you, you are reduced to replying to your
> In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>> In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
>> says...
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> - show quoted text -
>>> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>>> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
>>
>>
>> Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>>
>> Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
>>
>> Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
>> about Jack Ruby...
>
>
> Dead silence...
>
> I do find it amusing to point out in such a simple manner just how Warren
> Commission believers have a faith not supported by the facts.
>
>
own messages.
Bud
Dec 19, 2013, 7:44:30 PM12/19/13
to
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:16:46 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >
>
> >In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
>
> >says...
>
> >>
>
> >>Mike
>
> >>- show quoted text -
>
> >>What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>
> >>which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>
> >
>
> >Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
>
> >
>
> >Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
>
> >about Jack Ruby...
>
>
>
>
>
> Dead silence...
>
>
>
> I do find it amusing to point out in such a simple manner just how Warren
>
> Commission believers have a faith not supported by the facts.
The fact is that it is easy to criticize, saying the investigation
> In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >
>
> >In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>, OHLeeRedux
>
> >says...
>
> >>
>
> >>Mike
>
> >>- show quoted text -
>
> >>What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>
> >>which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>
> >
>
> >Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
>
> >
>
> >Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
>
> >about Jack Ruby...
>
>
>
>
>
> Dead silence...
>
>
>
> I do find it amusing to point out in such a simple manner just how Warren
>
> Commission believers have a faith not supported by the facts.
should have done this, that or the other thing. The fact is that this
approach can be used to make the case the US was trying to lose the war or
get it`s soldiers slaughtered by focusing just on questionable actions and
boneheaded decisions. Ben doesn`t understand that he can`t really make his
case using this fallacious approach, he needs to make it from the inside,
with a memo or insider confirming his claims, not some hobbyist on the
outside saying "This is how it looks to me, prove me wrong".
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>The only
>
> >>"evidence" of a GK shooter is testimony from people who say they heard
>
> >>shots coming from the Knoll or saw "smoke" in that area. Those statements
>
> >>were not corroborated by any physical evidence.
>
> >>
>
> >>Witnesses saw a man with a rifle sitting inside a window on the sixth
>
> >>floor of the TSBD, but no one saw anyone with a rifle standing outside,
>
> >>right next to a public parking lot, with a manned railroad tower looking
>
> >>over the area where a shooter supposedly was. Doesn't make sense.
>
> >>
>
> >>The autopsy showed that all the shots came from behind.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >As they didn't look at the throat wound, and dissect it... this is
>
> >meaningless.
>
> >
>
> >Can you explain why the prosectors were ordered not to dissect the throat?
>
>
>
>
>
> Dead silence again...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Even when the HSCA
>
> >>accepted the dubious acoustical report and said there was probably a
>
> >>shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there missed,
>
> >>because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>
> >>
>
> >>The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
>
> >
>
> >The Warren Commission demonstrated a *PATTERN* of evidence avoidance that
>
> >is quite obvious. Even some of the staff were complaining that what they
>
> >were doing would reflect poorly on them. Liebler did a memo on this, for
>
> >example...
>
>
>
>
>
> More dead silence...
soldiers needlessly killed. Is this the way to establish willful desire to
kill it`s troops?
Steve Barber
Dec 19, 2013, 7:45:55 PM12/19/13
to
with a wide brush by accusing everyone as "Warren Commissions believers".
I don't base my reason for believing Oswald pulled the only trigger that
day on the WC findings. I base my conclusions on my own research into the
matter. It happens.
It all started for me when I started taking a closer look at the things
conspiracy buffs were taking liberties with, by either taking away--or
adding to--things that people witnessed, said,or didn't say.
Then, when I discovered the Decker crosstalk and word got out before the
release of the Ramsey panel's findings, and the buffs found out that what
I did was going to destroy the only scientific proof of a conspiracy--and
their reaction was opposite of what they preach, I was really convinced
that most of these people are not trying to find what they call the
"truth", their goal is to do absolutely nothing but to keep this thing
alive! They're not the least bit interested in proving anything except
that Oswald isn't guilty of killing President Kennedy. It isn't a matter
of President Kennedy as a person who was murdered in cold blood, with so
many of the buffs, it's all about them and good ole "patsy" Oswald, and to
hell with John Fitzgerald Kennedy!
One doesn't need x ray vision. I saw/see right through them!
Mike
Dec 19, 2013, 8:53:45 PM12/19/13
to
We do not need the acoustic tape to prove the shot from the knoll.
The ear witness testimony is just fine for that.
The reality is there is cross talk and there was a shot from the Knoll.
All you did was find one piece of the puzzle. There are many pieces to the
puzzle. But you let it go to your head and you stopped investigating and
then started making statements and well you know how it goes...
Ben Holmes
Dec 19, 2013, 9:30:34 PM12/19/13
to
In article <52b32dac$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
I ask questions about the evidence that they can't answer...
Nor, in fact, can you.
And when someone asserts that the Warren Commission "looked at all the
evidence," I point out, with IRREFUTABLE proof, that the statement isn't
correct, and there's nothing more to say.
If I were not accurate, then people in this forum *WOULD* refute me by
citing.
>
>On 12/19/2013 11:16 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>> In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>,
OHLeeRedux
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> - show quoted text -
>>>> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>>>> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>>>
>>> Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
>>>
>>> Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
>>> about Jack Ruby...
>>
>>
>> Dead silence...
>>
>> I do find it amusing to point out in such a simple manner just how Warren
>> Commission believers have a faith not supported by the facts.
>>
>>
>
>Because no one wants to talk to you, you are reduced to replying to your
>own messages.
Of COURSE they don't want to talk to me...
>On 12/19/2013 11:16 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>> In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>,
OHLeeRedux
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> - show quoted text -
>>>> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>>>> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>>>
>>> Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
>>>
>>> Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
>>> about Jack Ruby...
>>
>>
>> Dead silence...
>>
>> I do find it amusing to point out in such a simple manner just how Warren
>> Commission believers have a faith not supported by the facts.
>>
>>
>
>Because no one wants to talk to you, you are reduced to replying to your
>own messages.
I ask questions about the evidence that they can't answer...
Nor, in fact, can you.
And when someone asserts that the Warren Commission "looked at all the
evidence," I point out, with IRREFUTABLE proof, that the statement isn't
correct, and there's nothing more to say.
If I were not accurate, then people in this forum *WOULD* refute me by
citing.
Mike
Dec 19, 2013, 9:46:49 PM12/19/13
to
these people. They are not investigators. They are defenders of a book.
They are a lot like bible thumpers. They are even in disagreement with the
HSCA. They cannot be reasoned with.
Having said that, please continue to post. Not for them, but for those of
us who are investigators.
Ben Holmes
Dec 19, 2013, 9:47:48 PM12/19/13
to
In article <2f893610-8efe-4705...@googlegroups.com>, Steve Barber
says...
>> >>> shooter on the Knoll, they had to admit that the shot from there miss=
>> (McAdams) own evidence is a convergence to the HSCA conclusion of a Grass=
>y=20
Let us imagine that there *are* those who believe the Warren Commission's
basic theory, but don't accept everything they said.
Then when I point out where they lied, or where they evaded, avoided, and
buried evidence, I'd have *THOSE* people open-minded enough to see the
point... or at *LEAST* able to cite evidence against what I state.
Instead, there's only two things that ever happen... one - changing the
topic to something else without acknowledging the truth of what I stated,
or two, complete avoidance...
You've chosen option one...
The statement was made that the Warren Commission "looked at all the
evidence" - I refute it by simply referring to examples of evidence that
they PROVABLY failed to look at...
And rather than acknowledge this, as someone claiming not to be tied to
the Warren Commission... you change the topic.
Now the topic is the lumping of all Warren Commission believers into one
pile.
I think I'd rather go back to the topic that no-one here is willing to
address...
>I don't base my reason for believing Oswald pulled the only trigger that
>day on the WC findings. I base my conclusions on my own research into the
>matter. It happens.
>
>It all started for me when I started taking a closer look at the things
>conspiracy buffs were taking liberties with, by either taking away--or
>adding to--things that people witnessed, said,or didn't say.
>
>Then, when I discovered the Decker crosstalk and word got out before the
>release of the Ramsey panel's findings, and the buffs found out that what
>I did was going to destroy the only scientific proof of a conspiracy--and
>their reaction was opposite of what they preach, I was really convinced
>that most of these people are not trying to find what they call the
>"truth", their goal is to do absolutely nothing but to keep this thing
>alive! They're not the least bit interested in proving anything except
>that Oswald isn't guilty of killing President Kennedy. It isn't a matter
>of President Kennedy as a person who was murdered in cold blood, with so
>many of the buffs, it's all about them and good ole "patsy" Oswald, and to
>hell with John Fitzgerald Kennedy!
>
>One doesn't need x ray vision. I saw/see right through them!
As I just did with you...
says...
>
>On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:55:41 PM UTC-5, Mike wrote:
>> On 12/19/2013 10:16 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>> >>
>> >> In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>, OH=
>On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:55:41 PM UTC-5, Mike wrote:
>> On 12/19/2013 10:16 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>> >>
>ed,
>> >>> because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
>> >>
>> >> The Warren Commission demonstrated a *PATTERN* of evidence avoidance that
>> >> is quite obvious. Even some of the staff were complaining that what they
>> >> were doing would reflect poorly on them. Liebler did a memo on this, for
>> >> example...
>> >
>> >
>> > More dead silence...
>> >
>> >>> because the autopsy showed no evidence of a shot from the front.
>> >>>
>> >>> The Warren Commission could not ignore what was not there.
>> >>
>> >> The Warren Commission demonstrated a *PATTERN* of evidence avoidance that
>> >> is quite obvious. Even some of the staff were complaining that what they
>> >> were doing would reflect poorly on them. Liebler did a memo on this, for
>> >> example...
>> >
>> >
>> > More dead silence...
>> >
>> Warren Commission believers are dinosaurs.
>> John McAdams likes to talk about "convergence".
>> The first stage of convergence that is needed and demanded by the his=20
>> John McAdams likes to talk about "convergence".
>> (McAdams) own evidence is a convergence to the HSCA conclusion of a Grass=
>y=20
>> Knoll shot.
>
> You guys sure do enjoy painting everyone who believes Oswald acted alone
>with a wide brush by accusing everyone as "Warren Commissions believers".
This is really simple...
>
> You guys sure do enjoy painting everyone who believes Oswald acted alone
>with a wide brush by accusing everyone as "Warren Commissions believers".
Let us imagine that there *are* those who believe the Warren Commission's
basic theory, but don't accept everything they said.
Then when I point out where they lied, or where they evaded, avoided, and
buried evidence, I'd have *THOSE* people open-minded enough to see the
point... or at *LEAST* able to cite evidence against what I state.
Instead, there's only two things that ever happen... one - changing the
topic to something else without acknowledging the truth of what I stated,
or two, complete avoidance...
You've chosen option one...
The statement was made that the Warren Commission "looked at all the
evidence" - I refute it by simply referring to examples of evidence that
they PROVABLY failed to look at...
And rather than acknowledge this, as someone claiming not to be tied to
the Warren Commission... you change the topic.
Now the topic is the lumping of all Warren Commission believers into one
pile.
I think I'd rather go back to the topic that no-one here is willing to
address...
>I don't base my reason for believing Oswald pulled the only trigger that
>day on the WC findings. I base my conclusions on my own research into the
>matter. It happens.
>
>It all started for me when I started taking a closer look at the things
>conspiracy buffs were taking liberties with, by either taking away--or
>adding to--things that people witnessed, said,or didn't say.
>
>Then, when I discovered the Decker crosstalk and word got out before the
>release of the Ramsey panel's findings, and the buffs found out that what
>I did was going to destroy the only scientific proof of a conspiracy--and
>their reaction was opposite of what they preach, I was really convinced
>that most of these people are not trying to find what they call the
>"truth", their goal is to do absolutely nothing but to keep this thing
>alive! They're not the least bit interested in proving anything except
>that Oswald isn't guilty of killing President Kennedy. It isn't a matter
>of President Kennedy as a person who was murdered in cold blood, with so
>many of the buffs, it's all about them and good ole "patsy" Oswald, and to
>hell with John Fitzgerald Kennedy!
>
>One doesn't need x ray vision. I saw/see right through them!
Steve Barber
Dec 19, 2013, 11:02:03 PM12/19/13
to
Steve Barber
Dec 19, 2013, 11:04:53 PM12/19/13
to
>
>
>
> We do not need the acoustic tape to prove the shot from the knoll.
>
>
>
> The ear witness testimony is just fine for that.
>
>
>
> The reality is there is cross talk and there was a shot from the Knoll.
The reality is, you just don't know what you are talking about!
>
>
> The reality is there is cross talk and there was a shot from the Knoll.
>
>
>
> All you did was find one piece of the puzzle. There are many pieces to the
>
> puzzle.
No Kidding! I've been working on this far longer than you have Mike. Tell
>
>
> All you did was find one piece of the puzzle. There are many pieces to the
>
> puzzle.
me something I don't already know!
But you let it go to your head and you stopped investigating and
>
> then started making statements and well you know how it goes...
Mike
Dec 20, 2013, 10:43:48 AM12/20/13
to
To me you are a dinosaur. Nothing more.
Bud
Dec 20, 2013, 2:28:37 PM12/20/13
to
> You've chosen option one...
>
>
>
> The statement was made that the Warren Commission "looked at all the
>
> evidence" - I refute it by simply referring to examples of evidence that
>
> they PROVABLY failed to look at...
When is all the evidence discovered?
> And rather than acknowledge this, as someone claiming not to be tied to
>
> the Warren Commission... you change the topic.
>
>
>
> Now the topic is the lumping of all Warren Commission believers into one
>
> pile.
>
>
>
> I think I'd rather go back to the topic that no-one here is willing to
>
> address...
good.
Bud
Dec 20, 2013, 2:29:12 PM12/20/13
to
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 9:30:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <52b32dac$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> >
>
> >On 12/19/2013 11:16 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> >> In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>
>
> >>> In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> OHLeeRedux
>
> >>> says...
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Mike
>
> >>>> - show quoted text -
>
> >>>> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>
> >>>> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
>
> >>> about Jack Ruby...
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Dead silence...
>
> >>
>
> >> I do find it amusing to point out in such a simple manner just how Warren
>
> >> Commission believers have a faith not supported by the facts.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Because no one wants to talk to you, you are reduced to replying to your
>
> >own messages.
>
>
>
>
>
> Of COURSE they don't want to talk to me...
>
>
>
> I ask questions about the evidence that they can't answer...
I`ve asked you many questions over the years about things you said which you couldn`t answer.
> In article <52b32dac$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>
> >
>
> >On 12/19/2013 11:16 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
> >> In article <l8n5v...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>
>
> >>> In article <db420b7b-d814-4f32...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> OHLeeRedux
>
> >>> says...
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Mike
>
> >>>> - show quoted text -
>
> >>>> What is very clear is the Warren Commission ignored any and all evidence
>
> >>>> which would have pointed to a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Wrong. The Warren Commission looked at all the evidence.
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Then simply cite James Chaney's testimony...
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Or Adm Burkley's testimony...
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Or the FBI research done in response to the Warren Commission's questions
>
> >>> about Jack Ruby...
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Dead silence...
>
> >>
>
> >> I do find it amusing to point out in such a simple manner just how Warren
>
> >> Commission believers have a faith not supported by the facts.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >Because no one wants to talk to you, you are reduced to replying to your
>
> >own messages.
>
>
>
>
>
> Of COURSE they don't want to talk to me...
>
>
>
> I ask questions about the evidence that they can't answer...
> Nor, in fact, can you.
>
>
>
> And when someone asserts that the Warren Commission "looked at all the
>
> evidence," I point out, with IRREFUTABLE proof, that the statement isn't
>
> correct, and there's nothing more to say.
out some things that were not *in* evidence. There was an infinite number
of things the Warren Commission didn`t look at, but this doesn`t make
those things evidence.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence
Can Ben show that the WC didn`t look at all the things *in* evidence
instead of focusing on the things that he thinks should have been there?
Steve Barber
Dec 20, 2013, 4:52:26 PM12/20/13
to
>
>
>
> To me you are a dinosaur. Nothing more.
Bud
Dec 20, 2013, 10:35:17 PM12/20/13
to
"Bud is even trying to claim that only evidence *LOOKED AT* by the Warren
Commission was evidence. How amusingly STUPID!!!"
He refuses to address what I actually wrote here, and instead opts to
misrepresent my argument in a forum he has me killfiltered in. Theres a
word for that, but I don`t think I can get it past the moderation.
Anyway, here is what Ben wrote once more, and my response...
"Bud is even trying to claim that only evidence *LOOKED AT* by the Warren
Commission was evidence. How amusingly STUPID!!!"
Obviously they can only weigh what they look at. They can only look at
what is *in* evidence to come to a conclusion. Ben didn`t refute the idea
that the Warren Commission looked at all the evidence *in* evidence, he
brought of things he felt should have been *in* evidence. Conceivably
there is an almost unlimited amount of evidence not "in" evidence, but the
Warren Commission can`t be faulted for not looking at it. Much would
almost certainly be undiscovered. Ben needs to show something that was
*in* evidence that the WC didn`t look at and stop erecting strawmen.
Mike
Dec 20, 2013, 10:40:09 PM12/20/13
to
You are the one who starts replying to my posts.
Steve Barber
Dec 21, 2013, 10:38:25 AM12/21/13
to
0 new messages