Douglas Horne And The Truth...

[Ben Holmes]

The claim has been made on this forum that Douglas Horne stated that he
was the first person to bring up the "hole in the windshield controversy".

To be precise, it was alleged that "Another indication of Horne's
dishonesty was the quote where he claims that he was the first person to
bring up the hole in the windshield controversy."

In the interests of factual history, can *ANYONE* in this forum document
such a statement by Douglas Horne?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[John Fiorentino]

Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "discovered" a hole
in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in Parts 7 I believe
of TMWKK.

Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Channel due to
threatened legal action.

John F.


"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:lami3...@drn.newsguy.com...

[magoos...@msn.com]

What he claims in the article on the Lew Rockwell site is this:

"In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK
assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photography of the
through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limousine
that had been reported by six credible witnesses."

His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photography" of the
windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole.

Squinty Magoo

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52cf151b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

>
>Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "discovered" a hole
>in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in Parts 7 I believe
>of TMWKK.
>
>Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Channel due to
>threatened legal action.
>
>John F.

I'm unsure of whether you actually understood what I'm asking for.

The statement was made that Douglas Horned claimed that he was the first
person to discover a hole in the windshield.


One more time... the *FIRST PERSON* to discover a hole in the windshield.


I'm ASKING FOR A CITATION TO ANY SUCH CLAIM BY DOUGLAS HORNE.

I'm not asking for where he spotted such a hole, I'm not asking for
sources where he talks about a hole... I'm asking for a source for the
claim that Douglas Horne claimed that *HE* was the *FIRST* to discover
such a hole.

I really don't know how to make this more clear.

Can anyone on this forum provide such a citation?

>"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>news:lami3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> The claim has been made on this forum that Douglas Horne stated that he
>> was the first person to bring up the "hole in the windshield controversy".
>>
>> To be precise, it was alleged that "Another indication of Horne's
>> dishonesty was the quote where he claims that he was the first person to
>> bring up the hole in the windshield controversy."
>>
>> In the interests of factual history, can *ANYONE* in this forum document
>> such a statement by Douglas Horne?
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
>>
>
>

--

[Glenn Sarlitto]

John,

RE your: "Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Channel

due to threatened legal action".

All the episodes are on You Tube. Here's the three you posted.

Episode 7 - The Smoking Guns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rznWuemqXms

Episode 8 - The Love Affair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_qQ0FBocFw

Episode 9 - The Guilty Men
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F-LY1HblmE

GS

On Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:38:54 PM UTC-6, John Fiorentino wrote:

[Anthony Marsh]

Let me guess. The next message from Mike or Ben will be:

Squinty, why is that you will never quote exactly what Horne said?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/9/2014 11:55 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <52cf151b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>
>> Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "discovered" a hole
>> in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in Parts 7 I believe
>> of TMWKK.
>>
>> Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Channel due to
>> threatened legal action.
>>
>> John F.
>
>
> I'm unsure of whether you actually understood what I'm asking for.
>
> The statement was made that Douglas Horned claimed that he was the first
> person to discover a hole in the windshield.
>
>
> One more time... the *FIRST PERSON* to discover a hole in the windshield.
>
>
> I'm ASKING FOR A CITATION TO ANY SUCH CLAIM BY DOUGLAS HORNE.
>
> I'm not asking for where he spotted such a hole, I'm not asking for
> sources where he talks about a hole... I'm asking for a source for the
> claim that Douglas Horne claimed that *HE* was the *FIRST* to discover
> such a hole.
>
> I really don't know how to make this more clear.
>
> Can anyone on this forum provide such a citation?
>

Maybe you have a defective newsreader and can't read all the messages.

[mainframetech]

The 6 witnesses who actually saw the bullet hole might take issue with
that...:)

Chris

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52cf749c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 1/9/2014 7:59 PM, magoos...@msn.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:38:54 PM UTC-6, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>> Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "discovered" a hole
>>>
>>> in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in Parts 7 I believe
>>>
>>> of TMWKK.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Channel due to
>>>
>>> threatened legal action.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John F.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:lami3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>> The claim has been made on this forum that Douglas Horne stated that he
>>>
>>>> was the first person to bring up the "hole in the windshield controversy".
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> To be precise, it was alleged that "Another indication of Horne's
>>>
>>>> dishonesty was the quote where he claims that he was the first person to
>>>
>>>> bring up the hole in the windshield controversy."
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> In the interests of factual history, can *ANYONE* in this forum document
>>>
>>>> such a statement by Douglas Horne?
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

>> What he claims in the article on the Lew Rockwell site is this:
>>
>> "In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK
>> assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photography of the
>> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limousine
>> that had been reported by six credible witnesses."
>>
>> His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photography" of the
>> windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole.
>>
>> Squinty Magoo
>>
>
>
>Let me guess. The next message from Mike or Ben will be:
>
>Squinty, why is that you will never quote exactly what Horne said?

No, actually, the next message is going to repeat my request for the forum
to help you out, Tony.

You see, the Lew Rockwell site article is already known to me...

You refuse to cite for your claim, so hopefully *SOMEONE* can find a
quote, cite, source, *ANYTHING* that will support your claim.

It's not looking good...

[John Fiorentino]

Lots of things are on U-Tube. U-Tube is not the History Channel.

John F.



"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1eab4f36-faba-4c3e...@googlegroups.com...

[BT George]

No Tony. Though I'm no fan of much of Ben's beliefs and tactics, in this
case he is factually right. As is your frequent tendency, you seem to
have misconstrued what Doug Horne actually claimed.

In this post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/JeJ2x239Ywc/ykjuCH-FT9kJ

...you said:

"Another indication of Horne's dishonesty was the quote where he claims
that he was the first person to bring up the hole in the windshield

controversy. He is not a careful researcher. It was first brought up in
the December 30, 1963 issue of US News and World Report:

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/USNews_12_30_63.jpg"

However, the truth is that Horne (who holds beliefs I definitely consider
"kooky") never claimed what you said he claimed in the reference article
under debate in the other thread. Indeed as Squinty Magoo has said above:

"His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photography" of the
windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole."

Also to my knowledge, Horne has *never* claimed what you said he claimed
elsewhere either. He may be rightly called a "kook" but unless you
produce evidence of his making such a claim, the only conclusion is that
you were wrong in your original interpretation of his claims and just
don't want to admit it.

While I personally dislike Ben's tendency to often hyper-focus on what I
consider to be issues of secondary importance (like this); when the man's
right, he's right. And no face is really saved by refusing to admit it.

BT George

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52cf823a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 1/9/2014 11:55 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <52cf151b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...
>>>
>>> Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "discovered" a hole
>>> in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in Parts 7 I believe
>>> of TMWKK.
>>>
>>> Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Channel due to
>>> threatened legal action.
>>>
>>> John F.
>>
>>
>> I'm unsure of whether you actually understood what I'm asking for.
>>
>> The statement was made that Douglas Horned claimed that he was the first
>> person to discover a hole in the windshield.
>>
>>
>> One more time... the *FIRST PERSON* to discover a hole in the windshield.
>>
>>
>> I'm ASKING FOR A CITATION TO ANY SUCH CLAIM BY DOUGLAS HORNE.
>>
>> I'm not asking for where he spotted such a hole, I'm not asking for
>> sources where he talks about a hole... I'm asking for a source for the
>> claim that Douglas Horne claimed that *HE* was the *FIRST* to discover
>> such a hole.
>>
>> I really don't know how to make this more clear.
>>
>> Can anyone on this forum provide such a citation?
>>
>
>Maybe you have a defective newsreader and can't read all the messages.

Maybe you really *CANNOT* provide such a cite, because Douglas Horne never
said what you claim he said.


Which possibility is more likely?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/10/2014 3:06 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Lots of things are on U-Tube. U-Tube is not the History Channel.
>
> John F.
>

So if it's on the History Channel it must be true? Therefor you MUST
believe everything in The Men Who Killed Kennedy. You should think more
carefully before you make comparisons.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh I get it now. You think that Horne was the one who found photographic
proof of a hole in the windshield, but he doesn't believe it himself. But
the fact is that Horne is a Liftonite and automatically believes whatever
kooky theory Lifton or Fetzer proposes. He doesn't have the chops to find
new photographic proof of anything. I had already debunked Fetzer's
nonsense.

> Also to my knowledge, Horne has *never* claimed what you said he claimed
> elsewhere either. He may be rightly called a "kook" but unless you
> produce evidence of his making such a claim, the only conclusion is that
> you were wrong in your original interpretation of his claims and just
> don't want to admit it.
>
> While I personally dislike Ben's tendency to often hyper-focus on what I
> consider to be issues of secondary importance (like this); when the man's
> right, he's right. And no face is really saved by refusing to admit it.
>

You only like him when he attacks me.

> BT George
>

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ac0752a1-7169-4565...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
says...

>
>On Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:05:11 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

[snipped]

>> Squinty, why is that you will never quote exactly what Horne said?
>
>No Tony. Though I'm no fan of much of Ben's beliefs and tactics, in this
>case he is factually right. As is your frequent tendency, you seem to
>have misconstrued what Doug Horne actually claimed.
>
>In this post:
>

>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/JeJ2x239Ywc/ykjuCH-FT=

>9kJ
>
>...you said:
>
>"Another indication of Horne's dishonesty was the quote where he claims
>that he was the first person to bring up the hole in the windshield
>controversy. He is not a careful researcher. It was first brought up in
>the December 30, 1963 issue of US News and World Report:
>
>http://the-puzzle-palace.com/USNews_12_30_63.jpg"
>
>However, the truth is that Horne (who holds beliefs I definitely consider
>"kooky") never claimed what you said he claimed in the reference article
>under debate in the other thread. Indeed as Squinty Magoo has said above:
>
>"His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photography" of the
>windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole."
>
>Also to my knowledge, Horne has *never* claimed what you said he claimed
>elsewhere either. He may be rightly called a "kook" but unless you
>produce evidence of his making such a claim, the only conclusion is that
>you were wrong in your original interpretation of his claims and just
>don't want to admit it.
>
>While I personally dislike Ben's tendency to often hyper-focus on what I
>consider to be issues of secondary importance (like this); when the man's
>right, he's right. And no face is really saved by refusing to admit it.
>
>BT George

If the truth isn't told about the small issues, it can *NEVER* be told
about the larger issues.

For example, if the claim is made that Dr. Humes burned his notes & draft
on Saturday morning - that simple difference of 24 hours makes a
TREMENDOUS difference in *many* aspects of the case.

But this was merely another claim that was *never* supported by ANY
CITATION WHATSOEVER...

And indeed, it seems like a very minor point... everyone can agree that
Dr. Humes burned some paperwork.

But the day that he burned it has tremendous consequences for any working
theory of what went on.

On *this* issue, for example, the degrading of an individual based *not*
on factually accurate issues, but on what, were this not a censored forum,
I'd be able to accurately label... happens often. It shouldn't.

But it's far easier to label Horne "dishonest" with something made up,
than it is to actually try to debate the real evidence... such as Horne's
evidence for alteration of the evidence concerning JFK's brain.


--

[John Fiorentino]

That's not what I said or did Tony.

Just being disingenuous because we have no facts to back up our nutty
theories are we Anthony?

John F.





"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:52d056ac$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[jfk...@gmail.com]

I'm sure Chris didn't intend to lump 'all six' witnesses together,
especially now that he has been provided with clarification that only a
few were actually at PH and even valid witnesses and at least two of them
thought they saw holes in different places, indicating that they may have
seen something else, otherwise there would have been a swiss-cheese
windshield.

[BT George]

Tony Marsh said:

You only like him when he (Ben Holmes) attacks me.

BT George replies:

No Tony. Ben Holmes curries no favor from me by attacking you. (Heck. as
much as you irritate me at times, I don't really mind exchanging with you
on a lot of topics.) I am just calling a spade a spade, and anyone
examining this or the original thread knows it too.

And no...I never said I believed Horne's claims in this regard one way or
the other. I just said the referenced quote does not support your claims
that he was asserting he had "discovered" the whole hole-in-the-window
issue in the first place.

BT George

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52d05a96$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 1/10/2014 3:10 PM, BT George wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:05:11 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2014 7:59 PM, magoos...@msn.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:38:54 PM UTC-6, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>>> Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "discovered" a hole
>>>>>>> in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in Parts 7 I believe
>>>>> of TMWKK.
>>>>> Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Channel due to
>>>>> threatened legal action.
>>>>> John F.
>>>>> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:lami3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>>>> The claim has been made on this forum that Douglas Horne stated that he
>>>>>> was the first person to bring up the "hole in the windshield
controversy".
>>>>>>> To be precise, it was alleged that "Another indication of Horne's
>>>>>> dishonesty was the quote where he claims that he was the first person to
>>>>>> bring up the hole in the windshield controversy."
>>>>>>> In the interests of factual history, can *ANYONE* in this forum document
>>>>>> such a statement by Douglas Horne?
>>>>>>

Then why can't you retract your previous untruthful statement, Tony?/

>You think that Horne was the one who found photographic
>proof of a hole in the windshield, but he doesn't believe it himself. But
>the fact is that Horne is a Liftonite and automatically believes whatever
>kooky theory Lifton or Fetzer proposes. He doesn't have the chops to find
>new photographic proof of anything. I had already debunked Fetzer's
>nonsense.

Completely meaningless garbage, not addressing the point that was raised.

>> Also to my knowledge, Horne has *never* claimed what you said he claimed
>> elsewhere either. He may be rightly called a "kook" but unless you
>> produce evidence of his making such a claim, the only conclusion is that
>> you were wrong in your original interpretation of his claims and just
>> don't want to admit it.
>>
>> While I personally dislike Ben's tendency to often hyper-focus on what I
>> consider to be issues of secondary importance (like this); when the man's
>> right, he's right. And no face is really saved by refusing to admit it.
>>
>
>You only like him when he attacks me.

I don't attack *you*, Tony.

I attack statements that are not true.


>> BT George


--

[BT George]

Yes, but to be completely honest, your prior comments indicate that you
*WOULD* like very much to attack the source of such statements as well as
the statements. E.g., you would like very much to be able to label the
source of an untrue claim as a "lier".

I cannot disagree that there are frequent liers here and elsewhere on this
topic. In a perfect world it would be nice to be able to label those who
clearly make and/or defend dishonest statements with a moniker befitting
their actions. The downside is that in unmoderated or loosely moderated
venues, each side constantly labels the other as "liers" (and far worse)
whether the label is really justified or not.

The result is that most persons who would prefer to see sane and civil
discourse, ulitmately find it is better to be censored from the freedom to
freely label their opponents as they see fit, than to retain that freedom
and end up with debates that rarely rise above the level of mud-slinging.
The fact that persons usually cannot censor themselves from decending to
childish and crude name-calling in an adversarial environement, is on
daily display at the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG where you frequently post.

I have no problem with you choosing to avail yourself of that freedom, but
it is doubtlessly a large reason that the volume of views and posts over
there is routinely less than it is here. In the long run, most people
want to have a decent chance of seeing the assassination debated in a sane
manner, than to see how "creative" the posters can get describing each
other's alleged character flaws and misdeeds.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, January 10, 2014 6:27:38 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/10/2014 3:10 PM, BT George wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:05:11 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> >> On 1/9/2014 7:59 PM, magoos...@msn.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:38:54 PM UTC-6, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "discovered" a hole
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in Parts 7 I believe
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> of TMWKK.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Channel due to
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> threatened legal action.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> John F.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> news:lami3...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> The claim has been made on this forum that Douglas Horne stated that he
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> was the first person to bring up the "hole in the windshield controversy".
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> To be precise, it was alleged that "Another indication of Horne's
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> dishonesty was the quote where he claims that he was the first person to
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> bring up the hole in the windshield controversy."
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> In the interests of factual history, can *ANYONE* in this forum document
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> such a statement by Douglas Horne?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> Ben Holmes
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>

What kind of foolishness is that? Lifton didn't get together to discuss
the photo of the windshield hole picture with Horne as far as I know.
Did you check where Horne said to look? Or just do like always when Horne
is mentioned and run away from anything he might say?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <65a8908a-d468-4ecf...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
says...

>
>On Saturday, January 11, 2014 4:43:00 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <52d05a96$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>=20

>> >
>> >On 1/10/2014 3:10 PM, BT George wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:05:11 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> >>> On 1/9/2014 7:59 PM, magoos...@msn.com wrote:

>> >>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:38:54 PM UTC-6, John Fiorentino wrote=
>:
>> >>>>> Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "discovered" =
>a hole
>> >>>>>>> in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in Parts 7 I =
>believe
>> >>>>> of TMWKK.
>> >>>>> Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Channel due=

> to
>> >>>>> threatened legal action.
>> >>>>> John F.
>> >>>>> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>> news:lami3...@drn.newsguy.com...

>> >>>>>> The claim has been made on this forum that Douglas Horne stated th=
>at he
>> >>>>>> was the first person to bring up the "hole in the windshield=20

>> controversy".
>> >>>>>>> To be precise, it was alleged that "Another indication of Horne's

>> >>>>>> dishonesty was the quote where he claims that he was the first per=

>son to
>> >>>>>> bring up the hole in the windshield controversy."

>> >>>>>>> In the interests of factual history, can *ANYONE* in this forum d=

>ocument
>> >>>>>> such a statement by Douglas Horne?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> What he claims in the article on the Lew Rockwell site is this:
>> >>>>> "In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK

>> >>>> assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photography =
>of the
>> >>>> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limousi=

>ne
>> >>>> that had been reported by six credible witnesses."

>> >>>>> His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photography" o=

>f the
>> >>>> windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole.
>> >>>>> Squinty Magoo
>> >>>> Let me guess. The next message from Mike or Ben will be:
>> >>> Squinty, why is that you will never quote exactly what Horne said?
>> >>

>> >> No Tony. Though I'm no fan of much of Ben's beliefs and tactics, in t=

>his
>> >> case he is factually right. As is your frequent tendency, you seem to
>> >> have misconstrued what Doug Horne actually claimed.
>> >>
>> >> In this post:
>> >>

>> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/JeJ2x239Ywc/ykju=
>CH-
>> FT9kJ
>> >>
>> >> ...you said:
>> >>
>> >> "Another indication of Horne's dishonesty was the quote where he claim=

>s
>> >> that he was the first person to bring up the hole in the windshield

>> >> controversy. He is not a careful researcher. It was first brought up i=

>n
>> >> the December 30, 1963 issue of US News and World Report:
>> >>
>> >> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/USNews_12_30_63.jpg"
>> >>

>> >> However, the truth is that Horne (who holds beliefs I definitely consi=
>der
>> >> "kooky") never claimed what you said he claimed in the reference artic=
>le
>> >> under debate in the other thread. Indeed as Squinty Magoo has said ab=
>ove:
>> >>
>> >> "His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photography" of =

>the
>> >> windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole."
>> >>
>> >
>> >Oh I get it now.
>> Then why can't you retract your previous untruthful statement, Tony?/

>> >You think that Horne was the one who found photographic=20
>> >proof of a hole in the windshield, but he doesn't believe it himself. Bu=
>t=20
>> >the fact is that Horne is a Liftonite and automatically believes whateve=
>r=20
>> >kooky theory Lifton or Fetzer proposes. He doesn't have the chops to fin=
>d=20
>> >new photographic proof of anything. I had already debunked Fetzer's=20

>> >nonsense.
>> Completely meaningless garbage, not addressing the point that was raised.

>> >> Also to my knowledge, Horne has *never* claimed what you said he claim=

>ed
>> >> elsewhere either. He may be rightly called a "kook" but unless you

>> >> produce evidence of his making such a claim, the only conclusion is th=

>at
>> >> you were wrong in your original interpretation of his claims and just
>> >> don't want to admit it.
>> >>

>> >> While I personally dislike Ben's tendency to often hyper-focus on what=
> I
>> >> consider to be issues of secondary importance (like this); when the ma=
>n's
>> >> right, he's right. And no face is really saved by refusing to admit i=

>t.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You only like him when he attacks me.
>> I don't attack *you*, Tony.
>> I attack statements that are not true.
>
>Yes, but to be completely honest, your prior comments indicate that you
>*WOULD* like very much to attack the source of such statements as well as
>the statements. E.g., you would like very much to be able to label the
>source of an untrue claim as a "lier".

People who lie are, in the English language, commonly referred to as
liars... particularly when lying is a frequent occurrence. I have no
intention of changing the English language.

Such truth can't be told here...

>I cannot disagree that there are frequent liers here and elsewhere on this
>topic. In a perfect world it would be nice to be able to label those who
>clearly make and/or defend dishonest statements with a moniker befitting
>their actions. The downside is that in unmoderated or loosely moderated
>venues, each side constantly labels the other as "liers" (and far worse)
>whether the label is really justified or not.

And Tony would *ALWAYS* have the ability to simply cite for his claim -
and shut up anyone claiming him to be less than truthful.

Labeling someone a liar who clearly isn't ... is simply another lie that
can easily in most cases be seen for what it is.

>The result is that most persons who would prefer to see sane and civil
>discourse, ulitmately find it is better to be censored from the freedom to
>freely label their opponents as they see fit, than to retain that freedom
>and end up with debates that rarely rise above the level of mud-slinging.
>The fact that persons usually cannot censor themselves from decending to
>childish and crude name-calling in an adversarial environement, is on
>daily display at the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG where you frequently post.

And which side does that come from?

>I have no problem with you choosing to avail yourself of that freedom, but
>it is doubtlessly a large reason that the volume of views and posts over
>there is routinely less than it is here. In the long run, most people
>want to have a decent chance of seeing the assassination debated in a sane
>manner, than to see how "creative" the posters can get describing each
>other's alleged character flaws and misdeeds.
>
>> >> BT George

All you've done here is create a haven for people who cannot defend their
claims.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <lapvm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

I can well understand why Tony doesn't want to address this.

[Bud]

I`d say most of the nasty rhetoric originated because of the tone you
set there, calling your opponents liars and cowards. I don`t doubt that it
would have been more civil over the years without that inflammatory
language sparking things.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >I have no problem with you choosing to avail yourself of that freedom, but
>
> >it is doubtlessly a large reason that the volume of views and posts over
>
> >there is routinely less than it is here. In the long run, most people
>
> >want to have a decent chance of seeing the assassination debated in a sane
>
> >manner, than to see how "creative" the posters can get describing each
>
> >other's alleged character flaws and misdeeds.
>
> >
>
> >> >> BT George
>
>
>
> All you've done here is create a haven for people who cannot defend their
>
> claims.

All it does is disarm you from your favorite tactic, drowning out your opponents with ad hominem.

[BT George]

I don't think anyone has asked you to. All that is being suggested, is
that just because something is true, doesn't always mean it has to be
said. It is not always a "lie" to leave a "truth" unsaid. Your wife may
have gained a lot of weight to the point of becoming fat. But it is not
"lying" for others to choose not to comment on that fact even though it
might be true.

Nevertheless...the truth of her weight gain will still be evident to those
who are observant even if no one labels her as "fat". So too with those
who make a habit of lying, will be seen as "liers" just by pointing out
the lies. There is no need to use that label *IF* refraining from doing
so accomplishes a greater overall purpose.

>
>
> Such truth can't be told here...
>
>

I think you sell most thinking people too short. Persons *knowingly*
making false claims generally becomes *quite* evident after a while.
While there are some contexts that it is both necessary and useful to call
someone out as a lier, a debate format is generally best served by
disallowing inflammatory labels that---while sometimes correctly
used----most often end up being misued in confrontational situations and
shutting down sane, intelligent interchange.

I am glad the freedom exists to go elsewhere and say whatever one wants to
say, but it is neither nefarious, nor evil to choose to post where an
*honest* person can state *honest* beliefs without fear of being *falsely*
labeled a lier---and far worse---by those who disagree. This remains true
even though the same environment may allow *dishonest* persons to
sometimes state *lies* without fear of directly being labeled "liers".
...PROVIDED, of course, that others *ARE* allowed to point out that the
statement itself is *UNTRUE*.

Since you just *successfully* pointed out an untrue statement made by
another poster (whether he willfully lied or just got it wrong and refused
to admit it) the ability to do so is on *evident* display. Surely you do
not object to letting *others* decide for themselves if this sort of
behavior rises to the level of a wilful lie told by a "lier" or to
something else?

>
>
>
> >I cannot disagree that there are frequent liers here and elsewhere on this
>
> >topic. In a perfect world it would be nice to be able to label those who
>
> >clearly make and/or defend dishonest statements with a moniker befitting
>
> >their actions. The downside is that in unmoderated or loosely moderated
>
> >venues, each side constantly labels the other as "liers" (and far worse)
>
> >whether the label is really justified or not.
>
>
>
>
>
> And Tony would *ALWAYS* have the ability to simply cite for his claim -
>
> and shut up anyone claiming him to be less than truthful.
>
>

True. So you too see that an untruth or lie *CAN* be shown for what it
is, even without someone having to hand out the "lier" label.

>
> Labeling someone a liar who clearly isn't ... is simply another lie that
>
> can easily in most cases be seen for what it is.
>
>

Indeed. And no labels even needed to do so! :-)

>
>
>
> >The result is that most persons who would prefer to see sane and civil
>
> >discourse, ulitmately find it is better to be censored from the freedom to
>
> >freely label their opponents as they see fit, than to retain that freedom
>
> >and end up with debates that rarely rise above the level of mud-slinging.
>
> >The fact that persons usually cannot censor themselves from decending to
>
> >childish and crude name-calling in an adversarial environement, is on
>
> >daily display at the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG where you frequently post.
>
>
>
>
>
> And which side does that come from?
>
>

Hmmm...you seem to be obliquely suggesting it is all coming from the LN
side. However, since you do post a lot over there I *am* assuming you've
actually read enough posts to know the *truth*. If not, our viewers and
lurkers can go over there and see readily enough for themselves how many
CT's even call each other "liars" over there....still less CT's labeling
LN's as liers. And *yes* it happens from LN's to CT's often too and I do
not deny it.

>
>
>
>
>
> >I have no problem with you choosing to avail yourself of that freedom, but
>
> >it is doubtlessly a large reason that the volume of views and posts over
>
> >there is routinely less than it is here. In the long run, most people
>
> >want to have a decent chance of seeing the assassination debated in a sane
>
> >manner, than to see how "creative" the posters can get describing each
>
> >other's alleged character flaws and misdeeds.
>
> >
>
> >> >> BT George
>
>
>
> All you've done here is create a haven for people who cannot defend their
>
> claims.
>
>

A haven has also been created for generally sane and useful discourse
rather than endless ad hominem that accomplishes *NOTHING* towards useful
interchange. We appear to differ on that. "C'est la vie!" It is to our
viewers and lurkers that I appeal to view both formats and draw whatever
conclusions seem appropriate for themeselves.

BT George

[Ben Holmes]

In article <8aa7434c-9d10-42b3...@googlegroups.com>, BT George

says...
>
>On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:58:49 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> In article <65a8908a-d468-4ecf...@googlegroups.com>, BT Ge=
>orge=20

>> says...
>> >
>> >On Saturday, January 11, 2014 4:43:00 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> In article <52d05a96$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>> >>=3D20

>> >> >
>> >> >On 1/10/2014 3:10 PM, BT George wrote:

>> >> >> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:05:11 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote=

>:
>> >> >>> On 1/9/2014 7:59 PM, magoos...@msn.com wrote:

>> >> >>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:38:54 PM UTC-6, John Fiorentino wr=
>ote=3D
>> >:
>> >> >>>>> Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "discovere=
>d" =3D
>> >a hole
>> >> >>>>>>> in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in Parts 7=
> I =3D
>> >believe
>> >> >>>>> of TMWKK.
>> >> >>>>> Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Channel =
>due=3D

>> > to
>> >> >>>>> threatened legal action.
>> >> >>>>> John F.
>> >> >>>>> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>>>> news:lami3...@drn.newsguy.com...

>> >> >>>>>> The claim has been made on this forum that Douglas Horne stated=
> th=3D
>> >at he
>> >> >>>>>> was the first person to bring up the "hole in the windshield=3D=
>20
>> >> controversy".
>> >> >>>>>>> To be precise, it was alleged that "Another indication of Horn=
>e's
>> >> >>>>>> dishonesty was the quote where he claims that he was the first =
>per=3D

>> >son to
>> >> >>>>>> bring up the hole in the windshield controversy."

>> >> >>>>>>> In the interests of factual history, can *ANYONE* in this foru=
>m d=3D

>> >ocument
>> >> >>>>>> such a statement by Douglas Horne?
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> What he claims in the article on the Lew Rockwell site is this:
>> >> >>>>> "In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK

>> >> >>>> assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photograp=
>hy =3D
>> >of the
>> >> >>>> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limo=
>usi=3D

>> >ne
>> >> >>>> that had been reported by six credible witnesses."

>> >> >>>>> His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photography=
>" o=3D

>> >f the
>> >> >>>> windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole.
>> >> >>>>> Squinty Magoo
>> >> >>>> Let me guess. The next message from Mike or Ben will be:
>> >> >>> Squinty, why is that you will never quote exactly what Horne said?
>> >> >>

>> >> >> No Tony. Though I'm no fan of much of Ben's beliefs and tactics, i=
>n t=3D
>> >his
>> >> >> case he is factually right. As is your frequent tendency, you seem=

> to
>> >> >> have misconstrued what Doug Horne actually claimed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In this post:
>> >> >>

>> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/JeJ2x239Ywc/y=
>kju=3D
>> >CH-
>> >> FT9kJ
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ...you said:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Another indication of Horne's dishonesty was the quote where he cl=
>aim=3D

>> >s
>> >> >> that he was the first person to bring up the hole in the windshield

>> >> >> controversy. He is not a careful researcher. It was first brought u=
>p i=3D

>> >n
>> >> >> the December 30, 1963 issue of US News and World Report:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/USNews_12_30_63.jpg"
>> >> >>

>> >> >> However, the truth is that Horne (who holds beliefs I definitely co=
>nsi=3D
>> >der
>> >> >> "kooky") never claimed what you said he claimed in the reference ar=
>tic=3D
>> >le
>> >> >> under debate in the other thread. Indeed as Squinty Magoo has said=
> ab=3D
>> >ove:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photography" =
>of =3D

>> >the
>> >> >> windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole."
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh I get it now.
>> >> Then why can't you retract your previous untruthful statement, Tony?/

>> >> >You think that Horne was the one who found photographic=3D20
>> >> >proof of a hole in the windshield, but he doesn't believe it himself.=
> Bu=3D
>> >t=3D20
>> >> >the fact is that Horne is a Liftonite and automatically believes what=
>eve=3D
>> >r=3D20
>> >> >kooky theory Lifton or Fetzer proposes. He doesn't have the chops to =
>fin=3D
>> >d=3D20

>> >> >new photographic proof of anything. I had already debunked Fetzer's=

>=3D20
>> >> >nonsense.
>> >> Completely meaningless garbage, not addressing the point that was rais=
>ed.
>> >> >> Also to my knowledge, Horne has *never* claimed what you said he cl=
>aim=3D

>> >ed
>> >> >> elsewhere either. He may be rightly called a "kook" but unless you

>> >> >> produce evidence of his making such a claim, the only conclusion is=
> th=3D
>> >at
>> >> >> you were wrong in your original interpretation of his claims and ju=

>st
>> >> >> don't want to admit it.
>> >> >>

>> >> >> While I personally dislike Ben's tendency to often hyper-focus on w=
>hat=3D
>> > I
>> >> >> consider to be issues of secondary importance (like this); when the=
> ma=3D
>> >n's
>> >> >> right, he's right. And no face is really saved by refusing to admi=
>t i=3D

>> >t.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >You only like him when he attacks me.
>> >> I don't attack *you*, Tony.
>> >> I attack statements that are not true.
>> >

>> >Yes, but to be completely honest, your prior comments indicate that you=
>> >*WOULD* like very much to attack the source of such statements as well a=
>s=20
>> >the statements. E.g., you would like very much to be able to label the=

>> >source of an untrue claim as a "lier".

>> People who lie are, in the English language, commonly referred to as=20
>> liars... particularly when lying is a frequent occurrence. I have no=20

>> intention of changing the English language.
>>
>
>I don't think anyone has asked you to. All that is being suggested, is
>that just because something is true, doesn't always mean it has to be
>said.

So you assert that true things can't be said in this forum.

I've always known that to be the case. Which explains why I so rarely post
here.

In fact, the only reason I *started* posting is John McAdams' rule that
you can slander non-members...

>It is not always a "lie" to leave a "truth" unsaid. Your wife may
>have gained a lot of weight to the point of becoming fat. But it is not
>"lying" for others to choose not to comment on that fact even though it
>might be true.
>
>Nevertheless...the truth of her weight gain will still be evident to those
>who are observant even if no one labels her as "fat". So too with those
>who make a habit of lying, will be seen as "liers" just by pointing out
>the lies. There is no need to use that label *IF* refraining from doing
>so accomplishes a greater overall purpose.

Not the best analogy you could have come up with.

>> Such truth can't be told here...
>
>I think you sell most thinking people too short. Persons *knowingly*
>making false claims generally becomes *quite* evident after a while.

There are a number of topic issues in this forum that will never become
"evident" because the contrary evidence won't be cited by anyone.

>While there are some contexts that it is both necessary and useful to call
>someone out as a lier, a debate format is generally best served by
>disallowing inflammatory labels that---while sometimes correctly
>used----most often end up being misued in confrontational situations and
>shutting down sane, intelligent interchange.

What ends up happening is different, however.

What *HAS* happened in this forum is that people *routinely* say things
that they could never get away with in an open forum.

>I am glad the freedom exists to go elsewhere and say whatever one wants to
>say, but it is neither nefarious, nor evil to choose to post where an
>*honest* person can state *honest* beliefs without fear of being *falsely*
>labeled a lier---and far worse---by those who disagree. This remains true
>even though the same environment may allow *dishonest* persons to
>sometimes state *lies* without fear of directly being labeled "liers".
>...PROVIDED, of course, that others *ARE* allowed to point out that the
>statement itself is *UNTRUE*.

Most people who can and would don't post here.

>Since you just *successfully* pointed out an untrue statement

But not, however, the truth.

>made by
>another poster (whether he willfully lied or just got it wrong and refused
>to admit it) the ability to do so is on *evident* display. Surely you do
>not object to letting *others* decide for themselves if this sort of
>behavior rises to the level of a wilful lie told by a "lier" or to
>something else?
>

>> >I cannot disagree that there are frequent liers here and elsewhere on th=
>is=20
>> >topic. In a perfect world it would be nice to be able to label those who=
>> >clearly make and/or defend dishonest statements with a moniker befitting=
>> >their actions. The downside is that in unmoderated or loosely moderated=
>> >venues, each side constantly labels the other as "liers" (and far worse)=

>> >whether the label is really justified or not.

>> And Tony would *ALWAYS* have the ability to simply cite for his claim -=

>> and shut up anyone claiming him to be less than truthful.
>
>True. So you too see that an untruth or lie *CAN* be shown for what it
>is, even without someone having to hand out the "lier" label.

It will take months or years of reading from a lurker to make a judgment
that can be made quite quickly in an open forum.

When I label someone a liar in an open forum - they have precisely two
choices, to defend what they said, or to run away.

Tony doesn't need to defend his statements here, no-one does... because
the truth can't be openly stated.


>> Labeling someone a liar who clearly isn't ... is simply another lie that=

>> can easily in most cases be seen for what it is.
>
>Indeed. And no labels even needed to do so! :-)

Yet *here*, no-one need do it. I can't label someone a liar and FORCE them
to either defend their statement, or stand revealed for what I stated.



>> >The result is that most persons who would prefer to see sane and civil=
>> >discourse, ulitmately find it is better to be censored from the freedom =
>to=20
>> >freely label their opponents as they see fit, than to retain that freedo=
>m=20
>> >and end up with debates that rarely rise above the level of mud-slinging=
>. =20
>> >The fact that persons usually cannot censor themselves from decending to=
>> >childish and crude name-calling in an adversarial environement, is on=20

>> >daily display at the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG where you frequently post.
>> And which side does that come from?
>
>Hmmm...you seem to be obliquely suggesting it is all coming from the LN
>side.

No, but the majority certainly is.

>However, since you do post a lot over there I *am* assuming you've
>actually read enough posts to know the *truth*.

I do... that's why I'm pointing it out.

>If not, our viewers and
>lurkers can go over there and see readily enough for themselves how many
>CT's even call each other "liars" over there....still less CT's labeling
>LN's as liers. And *yes* it happens from LN's to CT's often too and I do
>not deny it.
>

>> >I have no problem with you choosing to avail yourself of that freedom, b=
>ut=20
>> >it is doubtlessly a large reason that the volume of views and posts over=
>> >there is routinely less than it is here. In the long run, most people=
>> >want to have a decent chance of seeing the assassination debated in a sa=
>ne=20
>> >manner, than to see how "creative" the posters can get describing each=

>> >other's alleged character flaws and misdeeds.
>> >
>> >> >> BT George

>> All you've done here is create a haven for people who cannot defend their=

>> claims.
>
>A haven has also been created for generally sane and useful discourse
>rather than endless ad hominem that accomplishes *NOTHING* towards useful
>interchange. We appear to differ on that. "C'est la vie!" It is to our
>viewers and lurkers that I appeal to view both formats and draw whatever
>conclusions seem appropriate for themeselves.
>
>BT George

People interested in the truth won't find it here... I've pointed out in
the past topics that are quite scarce here... you attempted unsuccessfully
to defend one of them... but couldn't quote an example.


--

[BT George]

No. Try reading ahead sometimes. Your above statement is contradicted by
what I say further down.

>
> I've always known that to be the case. Which explains why I so rarely post
>
> here.
>

See above comments on actually *reading* what the other poster is saying
before you respond.

>
>
> In fact, the only reason I *started* posting is John McAdams' rule that
>
> you can slander non-members...
>
>

By "slander" you seem to mean that the very freedom to call a non-member a
"liar" or worse brought you out so the no one over here can do to you the
very thing that you *like* doing to others and *have* done to you
routinely over at ACJ.

That sir, makes no sense as any member here can go over there and say
*whatever* they please about you anyway. Further, you and others can heap
ad hominem on *anybody* you please over there whether they post there or
not. So why do you come over here where *neither* party can break out the
"slander" you seem to treasure in one place, yet dissaprove of in another?

So why is it *really* that lately you've started coming over here and
participating in the very format you object to? Surely it has got
"nothing" to do with tiring of posting "Mark Lane #10,378 over there and
often getting a whopping 1-3 views? :-)

>
>
>
>
>
> >It is not always a "lie" to leave a "truth" unsaid. Your wife may
>
> >have gained a lot of weight to the point of becoming fat. But it is not
>
> >"lying" for others to choose not to comment on that fact even though it
>
> >might be true.
>
> >
>
> >Nevertheless...the truth of her weight gain will still be evident to those
>
> >who are observant even if no one labels her as "fat". So too with those
>
> >who make a habit of lying, will be seen as "liers" just by pointing out
>
> >the lies. There is no need to use that label *IF* refraining from doing
>
> >so accomplishes a greater overall purpose.
>
>
>
>
>
> Not the best analogy you could have come up with.
>
>

Not the worst either, and it makes the point in conjunction with what else
I have to say in this thread.

>
>
>
> >> Such truth can't be told here...
>
> >
>
> >I think you sell most thinking people too short. Persons *knowingly*
>
> >making false claims generally becomes *quite* evident after a while.
>
>
>
> There are a number of topic issues in this forum that will never become
>
> "evident" because the contrary evidence won't be cited by anyone.
>
>

Well why don't you spell it ALL out and expose how the *cumultative* case
against Oswald is just the bunkem?

In fact I pose a challenge to *you* right here, and right now, just as I
originally did to "Ralph Yates" over at Amazon and to Robert Harris right
here: in AAJ:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/BVY7hse3qTwJ


Here's what I posted to Bob in my intitial challenge:

You recently asked "nutters" to produce their case for LHO acting alone.
I have no intention or time to regurgitate a tome already in print.
However the essence of Bugliosi's massive book Reclaiming History is
distilled by him into a list of 53 arguments for Oswald's guilt and 32
arguments that he acted alone. For reference, these link to a site where
they are listed---and even---debated:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354552

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354786


I hereby challenge you Bob Harris to take up the same guantlett I laid
down to a real troll Ralph Yates at Amazon who endlessly attacks LN
favorable reviews with what he (claims) to be irrefutable proof of
conspiracy in the JFK case.

***START AMAZON POST***

Thank you for your kind words of "encouragement" Mr. Yates. From what I
have seen you troll around on the reviews of this book and "pounce" on
anyone who dares to agree that Bugliosi presents a pretty strong case for
LHO's sole guilt. I see that you have again followed your typical pattern
in raving about the "coup d'etat", about Alan Dulles, and setting up your
pet "factoid" about the brain weight issue. Tell you what my friend, I
will spend additional time corresponding with you and giving you my take
on your "The brain weight discrepancy proves all my wildest beliefs to be
true scenario." (Though as a little hint "mistakes do happen sometimes.")
but first you will have to answer my challenge.

In my review, I make the rather bold assertion that even if 70% of Vincent
Bugliosi's points against Oswald and against there having been a
conspiracy could be successfully refuted or rendered unimportant by the CT
community, there would still be plenty of good reasons to conclude LHO was
guilty and that there was no conspiracy. My challenge to you: Show me
*convincing* refutation of enough of these points to reduce Bugliosi's
case to ashes & I will engage with your own peculiar obsessions.

What's enough? Well I suggest you plan on whittling it down to single
digits in both lists and then show that whatever's left is pretty
non-compelling. A lot to ask? Maybe. But it shouldn't be too hard to do if
the WC really was the complete Dulles-led scam you seem to believe it was.
...And "no" pointing me to a website maintained by another CTer like James
DiEugenio will not suffice...you should be able to present your own
point-by-point arguments if you are so adamant that there was a conspiracy
in the JFK Case.

***END POST FROM AMAZON***

Additionally, also pointed out in this post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/YPeJ5gn31TAJ

....To put this into perspective, even if a CT leaning person were to
successfully debunk or minimize 70% of the 85 points VB makes in RH, that
would still leave 16 good reasons to believe LHO killed Kennedy and 10
good arguments that he acted alone.


Strangely, Bob and Ralph never quite "got around" to doing this. So Ben,
why don't you skip "Mark Lane" #'s 10,379 - 10,450 and take up the
challenge? Heck, if you need I can actually repost the 85 points in
summary form to help you just as I did here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/ZE5jCCmzcmgJ

...OK Ben the floor is yours.

>
>
>
> >While there are some contexts that it is both necessary and useful to call
>
> >someone out as a lier, a debate format is generally best served by
>
> >disallowing inflammatory labels that---while sometimes correctly
>
> >used----most often end up being misued in confrontational situations and
>
> >shutting down sane, intelligent interchange.
>
>
>
>
>
> What ends up happening is different, however.
>
>
>
> What *HAS* happened in this forum is that people *routinely* say things
>
> that they could never get away with in an open forum.
>
>

And "mysteriously" somehow, you can't point that out unless you label
people and call them names. Nevertheless, it's not stopped you from
posting over here and trying to highlight behavior that you (Ben Holmes)
deems worthy of harsh labels. C'mon, are you *really* saying you can't
even function without name-calling?

>
>
>
> >I am glad the freedom exists to go elsewhere and say whatever one wants to
>
> >say, but it is neither nefarious, nor evil to choose to post where an
>
> >*honest* person can state *honest* beliefs without fear of being *falsely*
>
> >labeled a lier---and far worse---by those who disagree. This remains true
>
> >even though the same environment may allow *dishonest* persons to
>
> >sometimes state *lies* without fear of directly being labeled "liers".
>
> >...PROVIDED, of course, that others *ARE* allowed to point out that the
>
> >statement itself is *UNTRUE*.
>
>
>
> Most people who can and would don't post here.
>
>

Well I wonder where "they" do post? It sure isn't ACJ where the volume of posting activity and regular posters is paltry compared to here. :-)

>
>
>
> >Since you just *successfully* pointed out an untrue statement
>
>
>
>
>
> But not, however, the truth.
>
>

So now Ben Holmes is claiming he can point out a *lie* but cannot state a
*truth* here. Just what kind of "truth"---besides ad hominem
labeling---are you *disallowed* to state here?

Please be *specific* and let me know if the "evil" Dr. McAdams blocks you.
(Based on the moaning from Robert Harris and Tony Marsh, a post
complaining about a block will usually be let through.) And, of course,
*nothing* stops you from *specifically* listing the "blocked" truth over
in your normal venue.

>
>
>
> >made by
>
> >another poster (whether he willfully lied or just got it wrong and refused
>
> >to admit it) the ability to do so is on *evident* display. Surely you do
>
> >not object to letting *others* decide for themselves if this sort of
>
> >behavior rises to the level of a wilful lie told by a "lier" or to
>
> >something else?
>
> >
>
> >> >I cannot disagree that there are frequent liers here and elsewhere on th=
>
> >is=20
>
> >> >topic. In a perfect world it would be nice to be able to label those who=
>
> >> >clearly make and/or defend dishonest statements with a moniker befitting=
>
> >> >their actions. The downside is that in unmoderated or loosely moderated=
>
> >> >venues, each side constantly labels the other as "liers" (and far worse)=
>
> >> >whether the label is really justified or not.
>
> >> And Tony would *ALWAYS* have the ability to simply cite for his claim -=
>
> >> and shut up anyone claiming him to be less than truthful.
>
> >
>
> >True. So you too see that an untruth or lie *CAN* be shown for what it
>
> >is, even without someone having to hand out the "lier" label.
>
>
>
>
>
> It will take months or years of reading from a lurker to make a judgment
>
> that can be made quite quickly in an open forum.
>
>

So because you can call---hypothetically of course---Anthony Marsh or BT
George "liers" or perhaps (as some even do) "child molesters" over there,
the discerning, thoughtful, lurker will believe your claims much sooner
than if you just present evidence that proves it? All I can say is that
such an attitude displays and truly low-view of the intelligence of those
who are *truly* interested in this case.

>
> When I label someone a liar in an open forum - they have precisely two
>
> choices, to defend what they said, or to run away.
>
>

And when you show that they lie they have the *same* two choices here.
All you are prevented from doing is apply the label. ...End of story.

>
> Tony doesn't need to defend his statements here, no-one does... because
>
> the truth can't be openly stated.
>
>

Please be *specific* about any "surpressed" *truth* that is unrelated to
ad hominem name-calling.

>
>
>
> >> Labeling someone a liar who clearly isn't ... is simply another lie that=
>
> >> can easily in most cases be seen for what it is.
>
> >
>
> >Indeed. And no labels even needed to do so! :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yet *here*, no-one need do it. I can't label someone a liar and FORCE them
>
> to either defend their statement, or stand revealed for what I stated.
>
>
>

Pure BS. In this very thead you already highlighted Tony Marsh's claim
which he could not justify with any cite from Doug Horne. A fact that *I*
a LNer (and hence and unlikely supporter) backed you up on. Our *only*
difference in approching the matter is that I feel no need to label Tony
based on his failure to be able to justify the claim he made. I am
content to leave it up to *others* to draw the proper inferences from the
presented facts.

>
>
>
>
> >> >The result is that most persons who would prefer to see sane and civil=
>
> >> >discourse, ulitmately find it is better to be censored from the freedom =
>
> >to=20
>
> >> >freely label their opponents as they see fit, than to retain that freedo=
>
> >m=20
>
> >> >and end up with debates that rarely rise above the level of mud-slinging=
>
> >. =20
>
> >> >The fact that persons usually cannot censor themselves from decending to=
>
> >> >childish and crude name-calling in an adversarial environement, is on=20
>
> >> >daily display at the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG where you frequently post.
>
> >> And which side does that come from?
>
> >
>
> >Hmmm...you seem to be obliquely suggesting it is all coming from the LN
>
> >side.
>
>
>
> No, but the majority certainly is.
>
>

You couldn't justify this claim to save your life---as Robert Harris is
fond of saying. ***I ask on our kind viewers and lurkers to go into
alt.conspiracy.jfk (or any CT-oriented forum) and see if "the majority" of
the claims of lying come from the LN side.

>
>
>
> >However, since you do post a lot over there I *am* assuming you've
>
> >actually read enough posts to know the *truth*.
>
>
>
>
>
> I do... that's why I'm pointing it out.
>
>

And I note that you have not been *prevented* in any way from making your
case beyond ad hominem.

That sir, *IS* a false claim!


***Viewers and Lurkers***

Please visit the following thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/Jg7z5EaqAjo%5B126-150-false%5D

...to see for *yourselves* if BT George:

(1) *Ever* misstated the nature of the subject under debate. (I.e, AAJ's
level of interest in debating the HSCA's reports incorrect/false statement
about the Bethesda head wound witnesses observations.)

(2) Really "couldn't" quote an example of the type of debate AAJ had
previously had on the subject or simply *WOULDN'T* pacify Ben Holmes silly
demands to "cite" something *he and anyone else* could *very well* verify
by simply looking at the several threads I linked to.

For your ease, here again is a relevant post on the subject:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Jg7z5EaqAjo/RNFd6LPfvBYJ

Now kind viewer/lurker...I leave it up to *you* to determine what labels
apply to whom is this whole matter under debate.

BT George

[Ben Holmes]

In article <40661c82-d97e-4369...@googlegroups.com>, BT George

says...
>
>On Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:07:37 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> In article <8aa7434c-9d10-42b3...@googlegroups.com>, BT Ge=
>orge=20

>> says...
>> >
>> >On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:58:49 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> >> In article <65a8908a-d468-4ecf...@googlegroups.com>, BT=
> Ge=3D
>> >orge=3D20

>> >> says...
>> >> >
>> >> >On Saturday, January 11, 2014 4:43:00 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> >> In article <52d05a96$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>> >> >>=3D3D20

>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >On 1/10/2014 3:10 PM, BT George wrote:

>> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:05:11 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wr=
>ote=3D

>> >:
>> >> >> >>> On 1/9/2014 7:59 PM, magoos...@msn.com wrote:

>> >> >> >>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:38:54 PM UTC-6, John Fiorentino=
> wr=3D
>> >ote=3D3D
>> >> >:
>> >> >> >>>>> Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "discov=
>ere=3D
>> >d" =3D3D
>> >> >a hole
>> >> >> >>>>>>> in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in Part=
>s 7=3D
>> > I =3D3D
>> >> >believe
>> >> >> >>>>> of TMWKK.
>> >> >> >>>>> Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Chann=
>el =3D
>> >due=3D3D

>> >> > to
>> >> >> >>>>> threatened legal action.
>> >> >> >>>>> John F.
>> >> >> >>>>> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>>> news:lami3...@drn.newsguy.com...

>> >> >> >>>>>> The claim has been made on this forum that Douglas Horne sta=
>ted=3D
>> > th=3D3D

>> >> >at he
>> >> >> >>>>>> was the first person to bring up the "hole in the windshield=

>=3D3D=3D
>> >20
>> >> >> controversy".
>> >> >> >>>>>>> To be precise, it was alleged that "Another indication of H=
>orn=3D
>> >e's
>> >> >> >>>>>> dishonesty was the quote where he claims that he was the fir=
>st =3D
>> >per=3D3D

>> >> >son to
>> >> >> >>>>>> bring up the hole in the windshield controversy."

>> >> >> >>>>>>> In the interests of factual history, can *ANYONE* in this f=
>oru=3D
>> >m d=3D3D

>> >> >ocument
>> >> >> >>>>>> such a statement by Douglas Horne?
>> >> >> >>>>>>

>> >> >> >>>>>> What he claims in the article on the Lew Rockwell site is th=

>is:
>> >> >> >>>>> "In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK

>> >> >> >>>> assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photog=
>rap=3D
>> >hy =3D3D
>> >> >of the
>> >> >> >>>> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK l=
>imo=3D
>> >usi=3D3D

>> >> >ne
>> >> >> >>>> that had been reported by six credible witnesses."

>> >> >> >>>>> His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photogra=
>phy=3D
>> >" o=3D3D

>> >> >f the
>> >> >> >>>> windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole.
>> >> >> >>>>> Squinty Magoo
>> >> >> >>>> Let me guess. The next message from Mike or Ben will be:

>> >> >> >>> Squinty, why is that you will never quote exactly what Horne sa=
>id?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No Tony. Though I'm no fan of much of Ben's beliefs and tactics=
>, i=3D
>> >n t=3D3D
>> >> >his
>> >> >> >> case he is factually right. As is your frequent tendency, you s=
>eem=3D

>> > to
>> >> >> >> have misconstrued what Doug Horne actually claimed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In this post:
>> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/JeJ2x239Yw=
>c/y=3D
>> >kju=3D3D
>> >> >CH-
>> >> >> FT9kJ
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ...you said:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Another indication of Horne's dishonesty was the quote where he=
> cl=3D
>> >aim=3D3D
>> >> >s
>> >> >> >> that he was the first person to bring up the hole in the windshi=
>eld
>> >> >> >> controversy. He is not a careful researcher. It was first brough=
>t u=3D
>> >p i=3D3D

>> >> >n
>> >> >> >> the December 30, 1963 issue of US News and World Report:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/USNews_12_30_63.jpg"
>> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> However, the truth is that Horne (who holds beliefs I definitely=
> co=3D
>> >nsi=3D3D
>> >> >der
>> >> >> >> "kooky") never claimed what you said he claimed in the reference=
> ar=3D
>> >tic=3D3D
>> >> >le
>> >> >> >> under debate in the other thread. Indeed as Squinty Magoo has s=
>aid=3D
>> > ab=3D3D
>> >> >ove:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photograph=
>y" =3D
>> >of =3D3D

>> >> >the
>> >> >> >> windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole."
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Oh I get it now.

>> >> >> Then why can't you retract your previous untruthful statement, Tony=
>?/
>> >> >> >You think that Horne was the one who found photographic=3D3D20
>> >> >> >proof of a hole in the windshield, but he doesn't believe it himse=
>lf.=3D
>> > Bu=3D3D
>> >> >t=3D3D20
>> >> >> >the fact is that Horne is a Liftonite and automatically believes w=
>hat=3D
>> >eve=3D3D
>> >> >r=3D3D20
>> >> >> >kooky theory Lifton or Fetzer proposes. He doesn't have the chops =
>to =3D
>> >fin=3D3D
>> >> >d=3D3D20
>> >> >> >new photographic proof of anything. I had already debunked Fetzer'=
>s=3D
>> >=3D3D20
>> >> >> >nonsense.
>> >> >> Completely meaningless garbage, not addressing the point that was r=
>ais=3D
>> >ed.
>> >> >> >> Also to my knowledge, Horne has *never* claimed what you said he=
> cl=3D
>> >aim=3D3D
>> >> >ed
>> >> >> >> elsewhere either. He may be rightly called a "kook" but unless =
>you
>> >> >> >> produce evidence of his making such a claim, the only conclusion=
> is=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >at
>> >> >> >> you were wrong in your original interpretation of his claims and=
> ju=3D

>> >st
>> >> >> >> don't want to admit it.
>> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> While I personally dislike Ben's tendency to often hyper-focus o=
>n w=3D
>> >hat=3D3D
>> >> > I
>> >> >> >> consider to be issues of secondary importance (like this); when =
>the=3D
>> > ma=3D3D
>> >> >n's
>> >> >> >> right, he's right. And no face is really saved by refusing to a=
>dmi=3D
>> >t i=3D3D

>> >> >t.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You only like him when he attacks me.
>> >> >> I don't attack *you*, Tony.
>> >> >> I attack statements that are not true.
>> >> >

>> >> >Yes, but to be completely honest, your prior comments indicate that y=
>ou=3D
>> >> >*WOULD* like very much to attack the source of such statements as wel=
>l a=3D
>> >s=3D20
>> >> >the statements. E.g., you would like very much to be able to label t=
>he=3D

>> >> >source of an untrue claim as a "lier".
>> >> People who lie are, in the English language, commonly referred to as=

>=3D20

>> >> liars... particularly when lying is a frequent occurrence. I have no=

>=3D20

>> >> intention of changing the English language.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I don't think anyone has asked you to. All that is being suggested, is
>> >that just because something is true, doesn't always mean it has to be
>> >said.
>>
>> So you assert that true things can't be said in this forum.
>
>No. Try reading ahead sometimes. Your above statement is contradicted by
>what I say further down.

Can I label someone who lies about the evidence that I can cite a "liar"?

>> I've always known that to be the case. Which explains why I so rarely post
>> here.
>
>See above comments on actually *reading* what the other poster is saying
>before you respond.

Can I point out that someone has not responded without the post being
censored as "badgering"?

Judging from my past experiences, the answer is no.

>> In fact, the only reason I *started* posting is John McAdams' rule that
>> you can slander non-members...
>
>By "slander" you seem to mean that the very freedom to call a non-member a
>"liar" or worse brought you out so the no one over here can do to you the
>very thing that you *like* doing to others and *have* done to you
>routinely over at ACJ.

It seems to be perfectly okay to label someone a liar as long as they
don't post here, and aren't in a position to defend themselves.

It's actually quite rare in an open forum where I can respond to such
slander. At least, those who do illustrate in *all* of their posts that
they aren't very credible. For example, "Vincent Bugliosi"... does anyone
*here* think that a person using that name is 'credible'?

>That sir, makes no sense as any member here can go over there and say
>*whatever* they please about you anyway.

Absolutely! And they'll have to be prepared to refute the citations I will
be happy to supply.

Then, when I repeatedly point out that they've run away, no-one will
censor those posts for "badgering".

>Further, you and others can heap
>ad hominem on *anybody* you please over there whether they post there or
>not. So why do you come over here where *neither* party can break out the
>"slander" you seem to treasure in one place, yet dissaprove of in another?

Answered above.

>So why is it *really* that lately you've started coming over here and
>participating in the very format you object to? Surely it has got
>"nothing" to do with tiring of posting "Mark Lane #10,378 over there and
>often getting a whopping 1-3 views? :-)

I find it truly amusing that despite the frequently made claims that Mark
Lane is "dishonest," or a "liar" - there's been an amazing silence when
faced with Mark Lane's ACTUAL STATEMENTS... all in fairly short chunks,
ready to be refuted.

But aren't.

Indeed, I had one confirmed Warren Commission believer who stated that he
was going to come to the forum just for the explicit purpose of refuting
the Mark Lane series... he made several posts about Nolan Potter, then ran
away when he was quite quickly faced with more facts than he clearly
wanted to deal with.

The opposite never seems to happen... I don't see people quoting from
Posner or Bugliosi, to name two... with any confidence that they aren't
going to be refuted by citations to the evidence.


>> >It is not always a "lie" to leave a "truth" unsaid. Your wife may=20
>> >have gained a lot of weight to the point of becoming fat. But it is not=
>=20
>> >"lying" for others to choose not to comment on that fact even though it=
>=20
>> >might be true.
>> >
>> >Nevertheless...the truth of her weight gain will still be evident to tho=
>se=20
>> >who are observant even if no one labels her as "fat". So too with those=
>=20
>> >who make a habit of lying, will be seen as "liers" just by pointing out=
>=20
>> >the lies. There is no need to use that label *IF* refraining from doing=
>=20

>> >so accomplishes a greater overall purpose.
>> Not the best analogy you could have come up with.
>
>Not the worst either, and it makes the point in conjunction with what else
>I have to say in this thread.
>
>> >> Such truth can't be told here...
>> >

>> >I think you sell most thinking people too short. Persons *knowingly*=20

>> >making false claims generally becomes *quite* evident after a while.

>> There are a number of topic issues in this forum that will never become=
>=20

>> "evident" because the contrary evidence won't be cited by anyone.
>
>Well why don't you spell it ALL out and expose how the *cumultative* case
>against Oswald is just the bunkem?
>
>In fact I pose a challenge to *you* right here, and right now, just as I
>originally did to "Ralph Yates" over at Amazon and to Robert Harris right
>here: in AAJ:
>

>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/BVY7hse3q=
>TwJ


Sounds like a decent enough challenge... of course, no-one will refute
what I state in answering such a challenge...

I couldn't post the answers in this forum for obvious reasons.

>Here's what I posted to Bob in my intitial challenge:
>
>You recently asked "nutters" to produce their case for LHO acting alone.
>I have no intention or time to regurgitate a tome already in print.
>However the essence of Bugliosi's massive book Reclaiming History is
>distilled by him into a list of 53 arguments for Oswald's guilt and 32
>arguments that he acted alone. For reference, these link to a site where
>they are listed---and even---debated:
>

>http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354552=20
>
>http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354786=20
>
>
>I hereby challenge you Bob Harris to take up the same guantlett I laid=20
>down to a real troll Ralph Yates at Amazon who endlessly attacks LN=20
>favorable reviews with what he (claims) to be irrefutable proof of=20
>conspiracy in the JFK case.=20
>
>***START AMAZON POST***=20
>
>Thank you for your kind words of "encouragement" Mr. Yates. From what I=20
>have seen you troll around on the reviews of this book and "pounce" on=20

>anyone who dares to agree that Bugliosi presents a pretty strong case for
>LHO's sole guilt. I see that you have again followed your typical pattern
>in raving about the "coup d'etat", about Alan Dulles, and setting up your

>pet "factoid" about the brain weight issue. Tell you what my friend, I=20
>will spend additional time corresponding with you and giving you my take=20

>on your "The brain weight discrepancy proves all my wildest beliefs to be
>true scenario." (Though as a little hint "mistakes do happen sometimes.")

>but first you will have to answer my challenge.=20

>
>In my review, I make the rather bold assertion that even if 70% of Vincent

>Bugliosi's points against Oswald and against there having been a=20

>conspiracy could be successfully refuted or rendered unimportant by the CT
>community, there would still be plenty of good reasons to conclude LHO was
>guilty and that there was no conspiracy.

Actually, quite wrong.

For example, merely demonstrating that the throat wound was an entry wound
would be sufficient, BY ITSELF, to show a conspiracy, even if Bugliosi had
far more than 53 reasons.

It's interesting to note that Bugliosi lied on this very issue... that of
the throat wound.


>My challenge to you: Show me=20
>*convincing* refutation of enough of these points to reduce Bugliosi's=20
>case to ashes & I will engage with your own peculiar obsessions.=20
>
>What's enough? Well I suggest you plan on whittling it down to single=20
>digits in both lists and then show that whatever's left is pretty=20

>non-compelling. A lot to ask? Maybe. But it shouldn't be too hard to do if
>the WC really was the complete Dulles-led scam you seem to believe it was.
>...And "no" pointing me to a website maintained by another CTer like James

>DiEugenio will not suffice...you should be able to present your own=20

>point-by-point arguments if you are so adamant that there was a conspiracy

>in the JFK Case.=20
>
>***END POST FROM AMAZON***=20

>
>Additionally, also pointed out in this post:
>

>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/YPeJ5gn31=

>TAJ
>
>....To put this into perspective, even if a CT leaning person were to
>successfully debunk or minimize 70% of the 85 points VB makes in RH, that
>would still leave 16 good reasons to believe LHO killed Kennedy and 10
>good arguments that he acted alone.
>
>
>Strangely, Bob and Ralph never quite "got around" to doing this. So Ben,
>why don't you skip "Mark Lane" #'s 10,379 - 10,450

I'm sure that a lot of people would prefer that I not prove so
dramatically the inability of anyone to show "dishonesty" or "lying" on
Mark Lane's part.

I'm at 430... and just 3 or 4 serious attempts to refute what he said...

>and take up the
>challenge? Heck, if you need I can actually repost the 85 points in
>summary form to help you just as I did here:
>

>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/ZE5jCCmzc=

>mgJ
>
>...OK Ben the floor is yours.

It has been for a long time... you know where you can post all
'challenges' to have them answered...

If I start answering them in an open forum, will you respond?


>> >While there are some contexts that it is both necessary and useful to ca=
>ll=20
>> >someone out as a lier, a debate format is generally best served by=20
>> >disallowing inflammatory labels that---while sometimes correctly=20
>> >used----most often end up being misued in confrontational situations and=
>=20

>> >shutting down sane, intelligent interchange.
>> What ends up happening is different, however.
>> What *HAS* happened in this forum is that people *routinely* say things
>> that they could never get away with in an open forum.
>
>And "mysteriously" somehow, you can't point that out unless you label
>people and call them names. Nevertheless, it's not stopped you from
>posting over here and trying to highlight behavior that you (Ben Holmes)
>deems worthy of harsh labels. C'mon, are you *really* saying you can't
>even function without name-calling?

Unfortunately, you aren't being entirely truthful here... For example,
it's not possible for me to continue discussing Tony's incorrect claim...
because such posts will be censored as "badgering". (That is, of course,
the *PRECISE* word that John McAdams used in an email to me explaining why
my posts were censored)



>> >I am glad the freedom exists to go elsewhere and say whatever one wants =
>to=20
>> >say, but it is neither nefarious, nor evil to choose to post where an=20
>> >*honest* person can state *honest* beliefs without fear of being *falsel=
>y*=20
>> >labeled a lier---and far worse---by those who disagree. This remains tr=
>ue=20
>> >even though the same environment may allow *dishonest* persons to=20
>> >sometimes state *lies* without fear of directly being labeled "liers". =
>=20
>> >...PROVIDED, of course, that others *ARE* allowed to point out that the=
>=20

>> >statement itself is *UNTRUE*.
>> Most people who can and would don't post here.
>

>Well I wonder where "they" do post? It sure isn't ACJ where the volume of =

>posting activity and regular posters is paltry compared to here. :-)

Quantity that isn't tempered by those who hold opposing views isn't worth
much.

This is similar to a well established legal principle of adversarial
proceedings.

You don't have it here very much.

>> >Since you just *successfully* pointed out an untrue statement
>> But not, however, the truth.
>
>So now Ben Holmes is claiming he can point out a *lie* but cannot state a
>*truth* here. Just what kind of "truth"---besides ad hominem
>labeling---are you *disallowed* to state here?

I've repeatedly answered above.

>Please be *specific* and let me know if the "evil" Dr. McAdams blocks you.
>(Based on the moaning from Robert Harris and Tony Marsh, a post
>complaining about a block will usually be let through.) And, of course,
>*nothing* stops you from *specifically* listing the "blocked" truth over
>in your normal venue.

Yep... that's where I normally post such statements. They *DO* get posted
in the open forum.


>> >made by=20
>> >another poster (whether he willfully lied or just got it wrong and refus=
>ed=20
>> >to admit it) the ability to do so is on *evident* display. Surely you d=
>o=20
>> >not object to letting *others* decide for themselves if this sort of=20
>> >behavior rises to the level of a wilful lie told by a "lier" or to=20
>> >something else?
>> >
>> >> >I cannot disagree that there are frequent liers here and elsewhere on=
> th=3D
>> >is=3D20
>> >> >topic. In a perfect world it would be nice to be able to label those =
>who=3D
>> >> >clearly make and/or defend dishonest statements with a moniker befitt=
>ing=3D
>> >> >their actions. The downside is that in unmoderated or loosely modera=
>ted=3D
>> >> >venues, each side constantly labels the other as "liers" (and far wor=
>se)=3D

>> >> >whether the label is really justified or not.

>> >> And Tony would *ALWAYS* have the ability to simply cite for his claim =
>-=3D

>> >> and shut up anyone claiming him to be less than truthful.
>> >

>> >True. So you too see that an untruth or lie *CAN* be shown for what it=
>=20

>> >is, even without someone having to hand out the "lier" label.

>> It will take months or years of reading from a lurker to make a judgment=

>> that can be made quite quickly in an open forum.
>
>So because you can call---hypothetically of course---Anthony Marsh or BT
>George "liers" or perhaps (as some even do) "child molesters" over there,
>the discerning, thoughtful, lurker will believe your claims much sooner
>than if you just present evidence that proves it? All I can say is that
>such an attitude displays and truly low-view of the intelligence of those
>who are *truly* interested in this case.

I can't respond to this statement in this forum.

>> When I label someone a liar in an open forum - they have precisely two
>> choices, to defend what they said, or to run away.
>
>And when you show that they lie they have the *same* two choices here.
>All you are prevented from doing is apply the label. ...End of story.

And without the ability to drive home the point that someone has run away
and refused to support their claim... well, I can't continue this thought
on this forum...

>> Tony doesn't need to defend his statements here, no-one does... because
>> the truth can't be openly stated.
>
>Please be *specific* about any "surpressed" *truth* that is unrelated to
>ad hominem name-calling.

I have, repeatedly, above.

One cannot point out more than once that someone has run from supporting
their claim.



>> >> Labeling someone a liar who clearly isn't ... is simply another lie th=
>at=3D

>> >> can easily in most cases be seen for what it is.
>> >
>> >Indeed. And no labels even needed to do so! :-)
>>
>> Yet *here*, no-one need do it. I can't label someone a liar and FORCE them
>> to either defend their statement, or stand revealed for what I stated.
>
>Pure BS. In this very thead you already highlighted Tony Marsh's claim
>which he could not justify with any cite from Doug Horne. A fact that *I*
>a LNer (and hence and unlikely supporter) backed you up on. Our *only*
>difference in approching the matter is that I feel no need to label Tony
>based on his failure to be able to justify the claim he made. I am
>content to leave it up to *others* to draw the proper inferences from the
>presented facts.

I shouldn't have to tell anyone that repetition is a key concept in
learning.

But such repetition is censored here.


It's not in the open forum. I'm allowed to repeat as many times as I care
to that Dr. Humes did *NOT* burn anything at all on Saturday.


>> >> >The result is that most persons who would prefer to see sane and civi=
>l=3D
>> >> >discourse, ulitmately find it is better to be censored from the freed=
>om =3D
>> >to=3D20
>> >> >freely label their opponents as they see fit, than to retain that fre=
>edo=3D
>> >m=3D20
>> >> >and end up with debates that rarely rise above the level of mud-sling=
>ing=3D
>> >. =3D20
>> >> >The fact that persons usually cannot censor themselves from decending=
> to=3D

>> >> >childish and crude name-calling in an adversarial environement, is on=

>=3D20

>> >> >daily display at the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG where you frequently post.
>> >> And which side does that come from?
>> >

>> >Hmmm...you seem to be obliquely suggesting it is all coming from the LN=
>=20

>> >side.
>> No, but the majority certainly is.
>
>You couldn't justify this claim to save your life---as Robert Harris is
>fond of saying. ***I ask on our kind viewers and lurkers to go into
>alt.conspiracy.jfk (or any CT-oriented forum) and see if "the majority" of
>the claims of lying come from the LN side.

Change of topic noted. The statement above that *I* replied to was
"childish and crude name-calling"

There's a very good reason that the charges of lying come from mainly one
side.


(and probably a good reason that you changed the topic)



>> >However, since you do post a lot over there I *am* assuming you've=20

>> >actually read enough posts to know the *truth*.
>>
>> I do... that's why I'm pointing it out.
>
>And I note that you have not been *prevented* in any way from making your
>case beyond ad hominem.

That's simply untrue.


>> >If not, our viewers and=20
>> >lurkers can go over there and see readily enough for themselves how many=
>=20
>> >CT's even call each other "liars" over there....still less CT's labeling=
>=20
>> >LN's as liers. And *yes* it happens from LN's to CT's often too and I d=
>o=20
>> >not deny it.
>> >
>> >> >I have no problem with you choosing to avail yourself of that freedom=
>, b=3D
>> >ut=3D20
>> >> >it is doubtlessly a large reason that the volume of views and posts o=
>ver=3D
>> >> >there is routinely less than it is here. In the long run, most peopl=
>e=3D
>> >> >want to have a decent chance of seeing the assassination debated in a=
> sa=3D
>> >ne=3D20
>> >> >manner, than to see how "creative" the posters can get describing eac=
>h=3D

>> >> >other's alleged character flaws and misdeeds.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> BT George

>> >> All you've done here is create a haven for people who cannot defend th=
>eir=3D
>> >> claims.
>> >
>> >A haven has also been created for generally sane and useful discourse=20
>> >rather than endless ad hominem that accomplishes *NOTHING* towards usefu=
>l=20
>> >interchange. We appear to differ on that. "C'est la vie!" It is to ou=
>r=20
>> >viewers and lurkers that I appeal to view both formats and draw whatever=
>=20

>> >conclusions seem appropriate for themeselves.
>> >
>> >BT George

>> People interested in the truth won't find it here... I've pointed out in=
>=20
>> the past topics that are quite scarce here... you attempted unsuccessfull=
>y=20

>> to defend one of them... but couldn't quote an example.
>
>That sir, *IS* a false claim!

Then all you need to do is cite the post where the topic was being
discussed.


Not a thread...

>***Viewers and Lurkers***
>
>Please visit the following thread:
>

>https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/Jg=

>7z5EaqAjo%5B126-150-false%5D
>
>...to see for *yourselves* if BT George:
>
>(1) *Ever* misstated the nature of the subject under debate. (I.e, AAJ's
>level of interest in debating the HSCA's reports incorrect/false statement
>about the Bethesda head wound witnesses observations.)
>
>(2) Really "couldn't" quote an example of the type of debate AAJ had
>previously had on the subject or simply *WOULDN'T* pacify Ben Holmes silly
>demands to "cite" something *he and anyone else* could *very well* verify
>by simply looking at the several threads I linked to.
>
>For your ease, here again is a relevant post on the subject:
>

>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Jg7z5EaqAjo/RNFd6LPfv=

>BYJ
>
>Now kind viewer/lurker...I leave it up to *you* to determine what labels
>apply to whom is this whole matter under debate.
>
>BT George

And, of course, you'll read my response in that thread:

********************************************
Nope... untrue. I've read what you link to, and *NO-ONE* argues or debates
the point.

You can't quote even a single person doing so.

If you could, you would have just to shut me up.


This mysterious rule that you can't quote someone else is quite funny...
*******************************************

If you believe that the topic came up before - THEN SIMPLY CITE THE
RELEVANT POST...

Citing entire threads, then stating that the answer is in there somewhere,
might work for those who aren't particularly interested.

[BT George]

Already answered. The sad mystery is why you think that you *must* in
order to argue the assassination or in order for others to eventually
figure out that frequent purveyors of provably false evidence/statemetns
are "liars".

>
>
>
> >> I've always known that to be the case. Which explains why I so rarely post
>
> >> here.
>
> >
>
> >See above comments on actually *reading* what the other poster is saying
>
> >before you respond.
>
>
>
>
>
> Can I point out that someone has not responded without the post being
>
> censored as "badgering"?
>
>

I don't run this place, but my answer would be that it depends. You want
to point out the same evasion(s) a few times in the same thread or over a
limited time frame and it should not be considered as such. Even if you
want to bring it up again at a future date after taking a break for awhile
I would not consider it as such.

OTOH, if you want to point it out 10-15 times in the same thread or bring
it up daily for weeks on end or weekly for months on end, at some point,
it starts to wear on the patience even of those who *agree* with you and
amounts to needless "badgering" to get someone to admit what should be
obvious at some point to all.

Of course if they *continue spouting* the same PROVABLY false claim(s) it
should be "open season" on them until they cease repeating them.

>
> Judging from my past experiences, the answer is no.
>
>

See above comments.

>
>
>
> >> In fact, the only reason I *started* posting is John McAdams' rule that
>
> >> you can slander non-members...
>
> >
>
> >By "slander" you seem to mean that the very freedom to call a non-member a
>
> >"liar" or worse brought you out so the no one over here can do to you the
>
> >very thing that you *like* doing to others and *have* done to you
>
> >routinely over at ACJ.
>
>
>
>
>
> It seems to be perfectly okay to label someone a liar as long as they
>
> don't post here, and aren't in a position to defend themselves.
>
>
>
> It's actually quite rare in an open forum where I can respond to such
>
> slander. At least, those who do illustrate in *all* of their posts that
>
> they aren't very credible. For example, "Vincent Bugliosi"... does anyone
>
> *here* think that a person using that name is 'credible'?
>
>

I've seen the character using that name over at ACJ lately. I haven't
followed his "stuff" closely, but from what I've seen, he gives more
evidence of being a CT *posing* as an LN than he does as a legitimate
defender of the LN position.

Of course...he displays no less credibility as an LN, than some CT's over
there display in defending their case. :-)

>
>
>
> >That sir, makes no sense as any member here can go over there and say
>
> >*whatever* they please about you anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
> Absolutely! And they'll have to be prepared to refute the citations I will
>
> be happy to supply.
>
>
>
> Then, when I repeatedly point out that they've run away, no-one will
>
> censor those posts for "badgering".
>
>

Yes. And if you carry on pointing out the obvious long enough, there will
soon be 2-4 views on your threads. :-)

>
>
>
> >Further, you and others can heap
>
> >ad hominem on *anybody* you please over there whether they post there or
>
> >not. So why do you come over here where *neither* party can break out the
>
> >"slander" you seem to treasure in one place, yet dissaprove of in another?
>
>
>
>
>
> Answered above.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >So why is it *really* that lately you've started coming over here and
>
> >participating in the very format you object to? Surely it has got
>
> >"nothing" to do with tiring of posting "Mark Lane #10,378 over there and
>
> >often getting a whopping 1-3 views? :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> I find it truly amusing that despite the frequently made claims that Mark
>
> Lane is "dishonest," or a "liar" - there's been an amazing silence when
>
> faced with Mark Lane's ACTUAL STATEMENTS... all in fairly short chunks,
>
> ready to be refuted.
>
>
>
> But aren't.
>
>
>
> Indeed, I had one confirmed Warren Commission believer who stated that he
>
> was going to come to the forum just for the explicit purpose of refuting
>
> the Mark Lane series... he made several posts about Nolan Potter, then ran
>
> away when he was quite quickly faced with more facts than he clearly
>
> wanted to deal with.
>
>

I never have personally claimed that Mark Lane was necessarily a frequent
liar. However, is it *REALLY* your claim that he did not engage in *any*
lies or "stretching of the truth"? Would you maintain that he never tried
to "lead a witness" to agree with what *he* wanted said?

>
> The opposite never seems to happen... I don't see people quoting from
>
> Posner or Bugliosi, to name two... with any confidence that they aren't
>
> going to be refuted by citations to the evidence.
>
>
>

Which explains why you ARE going to take the RH challenge, right Ben?

...OH THAT'S RIGHT. You "can't" because you can only expose "lies" over
here but "cannot" state the truth. Oh go ahead Ben.

Sure. (See prior comments.)

Really Ben. Then why don't you "merely" demonstrate for us why the
autopsy team and the succeeding FP's that reviewed the autopsy
evidence---including pro-CT Cyril Wecht---"missed" the "evidence" that
proved such an allegation?

Also, while your at it, please enlighten us on a workable trajectory that
could account for a frontal entrance wound to JFK's neck:

1) Just how was Connally, sitting only 6 inches lower, missed by such a
shot?

2) If he wan't missed do you have your own sort of "frontal" SBT that
resulted in it going from his thigh, to his wrist, to his chest, to his
rib, to his back and then into JFK's neck? If not, please account for
JBC's various wounds.

2) Did it come through the window or just above it?

3) Where did the bullet go after hitting JFK's neck?

a) If it remained in the body what happened to it?

b) If it went through, how on earth did it not come out the other side and
then either hit someone in the follow up cars, the crowd, of the pavement?

>
> It's interesting to note that Bugliosi lied on this very issue... that of
>
> the throat wound.
>
>
>

Sure Ben. In your mind there seem to be *no* honest errors. Thus there is
*no* *possibility* that VB's statement that there was a "ragged wound" in
association with the neck, was just an error on his part. Nopper. Nobody
in writing a 1,600+ page tome with about 900 pages of footnotes, could
make any "honest" errors. It could "only" be a *deliberate* lie!

Well at any rate, you and DVP have already gone round on this matter and I
post here a link to his website for what I find to be a reasonable
explanation of why VB ended up making a claim that was indeed incorrect,
but not necessarily an intentional lie:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=ragged

I am far more interested in the facts of *the case* than I am about Mark
Lane's reputation. Indeed, Ben, I am more interested in *whether* LHO
killed JFK and acted alone, than I am what *biases* the WC or HSCA may
have had in trying to demonstrate as much.

Sometimes it seems to me that you are more concerned with "exhonorating"
Lane of "convicting" the WC and HSCA than addressing what the *REAL, HARD,
CORROBORATING, FIREARMS, BALLISTICS, FORENSIC, and PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE*
works together to show LHO's guilt and how the *lack* of it undermines the
likelihood of any conspiracy that might be posited. Why not skip Mark
Lane #895 - infinity and work on that?

>
>
>
> >and take up the
>
> >challenge? Heck, if you need I can actually repost the 85 points in
>
> >summary form to help you just as I did here:
>
> >
>
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/ZE5jCCmzc=
>
> >mgJ
>
> >
>
> >...OK Ben the floor is yours.
>
>
>
>
>
> It has been for a long time... you know where you can post all
>
> 'challenges' to have them answered...
>
>

If by "floor" you mean endless time to start an continue threads of
secondary importance, then I will grant you that you seem to do *that*
very well. I also know that *nothing* prevents you from dealing with
*ASSASSINATION-related* facts righ here in THIS NG.

All you are repeatedly demonstrating, is that you truly *cannot* function
without going some place where you can resort to ad hominem name-calling
to make your points.

>
> If I start answering them in an open forum, will you respond?
>
>

No sir. The challenge was made *right here* in AAJ. There is *nothing*
to be gained by going over to a forum where ad hominem insults routinely
substitute for reasoned debate. Indeed, I've *repeatedly* stated that it
is for that very reason that I do my posting mainly here.

Now you can either drop your *excuses* as to why the "truth" about the
ASSASSINATION supposedly "cannot" be told at AAJ or go back to "play" in
the ACJ "pigpen" to be viewed by the 10's of people who routinely come
there to sample the insults du jour.

>
>
>
> >> >While there are some contexts that it is both necessary and useful to ca=
>
> >ll=20
>
> >> >someone out as a lier, a debate format is generally best served by=20
>
> >> >disallowing inflammatory labels that---while sometimes correctly=20
>
> >> >used----most often end up being misued in confrontational situations and=
>
> >=20
>
> >> >shutting down sane, intelligent interchange.
>
> >> What ends up happening is different, however.
>
> >> What *HAS* happened in this forum is that people *routinely* say things
>
> >> that they could never get away with in an open forum.
>
> >
>
> >And "mysteriously" somehow, you can't point that out unless you label
>
> >people and call them names. Nevertheless, it's not stopped you from
>
> >posting over here and trying to highlight behavior that you (Ben Holmes)
>
> >deems worthy of harsh labels. C'mon, are you *really* saying you can't
>
> >even function without name-calling?
>
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, you aren't being entirely truthful here... For example,
>
> it's not possible for me to continue discussing Tony's incorrect claim...
>
> because such posts will be censored as "badgering". (That is, of course,
>
> the *PRECISE* word that John McAdams used in an email to me explaining why
>
> my posts were censored)
>
>
>

Already commented on the "badgering" issue. I've been censored here
before too and I can't say that I have always agreed with the decisions
rendered either.

>
>
>
>
> >> >I am glad the freedom exists to go elsewhere and say whatever one wants =
>
> >to=20
>
> >> >say, but it is neither nefarious, nor evil to choose to post where an=20
>
> >> >*honest* person can state *honest* beliefs without fear of being *falsel=
>
> >y*=20
>
> >> >labeled a lier---and far worse---by those who disagree. This remains tr=
>
> >ue=20
>
> >> >even though the same environment may allow *dishonest* persons to=20
>
> >> >sometimes state *lies* without fear of directly being labeled "liers". =
>
> >=20
>
> >> >...PROVIDED, of course, that others *ARE* allowed to point out that the=
>
> >=20
>
> >> >statement itself is *UNTRUE*.
>
> >> Most people who can and would don't post here.
>
> >
>
> >Well I wonder where "they" do post? It sure isn't ACJ where the volume of =
>
> >posting activity and regular posters is paltry compared to here. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> Quantity that isn't tempered by those who hold opposing views isn't worth
>
> much.
>
>

Opposing views on the *ASSASSINATION* and *ASSASSINATION*-related
*evidence* are *NOT* getting censored here. AFAIC see, only the freedom
to go into "personal attack" mode is ever curtailed. ...BUT then I've
only said this 150 times in this thread alone!

>
> This is similar to a well established legal principle of adversarial
>
> proceedings.
>
>
>
> You don't have it here very much.
>
>

Yes. Unless the prosecution and defense attornies can call each other
"liars" every name in the book, then the adversarial *process* is
"clearly" impossible!

>
>
>
> >> >Since you just *successfully* pointed out an untrue statement
>
> >> But not, however, the truth.
>
> >
>
> >So now Ben Holmes is claiming he can point out a *lie* but cannot state a
>
> >*truth* here. Just what kind of "truth"---besides ad hominem
>
> >labeling---are you *disallowed* to state here?
>
>
>
>
>
> I've repeatedly answered above.
>
>

You've answered repeatedly alright. To the point where I am sure it is
now quite obvious to everyone following this tiresome little exchange that
ad hominem is, in fact, the only "truth" you cannot tell here.

>
>
>
> >Please be *specific* and let me know if the "evil" Dr. McAdams blocks you.
>
> >(Based on the moaning from Robert Harris and Tony Marsh, a post
>
> >complaining about a block will usually be let through.) And, of course,
>
> >*nothing* stops you from *specifically* listing the "blocked" truth over
>
> >in your normal venue.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yep... that's where I normally post such statements. They *DO* get posted
>
> in the open forum.
>
>

Good. I'll take a look over at ACJ in the days ahead to see your
*specifically* calling to attention an *ASSASSINATION*-related TRUTH that
you are saying over there, but were blocked from saying over here. If I
see one, I will most assuredly, try to post it over here and see if the
*ASSASSINATION*-related *IDEA* is blocked from debate.

Gee. I can only wonder why. :-)

>
>
>
>
> >> When I label someone a liar in an open forum - they have precisely two
>
> >> choices, to defend what they said, or to run away.
>
> >
>
> >And when you show that they lie they have the *same* two choices here.
>
> >All you are prevented from doing is apply the label. ...End of story.
>
>
>
>
>
> And without the ability to drive home the point that someone has run away
>
> and refused to support their claim... well, I can't continue this thought
>
> on this forum...
>
>
>

See prior comments on badgering issue. However, I think if done
judiciously you *CAN* make such points even here.

>
>
>
>
> >> Tony doesn't need to defend his statements here, no-one does... because
>
> >> the truth can't be openly stated.
>
> >
>
> >Please be *specific* about any "surpressed" *truth* that is unrelated to
>
> >ad hominem name-calling.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have, repeatedly, above.
>
>
>
> One cannot point out more than once that someone has run from supporting
>
> their claim.
>
>
>

If you were really told you couldn't do it more than once, I would not
tend to agree with that decision. However, frequent purveryors of *false*
information ought to give you multiple "one shot" chances even here.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> Labeling someone a liar who clearly isn't ... is simply another lie th=
>
> >at=3D
>
> >> >> can easily in most cases be seen for what it is.
>
> >> >
>
> >> >Indeed. And no labels even needed to do so! :-)
>
> >>
>
> >> Yet *here*, no-one need do it. I can't label someone a liar and FORCE them
>
> >> to either defend their statement, or stand revealed for what I stated.
>
> >
>
> >Pure BS. In this very thead you already highlighted Tony Marsh's claim
>
> >which he could not justify with any cite from Doug Horne. A fact that *I*
>
> >a LNer (and hence and unlikely supporter) backed you up on. Our *only*
>
> >difference in approching the matter is that I feel no need to label Tony
>
> >based on his failure to be able to justify the claim he made. I am
>
> >content to leave it up to *others* to draw the proper inferences from the
>
> >presented facts.
>
>
>
>
>
> I shouldn't have to tell anyone that repetition is a key concept in
>
> learning.
>
>
>
> But such repetition is censored here.
>
>

See prior comments on badgering issue.

>
>
>
> It's not in the open forum. I'm allowed to repeat as many times as I care
>
> to that Dr. Humes did *NOT* burn anything at all on Saturday.
>
>
>

Several CT's repeat their views *VERY* often over here. Strange that you
would imply you can't bring up the Humes issue as often as they do Z285,
Oswald in the doorway, Zfilm alteration, GK shooter, etc.

What are you even *BABBLING* about? There was *NO* (ZERO) change of
topic. I was talking *EXACTLY* about *your* oblique allegation that
"childish and crude name-calling" came mainly from the LN side.

>
> There's a very good reason that the charges of lying come from mainly one
>
> side.
>
>

They don't and you *couldn't* prove it to save your life---just like I
said.

>
>
>
> (and probably a good reason that you changed the topic)
>
>

See above.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> >However, since you do post a lot over there I *am* assuming you've=20
>
> >> >actually read enough posts to know the *truth*.
>
> >>
>
> >> I do... that's why I'm pointing it out.
>
> >
>
> >And I note that you have not been *prevented* in any way from making your
>
> >case beyond ad hominem.
>
>
>
>
>
> That's simply untrue.
>
>

And you have *utterly* failed to demonstrate in what way it is. Our
discerning viewers and lurkers can plainly see it by now too.

And all you need to do is come off it. What you *really* saying is that I
need to submit to the very silly insistence for a cite that I stated from
the *beginnning* that I was NOT going to and WHY.

No sir. The linked post and threads will forever continue to document
both the accuracy and honesty of my claims and my stance on that
subject--- no matter *how many* times you refuse to acknowledge it.

>
>
>
> Not a thread...
>
>
>

See above.

>
>
>
>
> >***Viewers and Lurkers***
>
> >
>
> >Please visit the following thread:
>
> >
>
> >https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/Jg=
>
> >7z5EaqAjo%5B126-150-false%5D
>
> >
>
> >...to see for *yourselves* if BT George:
>
> >
>
> >(1) *Ever* misstated the nature of the subject under debate. (I.e, AAJ's
>
> >level of interest in debating the HSCA's reports incorrect/false statement
>
> >about the Bethesda head wound witnesses observations.)
>
> >
>
> >(2) Really "couldn't" quote an example of the type of debate AAJ had
>
> >previously had on the subject or simply *WOULDN'T* pacify Ben Holmes silly
>
> >demands to "cite" something *he and anyone else* could *very well* verify
>
> >by simply looking at the several threads I linked to.
>
> >
>
> >For your ease, here again is a relevant post on the subject:
>
> >
>
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Jg7z5EaqAjo/RNFd6LPfv=
>
> >BYJ
>
> >
>
> >Now kind viewer/lurker...I leave it up to *you* to determine what labels
>
> >apply to whom is this whole matter under debate.
>
> >
>
> >BT George
>
>
>
>
>
> And, of course, you'll read my response in that thread:
>
>
>
> ********************************************
>
> Nope... untrue. I've read what you link to, and *NO-ONE* argues or debates
>
> the point.
>
>
>
> You can't quote even a single person doing so.
>
>
>
> If you could, you would have just to shut me up.
>
>

No sir. Every word I said was TRUE and my summarizations of the situation
was very accurate. The threads document posts that support a level of
debate *very* consitent with how I summarized it to be.

The fact that our viewers and lurkers can see I am correct about that, and
yet you keep talking is CLEAR proof that you will *never* shut up even
when you're *dead* WRONG.

>
>
>
> This mysterious rule that you can't quote someone else is quite funny...
>
> *******************************************
>
>
>
> If you believe that the topic came up before - THEN SIMPLY CITE THE
>
> RELEVANT POST...
>
>
>
> Citing entire threads, then stating that the answer is in there somewhere,
>
> might work for those who aren't particularly interested.
>
>

Other than the fact you just *MISSTATED* what I did, and are *DEAD* wrong
in implying that the posts within those threads do not support the *very*
level of debate that characterized as previously occuring in AAJ, I guess
your pretty right there Ben!

***DEAR VIEWERS AND LURKERS***

After beholding another thread decending to ever-increasing inanity and
repetativeness, I call on you to judge what merit there is to Ben Holmes
many claims about this NG and about me.

If he has anything to say in reply that relates to actual
*ASSASSINATION*-related evidence and arguments, I will engage him further.
But I'm done with engaging with further whining about this NG or with his
further claims that I have intentionally misstated *anything* in this or
any prior thread. I leave it for *you* to decide those matters for
yourselves.

BT George

[BT George]

NEW MESSAGE :

Because I have noted *numerous* editing errors and typos in my last
response, and at least one case where *I* clearly failed to actually
*read* what Ben Holmes had said before responding, I have decided to try
again.

Below I have reposted the prior thread with significant corrections/new
comments in ALL CAPS. I am also snipping some unecessary prior thread
garbage where I can.

<On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:05:07 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <40661c82-d97e-4369...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
>
> says...
>
> >
>
> >On Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:07:37 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>

>
> >> >
>
> >> >I don't think anyone has asked you to. All that is being suggested, is
>
> >> >that just because something is true, doesn't always mean it has to be
>
> >> >said.
>
> >>
>
> >> So you assert that true things can't be said in this forum.
>
> >
>
> >No. Try reading ahead sometimes. Your above statement is contradicted by
>
> >what I say further down.
>
>
>
>
>
> Can I label someone who lies about the evidence that I can cite a "liar"?
>
>

Already answered. The sad mystery is why you think that you *must* in
order to argue the assassination or in order for others to eventually

figure out that frequent purveyors of provably false evidence/statements

are "liars".

>
>
>
> >> I've always known that to be the case. Which explains why I so rarely post
>
> >> here.
>
> >
>
> >See above comments on actually *reading* what the other poster is saying
>
> >before you respond.
>
>
>
>
>
> Can I point out that someone has not responded without the post being
>
> censored as "badgering"?
>
>

I don't run this place, but my answer would be that it depends. You wanto

point out the same evasion(s) a few times in the same thread or over

limited time frame and it should not be considered as such. Even if yowant
to bring it up again at a future date after taking a break for a whilI

here but "cannot" state the truth. Oh go ahead Ben; GIVE IT A TRY.
- hide quoted text -

- hide quoted text -

Really Ben? Then why don't you "merely" demonstrate for us why the autopsy

team and the succeeding FP's that reviewed the autopsy
evidence---including pro-CT Cyril Wecht---"missed" the "evidence" that
proved such an allegation?

Also, while you’re at it, please enlighten us on a workable trajectory

that could account for a frontal entrance wound to JFK's neck:

1) Just how was Connally, sitting only 6 inches lower, missed by such a
shot?

2) If he wan't missed do you have your own sort of "frontal" SBT that
resulted in it going from his thigh, to his wrist, to his chest, to his
rib, to his back and then into JFK's neck? If not, please account for
JBC's various wounds.

3) Did it come through the window or just above it?

4) Where did the bullet go after hitting JFK's neck?

Sometimes it seems to me that you are more concerned with "exonerating"
Lane or "convicting" the WC and HSCA of bias, than you are about

addressing what the *REAL, HARD, CORROBORATING, FIREARMS, BALLISTICS,

FORENSIC, and PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE* DOES WORKING TOGETHER to show LHO's
guilt and how the *lack* of it also undermines the likelihood of any

conspiracy that might be posited.

Why not skip Mark Lane #895 - infinity and work more on that?

>
>
>
> >and take up the
>
> >challenge? Heck, if you need I can actually repost the 85 points in
>
> >summary form to help you just as I did here:
>
> >
>
> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/ZE5jCCmzc=
>
> >mgJ
>
> >
>
> >...OK Ben the floor is yours.
>
>
>
>
>
> It has been for a long time... you know where you can post all
>
> 'challenges' to have them answered...
>
>

If by "floor" you mean endless time to start an continue threads of
secondary importance, then I will grant you that you seem to do *that*
very well. I also know that *nothing* prevents you from dealing with

*ASSASSINATION-related* facts right here in THIS NG.

Yes. Unless the prosecution and defense attorneys can call each other

CORRECTION:

IN READING FROM THE PRIOR TRAIL I CAN SEE WHERE I *MISTAKENLY* SINGLED OUT
ACCUSATIONS OF LYING (AND BY THAT I MEANT OF THE BLANKET AND *UNPROVED*
VARIETY) UNDER THE UBRELLA OF AD HOMINEM NAME-CALLING RATHER THAN
BROADENING MY REMARKS TO INCLUDE ALL FORMS OF AD HOMINEM.

I SUSPECT THIS MENTAL LAPSE ON MY PART CAME ABOUT BECAUSE THE OVERALL
CONTEXT OF *MOST* OF THIS THREAD HAS BEEN THE ISSUE OF THE ABILITY VS.
DESIRABILITY OF BEING ABLE TO LABEL SOMEONE A *LIAR* EVEN IF IT MAY, IN
FACT, BE TRUE.

AT ANY RATE, ALLOW ME TO RESTATE THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT MORE CORRECTLY AND
BROADLY AND *ELIMINATE* ANY CHANGE OF SUBJECT REAL OR PERCEIVED:

“BEN YOU COULDN’T JUSTIFY A CLAIM THAT THE *MAJORITY* OF AD HOMINEM
ATTACKS OF ANY SORT *OR* ALLEGATIONS OF LYING (STILL LESS THAT MOST
*FALSE* ALLEGATIONS OF LYING) COME FROM THE LN SIDE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE.”

BEN’S ANSWER APPEARS TO BE THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY ONLY IMPLYING THAT HE
*CAN* JUSTIFY THAT AT LEAST MOST “CHILDISH AND CRUDE NAME-CALLING COMES
FROM THE LN SIDE.

TO THAT, I *REPEAT* YOU COULD NOT JUSTIFY THAT STATEMENT EITHER TO SAVE
YOUR LIFE.

>
> There's a very good reason that the charges of lying come from mainly one
>
> side.
>
>

They don't and you *couldn't* prove it to save your life---just like I
said.

I STAND BY THE ABOVE ANSWER.

>
>
>
> (and probably a good reason that you changed the topic)
>
>
See above.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> >However, since you do post a lot over there I *am* assuming you've=20
>
> >> >actually read enough posts to know the *truth*.
>
> >>
>
> >> I do... that's why I'm pointing it out.
>
> >
>
> >And I note that you have not been *prevented* in any way from making your
>
> >case beyond ad hominem.
>
>
>
>
>
> That's simply untrue.
>
>

And you have *utterly* failed to demonstrate in what way it is. Our
discerning viewers and lurkers can plainly see it by now too.


>

> >> People interested in the truth won't find it here... I've pointed out in=
>
> >=20
>
> >> the past topics that are quite scarce here... you attempted unsuccessfull=
>
> >y=20
>
> >> to defend one of them... but couldn't quote an example.
>
> >
>
> >That sir, *IS* a false claim!
>
>
>
>
>
> Then all you need to do is cite the post where the topic was being
>
> discussed.
>
>

And all you need to do is come off it. What you *really* saying is that I
need to submit to the very silly insistence for a cite that I stated from

the *beginning* that I was NOT going to and WHY.

debate *very* consistent with how I summarized it to be.

The fact that our viewers and lurkers can see I am correct about that, and
yet you keep talking is CLEAR proof that you will *never* shut up even
when you're *dead* WRONG.

>
>
>
> This mysterious rule that you can't quote someone else is quite funny...
>
> *******************************************
>
>
>
> If you believe that the topic came up before - THEN SIMPLY CITE THE
>
> RELEVANT POST...
>
>
>
> Citing entire threads, then stating that the answer is in there somewhere,
>
> might work for those who aren't particularly interested.
>
>

Other than the fact you just *MISSTATED* what I did (BY OMITTING THE
IMPORTANT FACT THAT DIDN’T JUST LINK TO SOME THREADS, BUT *CORRECTLY*
CHARACTERIZED THE TYPE/LEVEL OF DEBATE ONE WOULD FIND IN THEM), and are

*DEAD* wrong in implying that the posts within those threads do not
support the *very* level of debate that characterized as previously

occurring in AAJ, I guess you’re pretty right there Ben!

***DEAR VIEWERS AND LURKERS***

After beholding another thread descending to ever-increasing inanity and
repetitiveness, I call on you to judge what merit there is to Ben Holmes

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/22/2014 1:19 PM, BT George wrote:
> NEW MESSAGE :
>
> Because I have noted *numerous* editing errors and typos in my last
> response, and at least one case where *I* clearly failed to actually
> *read* what Ben Holmes had said before responding, I have decided to try
> again.
>
> Below I have reposted the prior thread with significant corrections/new
> comments in ALL CAPS. I am also snipping some unecessary prior thread
> garbage where I can.
>

Well, at least you have figured out how to do *BOLD*.

[BT George]

NEW MESSAGE #2

All,

Using Google Groups has definate limitations. My SECOND message repost
managed to become garbled on a lot of things *not* garbled in the FIRST
message.

Rather than try a 3rd time, I ask that any replies be made to the FIRST
message *TAKING INTO ACCOUNT* anything that is further/better clarified in
the SECOND message. (Or vice-versa.)

Again, I will *gladly* respond as warranted, but *ONLY* to remarks
addressing the actual *ASSASSINATION* and *evidence or arguments* related
*directly* to it. However, I will *NOT* continue debating the merits of
AAJ vs. ACJ nor continue to hash out what was/was not said in prior
threads. (Though an exception may be made if an answer is made to those
topics that appears to misunderstand or misstate my position in a way not
already pointed out.)

BT George

[Ben Holmes]

In article <69f4739e-be70-4e1b...@googlegroups.com>, BT George

says...
>
>On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:05:07 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> In article <40661c82-d97e-4369...@googlegroups.com>, BT Ge=
>orge=20

>> says...
>> >
>> >On Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:07:37 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> >> In article <8aa7434c-9d10-42b3...@googlegroups.com>, BT=

> Ge=3D
>> >orge=3D20
>> >> says...
>> >> >
>> >> >On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:58:49 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> >> >> In article <65a8908a-d468-4ecf...@googlegroups.com>,=
> BT=3D
>> > Ge=3D3D
>> >> >orge=3D3D20

>> >> >> says...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >On Saturday, January 11, 2014 4:43:00 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> >> >> >> In article <52d05a96$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says.=
>..
>> >> >> >>=3D3D3D20

>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >On 1/10/2014 3:10 PM, BT George wrote:

>> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 11:05:11 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh=
> wr=3D
>> >ote=3D3D

>> >> >:
>> >> >> >> >>> On 1/9/2014 7:59 PM, magoos...@msn.com wrote:

>> >> >> >> >>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 4:38:54 PM UTC-6, John Fiorent=
>ino=3D
>> > wr=3D3D
>> >> >ote=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >:
>> >> >> >> >>>>> Doug Horne made the claim a few years ago that he had "dis=
>cov=3D
>> >ere=3D3D
>> >> >d" =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >a hole
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> in the windshield of the limo which was in evidence in P=
>art=3D
>> >s 7=3D3D
>> >> > I =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >believe
>> >> >> >> >>>>> of TMWKK.
>> >> >> >> >>>>> Parts 7, 8 and 9 are no longer broadcast by the History Ch=
>ann=3D
>> >el =3D3D
>> >> >due=3D3D3D

>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >>>>> threatened legal action.
>> >> >> >> >>>>> John F.
>> >> >> >> >>>>> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >>>>> news:lami3...@drn.newsguy.com...

>> >> >> >> >>>>>> The claim has been made on this forum that Douglas Horne =
>sta=3D
>> >ted=3D3D
>> >> > th=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >at he
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> was the first person to bring up the "hole in the windshi=
>eld=3D
>> >=3D3D3D=3D3D
>> >> >20
>> >> >> >> controversy".
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> To be precise, it was alleged that "Another indication o=
>f H=3D
>> >orn=3D3D
>> >> >e's
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> dishonesty was the quote where he claims that he was the =
>fir=3D
>> >st =3D3D
>> >> >per=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >son to
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> bring up the hole in the windshield controversy."

>> >> >> >> >>>>>>> In the interests of factual history, can *ANYONE* in thi=
>s f=3D
>> >oru=3D3D
>> >> >m d=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >ocument
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> such a statement by Douglas Horne?
>> >> >> >> >>>>>>

>> >> >> >> >>>>>> What he claims in the article on the Lew Rockwell site is=
> th=3D
>> >is:
>> >> >> >> >>>>> "In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the =
>JFK
>> >> >> >> >>>> assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing pho=
>tog=3D
>> >rap=3D3D
>> >> >hy =3D3D3D
>> >> >> >of the
>> >> >> >> >>>> through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JF=
>K l=3D
>> >imo=3D3D
>> >> >usi=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >ne
>> >> >> >> >>>> that had been reported by six credible witnesses."

>> >> >> >> >>>>> His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photo=
>gra=3D
>> >phy=3D3D
>> >> >" o=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >f the
>> >> >> >> >>>> windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole.
>> >> >> >> >>>>> Squinty Magoo
>> >> >> >> >>>> Let me guess. The next message from Mike or Ben will be:

>> >> >> >> >>> Squinty, why is that you will never quote exactly what Horne=
> sa=3D
>> >id?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> No Tony. Though I'm no fan of much of Ben's beliefs and tact=
>ics=3D
>> >, i=3D3D
>> >> >n t=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >his
>> >> >> >> >> case he is factually right. As is your frequent tendency, yo=
>u s=3D
>> >eem=3D3D

>> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> have misconstrued what Doug Horne actually claimed.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> In this post:
>> >> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/JeJ2x23=
>9Yw=3D
>> >c/y=3D3D
>> >> >kju=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >CH-
>> >> >> >> FT9kJ
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> ...you said:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Another indication of Horne's dishonesty was the quote where=
> he=3D
>> > cl=3D3D
>> >> >aim=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >s
>> >> >> >> >> that he was the first person to bring up the hole in the wind=
>shi=3D
>> >eld
>> >> >> >> >> controversy. He is not a careful researcher. It was first bro=
>ugh=3D
>> >t u=3D3D
>> >> >p i=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >n
>> >> >> >> >> the December 30, 1963 issue of US News and World Report:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/USNews_12_30_63.jpg"
>> >> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> >> However, the truth is that Horne (who holds beliefs I definit=
>ely=3D
>> > co=3D3D
>> >> >nsi=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >der
>> >> >> >> >> "kooky") never claimed what you said he claimed in the refere=
>nce=3D
>> > ar=3D3D
>> >> >tic=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >le
>> >> >> >> >> under debate in the other thread. Indeed as Squinty Magoo ha=
>s s=3D
>> >aid=3D3D
>> >> > ab=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ove:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "His "new," "never reported" evidence was "convincing photogr=
>aph=3D
>> >y" =3D3D
>> >> >of =3D3D3D

>> >> >> >the
>> >> >> >> >> windscreen hole, not that there WAS a hole."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Oh I get it now.

>> >> >> >> Then why can't you retract your previous untruthful statement, T=
>ony=3D
>> >?/
>> >> >> >> >You think that Horne was the one who found photographic=3D3D3D2=
>0
>> >> >> >> >proof of a hole in the windshield, but he doesn't believe it hi=
>mse=3D
>> >lf.=3D3D
>> >> > Bu=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >t=3D3D3D20
>> >> >> >> >the fact is that Horne is a Liftonite and automatically believe=
>s w=3D
>> >hat=3D3D
>> >> >eve=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >r=3D3D3D20
>> >> >> >> >kooky theory Lifton or Fetzer proposes. He doesn't have the cho=
>ps =3D
>> >to =3D3D
>> >> >fin=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >d=3D3D3D20
>> >> >> >> >new photographic proof of anything. I had already debunked Fetz=
>er'=3D
>> >s=3D3D
>> >> >=3D3D3D20
>> >> >> >> >nonsense.
>> >> >> >> Completely meaningless garbage, not addressing the point that wa=
>s r=3D
>> >ais=3D3D
>> >> >ed.
>> >> >> >> >> Also to my knowledge, Horne has *never* claimed what you said=
> he=3D
>> > cl=3D3D
>> >> >aim=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >ed
>> >> >> >> >> elsewhere either. He may be rightly called a "kook" but unle=
>ss =3D
>> >you
>> >> >> >> >> produce evidence of his making such a claim, the only conclus=
>ion=3D
>> > is=3D3D
>> >> > th=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >at
>> >> >> >> >> you were wrong in your original interpretation of his claims =
>and=3D
>> > ju=3D3D

>> >> >st
>> >> >> >> >> don't want to admit it.
>> >> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> >> While I personally dislike Ben's tendency to often hyper-focu=
>s o=3D
>> >n w=3D3D
>> >> >hat=3D3D3D
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> >> consider to be issues of secondary importance (like this); wh=
>en =3D
>> >the=3D3D
>> >> > ma=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >n's
>> >> >> >> >> right, he's right. And no face is really saved by refusing t=
>o a=3D
>> >dmi=3D3D
>> >> >t i=3D3D3D

>> >> >> >t.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >You only like him when he attacks me.
>> >> >> >> I don't attack *you*, Tony.
>> >> >> >> I attack statements that are not true.
>> >> >> >

>> >> >> >Yes, but to be completely honest, your prior comments indicate tha=
>t y=3D
>> >ou=3D3D
>> >> >> >*WOULD* like very much to attack the source of such statements as =
>wel=3D
>> >l a=3D3D
>> >> >s=3D3D20
>> >> >> >the statements. E.g., you would like very much to be able to labe=
>l t=3D
>> >he=3D3D

>> >> >> >source of an untrue claim as a "lier".

>> >> >> People who lie are, in the English language, commonly referred to a=
>s=3D
>> >=3D3D20
>> >> >> liars... particularly when lying is a frequent occurrence. I have n=
>o=3D
>> >=3D3D20

>> >> >> intention of changing the English language.
>> >> >>
>> >> >

>> >> >I don't think anyone has asked you to. All that is being suggested, =

>is
>> >> >that just because something is true, doesn't always mean it has to be
>> >> >said.
>> >>
>> >> So you assert that true things can't be said in this forum.
>> >

>> >No. Try reading ahead sometimes. Your above statement is contradicted =
>by=20

>> >what I say further down.
>> Can I label someone who lies about the evidence that I can cite a "liar"?
>
>Already answered.

So you contradict yourself.

The *FACT* is, you cannot tell the truth in this forum. For, as I just
pointed out, even if *anyone* would recognize a statement as being
completely contradicted by the actual evidence, you cannot label it a lie.

All you can do is point out once or twice that someone can't cite - and
then at that point any further posts will be censored. And one might not
necessarily even get once or twice to point out such a fact.

You see, it's *easy* to cite testimony when someone says that Dr. Humes
didn't state that the bullet *exited* the back of JFK's head... you can
quickly locate the statement, and both quote the statement and cite the
source.

But tell us, how can you refute Tony claiming that Douglas Horne claimed
to be the first to discover a hole in the windshield?

Can *YOU* produce a quote from Douglas Horne stating something to the
effect: "I was not the first one to note a hole in the windshield?"

If someone cannot produce a citation that supports their assertion, then
nothing can be done in *this* forum.

>The sad mystery is why you think that you *must* in
>order to argue the assassination or in order for others to eventually
>figure out that frequent purveyors of provably false evidence/statemetns
>are "liars".

Just pointing out that you can't tell the complete truth in a censored
forum.



>> >> I've always known that to be the case. Which explains why I so rarely =
>post
>> >> here.
>> >
>> >See above comments on actually *reading* what the other poster is saying=
>=20

>> >before you respond.
>> Can I point out that someone has not responded without the post being
>> censored as "badgering"?
>>
>
>I don't run this place, but my answer would be that it depends. You want
>to point out the same evasion(s) a few times in the same thread or over a
>limited time frame and it should not be considered as such.

Too bad *YOU* aren't the censor then.

Because I can tell you for a fact that even a *SINGLE* time is too many
depending on the person you're pointing it out to.

>Even if you
>want to bring it up again at a future date after taking a break for awhile
>I would not consider it as such.

You wouldn't, perhaps.

But unfortunately, *YOU* aren't censoring here...

>OTOH, if you want to point it out 10-15 times in the same thread or bring
>it up daily for weeks on end or weekly for months on end, at some point,
>it starts to wear on the patience even of those who *agree* with you and
>amounts to needless "badgering" to get someone to admit what should be
>obvious at some point to all.
>
>Of course if they *continue spouting* the same PROVABLY false claim(s) it
>should be "open season" on them until they cease repeating them.

Unfortunately for your quite reasonable speculation about how it *should*
be... I can tell you from experience that it isn't.

>> Judging from my past experiences, the answer is no.
>
>See above comments.

Your above comments are speculation about how it *should* be, not how it
actually is.


>> >> In fact, the only reason I *started* posting is John McAdams' rule tha=

>t
>> >> you can slander non-members...
>> >

>> >By "slander" you seem to mean that the very freedom to call a non-member=
> a=20
>> >"liar" or worse brought you out so the no one over here can do to you th=
>e=20
>> >very thing that you *like* doing to others and *have* done to you=20
>> >routinely over at ACJ.
>> It seems to be perfectly okay to label someone a liar as long as they=20

>> don't post here, and aren't in a position to defend themselves.

>> It's actually quite rare in an open forum where I can respond to such=20

>> slander. At least, those who do illustrate in *all* of their posts that
>> they aren't very credible. For example, "Vincent Bugliosi"... does anyone
>> *here* think that a person using that name is 'credible'?
>
>I've seen the character using that name over at ACJ lately. I haven't
>followed his "stuff" closely, but from what I've seen, he gives more
>evidence of being a CT *posing* as an LN than he does as a legitimate
>defender of the LN position.

That doesn't even make sense.

On the other hand, we've seen historical evidence of LNT'ers posing as
CT'ers.

>Of course...he displays no less credibility as an LN, than some CT's over
>there display in defending their case. :-)

No-one has ever claimed that there aren't kooks in both camps. Only that
they are far more prevalent in the LNT'ers camp.



>> >That sir, makes no sense as any member here can go over there and say=20

>> >*whatever* they please about you anyway.
>> Absolutely! And they'll have to be prepared to refute the citations I will
>> be happy to supply.

>> Then, when I repeatedly point out that they've run away, no-one will=20

>> censor those posts for "badgering".
>
>Yes. And if you carry on pointing out the obvious long enough, there will
>soon be 2-4 views on your threads. :-)

Of course, *HERE* you cannot point out such a fact even once. And yes, I
have an example of exactly this that was censored by John.



>> >Further, you and others can heap=20
>> >ad hominem on *anybody* you please over there whether they post there or=
>=20
>> >not. So why do you come over here where *neither* party can break out th=
>e=20
>> >"slander" you seem to treasure in one place, yet dissaprove of in anothe=
>r?
>> Answered above.
>> >So why is it *really* that lately you've started coming over here and=20
>> >participating in the very format you object to? Surely it has got=20

>> >"nothing" to do with tiring of posting "Mark Lane #10,378 over there and
>> >often getting a whopping 1-3 views? :-)
>>
>> I find it truly amusing that despite the frequently made claims that Mark
>> Lane is "dishonest," or a "liar" - there's been an amazing silence when
>> faced with Mark Lane's ACTUAL STATEMENTS... all in fairly short chunks,
>> ready to be refuted.
>> But aren't.
>> Indeed, I had one confirmed Warren Commission believer who stated that he
>> was going to come to the forum just for the explicit purpose of refuting
>> the Mark Lane series... he made several posts about Nolan Potter, then ran
>> away when he was quite quickly faced with more facts than he clearly
>> wanted to deal with.
>
>I never have personally claimed that Mark Lane was necessarily a frequent
>liar. However, is it *REALLY* your claim that he did not engage in *any*
>lies or "stretching of the truth"? Would you maintain that he never tried
>to "lead a witness" to agree with what *he* wanted said?

My current total of 435 quotes from "Rush to Judgment" is ready anytime
you care to make your case.



>> The opposite never seems to happen... I don't see people quoting from=20

>> Posner or Bugliosi, to name two... with any confidence that they aren't
>> going to be refuted by citations to the evidence.
>
>Which explains why you ARE going to take the RH challenge, right Ben?
>
>...OH THAT'S RIGHT. You "can't" because you can only expose "lies" over
>here but "cannot" state the truth. Oh go ahead Ben.

Actually, I've already started on it, and should be finished and started
posting them within a week or two.

I've already noted some of them that are just too silly to be taken
seriously.

Such as Bugliosi's claim that walking fast is evidence of being a
murderer...

Or changing clothes when you get home from work...

I'd *LOVE* to see Bugliosi actually try to put stuff like that IN COURT in
front of a jury... he might not like the laughter though...

And, like all the rest of my series... I don't expect any serious attempts
at refutation.


>> >> >It is not always a "lie" to leave a "truth" unsaid. Your wife may=3D=
>20
>> >> >have gained a lot of weight to the point of becoming fat. But it is =
>not=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >"lying" for others to choose not to comment on that fact even though =
>it=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >might be true.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nevertheless...the truth of her weight gain will still be evident to =
>tho=3D
>> >se=3D20
>> >> >who are observant even if no one labels her as "fat". So too with th=
>ose=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >who make a habit of lying, will be seen as "liers" just by pointing o=
>ut=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >the lies. There is no need to use that label *IF* refraining from do=
>ing=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >so accomplishes a greater overall purpose.
>> >> Not the best analogy you could have come up with.
>> >

>> >Not the worst either, and it makes the point in conjunction with what el=
>se=20

>> >I have to say in this thread.
>> >
>> >> >> Such truth can't be told here...
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you sell most thinking people too short. Persons *knowingly*=

>=3D20

>> >> >making false claims generally becomes *quite* evident after a while.

>> >> There are a number of topic issues in this forum that will never becom=
>e=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> "evident" because the contrary evidence won't be cited by anyone.
>> >

>> >Well why don't you spell it ALL out and expose how the *cumultative* cas=
>e=20

>> >against Oswald is just the bunkem?
>> >

>> >In fact I pose a challenge to *you* right here, and right now, just as I=
>=20
>> >originally did to "Ralph Yates" over at Amazon and to Robert Harris righ=
>t=20
>> >here: in AAJ:
>> >
>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/BVY7hs=
>e3q=3D
>> >TwJ
>> Sounds like a decent enough challenge... of course, no-one will refute=20

>> what I state in answering such a challenge...
>> I couldn't post the answers in this forum for obvious reasons.
>Sure. (See prior comments.)
>> >Here's what I posted to Bob in my intitial challenge:
>> >
>> >You recently asked "nutters" to produce their case for LHO acting alone.
>> >I have no intention or time to regurgitate a tome already in print.
>> >However the essence of Bugliosi's massive book Reclaiming History is
>> >distilled by him into a list of 53 arguments for Oswald's guilt and 32
>> >arguments that he acted alone. For reference, these link to a site where
>> >they are listed---and even---debated:
>> >

>> >http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354552=3D20
>> >
>> >http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354786=3D20

>> >
>> >
>> >I hereby challenge you Bob Harris to take up the same guantlett I laid=

>=3D20
>> >down to a real troll Ralph Yates at Amazon who endlessly attacks LN=3D20
>> >favorable reviews with what he (claims) to be irrefutable proof of=3D20
>> >conspiracy in the JFK case.=3D20
>> >
>> >***START AMAZON POST***=3D20

>> >
>> >Thank you for your kind words of "encouragement" Mr. Yates. From what I=

>=3D20

>> >have seen you troll around on the reviews of this book and "pounce" on=

>=3D20
>> >anyone who dares to agree that Bugliosi presents a pretty strong case fo=
>r
>> >LHO's sole guilt. I see that you have again followed your typical patter=
>n
>> >in raving about the "coup d'etat", about Alan Dulles, and setting up you=

>r
>> >pet "factoid" about the brain weight issue. Tell you what my friend, I=

>=3D20

>> >will spend additional time corresponding with you and giving you my take=

>=3D20
>> >on your "The brain weight discrepancy proves all my wildest beliefs to b=
>e
>> >true scenario." (Though as a little hint "mistakes do happen sometimes."=
>)
>> >but first you will have to answer my challenge.=3D20
>> >
>> >In my review, I make the rather bold assertion that even if 70% of Vince=
>nt
>> >Bugliosi's points against Oswald and against there having been a=3D20
>> >conspiracy could be successfully refuted or rendered unimportant by the =
>CT
>> >community, there would still be plenty of good reasons to conclude LHO w=

>as
>> >guilty and that there was no conspiracy.
>> Actually, quite wrong.
>> For example, merely demonstrating that the throat wound was an entry wound
>> would be sufficient, BY ITSELF, to show a conspiracy, even if Bugliosi had
>> far more than 53 reasons.
>
>Really Ben. Then why don't you "merely" demonstrate for us why the
>autopsy team and the succeeding FP's that reviewed the autopsy
>evidence---including pro-CT Cyril Wecht---"missed" the "evidence" that
>proved such an allegation?

I don't have to... the Warren Commission testimony shows it quite clearly.

You *do* know that the prosectors claim not to have known about the throat
*bullet* wound, right?

>Also, while your at it, please enlighten us on a workable trajectory that
>could account for a frontal entrance wound to JFK's neck:
>
>1) Just how was Connally, sitting only 6 inches lower, missed by such a
>shot?
>
>2) If he wan't missed do you have your own sort of "frontal" SBT that
>resulted in it going from his thigh, to his wrist, to his chest, to his
>rib, to his back and then into JFK's neck? If not, please account for
>JBC's various wounds.
>
>2) Did it come through the window or just above it?
>
>3) Where did the bullet go after hitting JFK's neck?
>
>a) If it remained in the body what happened to it?
>
>b) If it went through, how on earth did it not come out the other side and
>then either hit someone in the follow up cars, the crowd, of the pavement?

I always find it amusing that people seem to think that if it can be seen,
it cannot be hit by a bullet.

Are you claiming that there were no places in Dealey Plaza that JFK's neck
could not be seen?

>> It's interesting to note that Bugliosi lied on this very issue... that of
>> the throat wound.
>
>Sure Ben. In your mind there seem to be *no* honest errors. Thus there is
>*no* *possibility* that VB's statement that there was a "ragged wound" in
>association with the neck, was just an error on his part. Nopper. Nobody
>in writing a 1,600+ page tome with about 900 pages of footnotes, could
>make any "honest" errors. It could "only" be a *deliberate* lie!

Of course, in your mind, CT authors lie... just as you can't seem to find
any lies among the Warren Commission, Clark Panel, HSCA, Bugliosi, Posner,
etc...

I find it amusing that you seem to believe that someone can study this
case for more than 20 years, and never run into the issues that the throat
wound posed for the Warren Commission.

>Well at any rate, you and DVP have already gone round on this matter and I
>post here a link to his website for what I find to be a reasonable
>explanation of why VB ended up making a claim that was indeed incorrect,
>but not necessarily an intentional lie:
>

>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=3Dragged


A very good example of LNT'er logic... DVP couldn't quite figure out for
some time just what the topic was, as he admits in that article.

But he fails to explain how someone can spend over 20 years on this case,
and not know the problems faced by the Warren Commission with that throat
wound.

As you will fail to do...


>> >My challenge to you: Show me=3D20

>> >*convincing* refutation of enough of these points to reduce Bugliosi's=

>=3D20
>> >case to ashes & I will engage with your own peculiar obsessions.=3D20
>> >
>> >What's enough? Well I suggest you plan on whittling it down to single=3D=
>20
>> >digits in both lists and then show that whatever's left is pretty=3D20
>> >non-compelling. A lot to ask? Maybe. But it shouldn't be too hard to do =
>if
>> >the WC really was the complete Dulles-led scam you seem to believe it wa=
>s.
>> >...And "no" pointing me to a website maintained by another CTer like Jam=
>es
>> >DiEugenio will not suffice...you should be able to present your own=3D20
>> >point-by-point arguments if you are so adamant that there was a conspira=
>cy
>> >in the JFK Case.=3D20
>> >
>> >***END POST FROM AMAZON***=3D20

>> >
>> >Additionally, also pointed out in this post:
>> >

>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/YPeJ5g=
>n31=3D
>> >TAJ
>> >
>> >....To put this into perspective, even if a CT leaning person were to=20
>> >successfully debunk or minimize 70% of the 85 points VB makes in RH, tha=
>t=20
>> >would still leave 16 good reasons to believe LHO killed Kennedy and 10=
>=20

>> >good arguments that he acted alone.
>> >
>> >

>> >Strangely, Bob and Ralph never quite "got around" to doing this. So Ben=
>,=20

>> >why don't you skip "Mark Lane" #'s 10,379 - 10,450

>> I'm sure that a lot of people would prefer that I not prove so=20
>> dramatically the inability of anyone to show "dishonesty" or "lying" on=
>=20

>> Mark Lane's part.
>> I'm at 430... and just 3 or 4 serious attempts to refute what he said...
>
>I am far more interested in the facts of *the case* than I am about Mark
>Lane's reputation. Indeed, Ben, I am more interested in *whether* LHO
>killed JFK and acted alone, than I am what *biases* the WC or HSCA may
>have had in trying to demonstrate as much.
>
>Sometimes it seems to me that you are more concerned with "exhonorating"
>Lane of "convicting" the WC and HSCA than addressing what the *REAL, HARD,
>CORROBORATING, FIREARMS, BALLISTICS, FORENSIC, and PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE*
>works together to show LHO's guilt and how the *lack* of it undermines the
>likelihood of any conspiracy that might be posited. Why not skip Mark
>Lane #895 - infinity and work on that?

The problem, of course, is that the evidence doesn't do what you claim it
does.



>> >and take up the=20
>> >challenge? Heck, if you need I can actually repost the 85 points in=20

>> >summary form to help you just as I did here:
>> >

>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/ZE5jCC=
>mzc=3D

>> >mgJ
>> >
>> >...OK Ben the floor is yours.
>> It has been for a long time... you know where you can post all
>> 'challenges' to have them answered...
>
>If by "floor" you mean endless time to start an continue threads of
>secondary importance, then I will grant you that you seem to do *that*
>very well. I also know that *nothing* prevents you from dealing with
>*ASSASSINATION-related* facts righ here in THIS NG.

I've repeatedly pointed out why I cannot.

I daresay that if I even *mentioned* the topic that was censored last time
that this post would be censored.

>All you are repeatedly demonstrating, is that you truly *cannot* function
>without going some place where you can resort to ad hominem name-calling
>to make your points.

I can point out a post where there's *NO* ad hominem whatsoever, yet was
censored.

>> If I start answering them in an open forum, will you respond?
>
>No sir. The challenge was made *right here* in AAJ. There is *nothing*
>to be gained by going over to a forum where ad hominem insults routinely
>substitute for reasoned debate. Indeed, I've *repeatedly* stated that it
>is for that very reason that I do my posting mainly here.
>
>Now you can either drop your *excuses* as to why the "truth" about the
>ASSASSINATION supposedly "cannot" be told at AAJ or go back to "play" in
>the ACJ "pigpen" to be viewed by the 10's of people who routinely come
>there to sample the insults du jour.

Oh, don't worry... I really never thought that anyone would respond...
except for DVP, who pretty much has to.

But the topic will never come up in this forum. (just like the topic of
the HSCA lying so blatantly about the Bethesda witnesses) Those interested
in the truth will never see the *real* adversarial position...



>> >> >While there are some contexts that it is both necessary and useful to=
> ca=3D
>> >ll=3D20
>> >> >someone out as a lier, a debate format is generally best served by=3D=
>20
>> >> >disallowing inflammatory labels that---while sometimes correctly=3D20
>> >> >used----most often end up being misued in confrontational situations =
>and=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >shutting down sane, intelligent interchange.
>> >> What ends up happening is different, however.

>> >> What *HAS* happened in this forum is that people *routinely* say thing=

>s
>> >> that they could never get away with in an open forum.
>> >

>> >And "mysteriously" somehow, you can't point that out unless you label=20
>> >people and call them names. Nevertheless, it's not stopped you from=20
>> >posting over here and trying to highlight behavior that you (Ben Holmes)=
>=20
>> >deems worthy of harsh labels. C'mon, are you *really* saying you can't=
>=20

>> >even function without name-calling?
>> Unfortunately, you aren't being entirely truthful here... For example,
>> it's not possible for me to continue discussing Tony's incorrect claim...
>> because such posts will be censored as "badgering". (That is, of course,
>> the *PRECISE* word that John McAdams used in an email to me explaining why
>> my posts were censored)
>
>Already commented on the "badgering" issue. I've been censored here
>before too and I can't say that I have always agreed with the decisions
>rendered either.

Then you understand quite well that the truth cannot always be told
here... even granted that *NO* ad hominem is being used.

You just don't like to admit that the truth cannot always be told here.


>> >> >I am glad the freedom exists to go elsewhere and say whatever one wan=
>ts =3D
>> >to=3D20

>> >> >say, but it is neither nefarious, nor evil to choose to post where an=

>=3D20
>> >> >*honest* person can state *honest* beliefs without fear of being *fal=
>sel=3D
>> >y*=3D20
>> >> >labeled a lier---and far worse---by those who disagree. This remains=
> tr=3D
>> >ue=3D20
>> >> >even though the same environment may allow *dishonest* persons to=3D2=
>0
>> >> >sometimes state *lies* without fear of directly being labeled "liers"=
>. =3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >...PROVIDED, of course, that others *ARE* allowed to point out that t=
>he=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >statement itself is *UNTRUE*.
>> >> Most people who can and would don't post here.
>> >

>> >Well I wonder where "they" do post? It sure isn't ACJ where the volume =
>of =3D

>> >posting activity and regular posters is paltry compared to here. :-)
>>
>> Quantity that isn't tempered by those who hold opposing views isn't worth
>> much.
>
>Opposing views on the *ASSASSINATION* and *ASSASSINATION*-related
>*evidence* are *NOT* getting censored here.

Yes... they are. I have experienced it, and I've posted examples in the
open forum.

>AFAIC see, only the freedom
>to go into "personal attack" mode is ever curtailed. ...BUT then I've
>only said this 150 times in this thread alone!

Speculation will never face the truth and win. I have example posts that
demonstrate what I'm saying.

Otherwise, I'd not be saying this. You can defend this censorship as long
as you want, but even *YOU* admit that it censors what shouldn't be
censored.

>> This is similar to a well established legal principle of adversarial
>> proceedings.
>> You don't have it here very much.
>
>Yes. Unless the prosecution and defense attornies can call each other
>"liars" every name in the book, then the adversarial *process* is
>"clearly" impossible!

I'll repeat again, I can show you a post with *NO* ad hominem in it, that
was censored for "badgering".

>> >> >Since you just *successfully* pointed out an untrue statement
>> >> But not, however, the truth.
>> >

>> >So now Ben Holmes is claiming he can point out a *lie* but cannot state =
>a=20
>> >*truth* here. Just what kind of "truth"---besides ad hominem=20

>> >labeling---are you *disallowed* to state here?
>>
>> I've repeatedly answered above.
>
>You've answered repeatedly alright. To the point where I am sure it is
>now quite obvious to everyone following this tiresome little exchange that
>ad hominem is, in fact, the only "truth" you cannot tell here.

No... I've REPEATEDLY stated that you cannot point out that someone has
not responded to a point raised without it being labeled "badgering" and
then censored.

I can even provide an example here, but then this post would be censored.

Now, since I've *REPEATEDLY* stated that its not ad hominem that is
necessary to be censored, can you acknowledge that I've said it?


>> >Please be *specific* and let me know if the "evil" Dr. McAdams blocks yo=
>u. =20

>> >(Based on the moaning from Robert Harris and Tony Marsh, a post
>> >complaining about a block will usually be let through.) And, of course,
>> >*nothing* stops you from *specifically* listing the "blocked" truth over
>> >in your normal venue.
>>
>> Yep... that's where I normally post such statements. They *DO* get posted
>> in the open forum.
>
>Good. I'll take a look over at ACJ in the days ahead to see your
>*specifically* calling to attention an *ASSASSINATION*-related TRUTH that
>you are saying over there, but were blocked from saying over here. If I
>see one, I will most assuredly, try to post it over here and see if the
>*ASSASSINATION*-related *IDEA* is blocked from debate.

Good... then the refutation of Bugliosi's 53 points will get posted here.
I rather doubt if anyone will defend the post, however.

Or do so credibly...


>> >> >made by=3D20
>> >> >another poster (whether he willfully lied or just got it wrong and re=
>fus=3D
>> >ed=3D20
>> >> >to admit it) the ability to do so is on *evident* display. Surely yo=
>u d=3D
>> >o=3D20

>> >> >not object to letting *others* decide for themselves if this sort of=

>=3D20
>> >> >behavior rises to the level of a wilful lie told by a "lier" or to=3D=
>20
>> >> >something else?
>> >> >
>> >> >> >I cannot disagree that there are frequent liers here and elsewhere=
> on=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >is=3D3D20
>> >> >> >topic. In a perfect world it would be nice to be able to label tho=
>se =3D
>> >who=3D3D
>> >> >> >clearly make and/or defend dishonest statements with a moniker bef=
>itt=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> >> >their actions. The downside is that in unmoderated or loosely mod=
>era=3D
>> >ted=3D3D
>> >> >> >venues, each side constantly labels the other as "liers" (and far =
>wor=3D
>> >se)=3D3D

>> >> >> >whether the label is really justified or not.

>> >> >> And Tony would *ALWAYS* have the ability to simply cite for his cla=
>im =3D
>> >-=3D3D

>> >> >> and shut up anyone claiming him to be less than truthful.
>> >> >

>> >> >True. So you too see that an untruth or lie *CAN* be shown for what =
>it=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >is, even without someone having to hand out the "lier" label.

>> >> It will take months or years of reading from a lurker to make a judgme=
>nt=3D

>> >> that can be made quite quickly in an open forum.
>> >
>> >So because you can call---hypothetically of course---Anthony Marsh or BT
>> >George "liers" or perhaps (as some even do) "child molesters" over there,
>> >the discerning, thoughtful, lurker will believe your claims much sooner
>> >than if you just present evidence that proves it? All I can say is that
>> >such an attitude displays and truly low-view of the intelligence of those
>> >who are *truly* interested in this case.
>>
>> I can't respond to this statement in this forum.
>
>Gee. I can only wonder why. :-)

Oh, I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure it out.

>> >> When I label someone a liar in an open forum - they have precisely two
>> >> choices, to defend what they said, or to run away.
>> >
>> >And when you show that they lie they have the *same* two choices here.
>> >All you are prevented from doing is apply the label. ...End of story.
>>
>> And without the ability to drive home the point that someone has run away
>> and refused to support their claim... well, I can't continue this thought
>> on this forum...
>
>See prior comments on badgering issue. However, I think if done
>judiciously you *CAN* make such points even here.

You *believe* so... I've proof that it cannot be done.

Or perhaps I could do it to Tony Marsh & Robert Harris, but not others.

>> >> Tony doesn't need to defend his statements here, no-one does... because
>> >> the truth can't be openly stated.
>> >
>> >Please be *specific* about any "surpressed" *truth* that is unrelated to
>> >ad hominem name-calling.
>>
>> I have, repeatedly, above.
>> One cannot point out more than once that someone has run from supporting
>> their claim.
>
>If you were really told you couldn't do it more than once, I would not
>tend to agree with that decision. However, frequent purveryors of *false*
>information ought to give you multiple "one shot" chances even here.

I've told you repeatedly that this was a *ONE* time reminder that someone
hadn't answering the question... it was censored for badgering.



>> >> >> Labeling someone a liar who clearly isn't ... is simply another lie=
> th=3D
>> >at=3D3D

>> >> >> can easily in most cases be seen for what it is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Indeed. And no labels even needed to do so! :-)
>> >>

>> >> Yet *here*, no-one need do it. I can't label someone a liar and FORCE =

>them
>> >> to either defend their statement, or stand revealed for what I stated.
>> >

>> >Pure BS. In this very thead you already highlighted Tony Marsh's claim=
>=20
>> >which he could not justify with any cite from Doug Horne. A fact that *=
>I*=20
>> >a LNer (and hence and unlikely supporter) backed you up on. Our *only*=
>=20
>> >difference in approching the matter is that I feel no need to label Tony=
>=20
>> >based on his failure to be able to justify the claim he made. I am=20
>> >content to leave it up to *others* to draw the proper inferences from th=
>e=20

>> >presented facts.
>> I shouldn't have to tell anyone that repetition is a key concept in
>> learning.
>> But such repetition is censored here.
>
>See prior comments on badgering issue.

See prior comments refuting your speculation about how "badgering" is
handled on this forum.

>> It's not in the open forum. I'm allowed to repeat as many times as I care
>> to that Dr. Humes did *NOT* burn anything at all on Saturday.
>
>Several CT's repeat their views *VERY* often over here. Strange that you
>would imply you can't bring up the Humes issue as often as they do Z285,
>Oswald in the doorway, Zfilm alteration, GK shooter, etc.

I'd be happy to bring it up - but then this post would be censored.



>> >> >> >The result is that most persons who would prefer to see sane and c=
>ivi=3D
>> >l=3D3D
>> >> >> >discourse, ulitmately find it is better to be censored from the fr=
>eed=3D
>> >om =3D3D
>> >> >to=3D3D20
>> >> >> >freely label their opponents as they see fit, than to retain that =
>fre=3D
>> >edo=3D3D
>> >> >m=3D3D20
>> >> >> >and end up with debates that rarely rise above the level of mud-sl=
>ing=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> >. =3D3D20
>> >> >> >The fact that persons usually cannot censor themselves from decend=
>ing=3D
>> > to=3D3D
>> >> >> >childish and crude name-calling in an adversarial environement, is=
> on=3D
>> >=3D3D20
>> >> >> >daily display at the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG where you frequently po=

>st.
>> >> >> And which side does that come from?
>> >> >

>> >> >Hmmm...you seem to be obliquely suggesting it is all coming from the =
>LN=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >side.
>> >> No, but the majority certainly is.
>> >
>> >You couldn't justify this claim to save your life---as Robert Harris is
>> >fond of saying. ***I ask on our kind viewers and lurkers to go into
>> >alt.conspiracy.jfk (or any CT-oriented forum) and see if "the majority" of
>> >the claims of lying come from the LN side.
>>
>> Change of topic noted. The statement above that *I* replied to was
>> "childish and crude name-calling"
>
>What are you even *BABBLING* about?

This isn't difficult to figure out... you changed the topic.

You can read above to note the change.

>There was *NO* (ZERO) change of
>topic. I was talking *EXACTLY* about *your* oblique allegation that
>"childish and crude name-calling" came mainly from the LN side.

So you believe that pointing out that someone is lying is in the same
category as "childish and crude name-calling".

You and I read a different dictionary.

>> There's a very good reason that the charges of lying come from mainly one
>> side.
>
>They don't and you *couldn't* prove it to save your life---just like I
>said.

:)

>> (and probably a good reason that you changed the topic)
>
>See above.


See above.

>> >> >However, since you do post a lot over there I *am* assuming you've=3D=

>20
>> >> >actually read enough posts to know the *truth*.
>> >>
>> >> I do... that's why I'm pointing it out.
>> >
>> >And I note that you have not been *prevented* in any way from making your
>> >case beyond ad hominem.
>>
>> That's simply untrue.
>
>And you have *utterly* failed to demonstrate in what way it is. Our
>discerning viewers and lurkers can plainly see it by now too.

Oh? And what are they basing it on?

The post that I cannot repost to illustrate that "badgering" can consist
of a single post?


>> >> >If not, our viewers and=3D20
>> >> >lurkers can go over there and see readily enough for themselves how m=
>any=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >CT's even call each other "liars" over there....still less CT's label=
>ing=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >LN's as liers. And *yes* it happens from LN's to CT's often too and =
>I d=3D
>> >o=3D20
>> >> >not deny it.
>> >> >
>> >> >> >I have no problem with you choosing to avail yourself of that free=
>dom=3D
>> >, b=3D3D
>> >> >ut=3D3D20
>> >> >> >it is doubtlessly a large reason that the volume of views and post=
>s o=3D
>> >ver=3D3D
>> >> >> >there is routinely less than it is here. In the long run, most pe=
>opl=3D
>> >e=3D3D
>> >> >> >want to have a decent chance of seeing the assassination debated i=
>n a=3D
>> > sa=3D3D
>> >> >ne=3D3D20
>> >> >> >manner, than to see how "creative" the posters can get describing =
>eac=3D
>> >h=3D3D

>> >> >> >other's alleged character flaws and misdeeds.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> BT George

>> >> >> All you've done here is create a haven for people who cannot defend=
> th=3D
>> >eir=3D3D

>> >> >> claims.
>> >> >
>> >> >A haven has also been created for generally sane and useful discourse=

>=3D20
>> >> >rather than endless ad hominem that accomplishes *NOTHING* towards us=
>efu=3D
>> >l=3D20
>> >> >interchange. We appear to differ on that. "C'est la vie!" It is to=
> ou=3D
>> >r=3D20
>> >> >viewers and lurkers that I appeal to view both formats and draw whate=
>ver=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >conclusions seem appropriate for themeselves.
>> >> >
>> >> >BT George

>> >> People interested in the truth won't find it here... I've pointed out =
>in=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> the past topics that are quite scarce here... you attempted unsuccessf=
>ull=3D
>> >y=3D20

>> >> to defend one of them... but couldn't quote an example.
>> >
>> >That sir, *IS* a false claim!
>> Then all you need to do is cite the post where the topic was being
>> discussed.
>
>And all you need to do is come off it.

Yep... couldn't do it, could you?

>What you *really* saying is that I
>need to submit to the very silly insistence for a cite that I stated from
>the *beginnning* that I was NOT going to and WHY.

Nah, I find that in the same league as the "explanations" tendered by Tony
for refusing to provide a citation for his claims.

>No sir. The linked post and threads will forever continue to document
>both the accuracy and honesty of my claims and my stance on that
>subject--- no matter *how many* times you refuse to acknowledge it.

And yet, not a single debate on the topic can be found prior to my
pointing that issue out.

Nor, I rather strongly suspect, will it ever be raised again in this
forum.

>> Not a thread...
>
>See above.

Threads that don't have within them the support for a statement mean
nothing.

>> >***Viewers and Lurkers***
>> >
>> >Please visit the following thread:
>> >

>> >https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk=
>/Jg=3D

>> >7z5EaqAjo%5B126-150-false%5D
>> >
>> >...to see for *yourselves* if BT George:
>> >

>> >(1) *Ever* misstated the nature of the subject under debate. (I.e, AAJ's=
>=20
>> >level of interest in debating the HSCA's reports incorrect/false stateme=
>nt=20

>> >about the Bethesda head wound witnesses observations.)
>> >

>> >(2) Really "couldn't" quote an example of the type of debate AAJ had=20
>> >previously had on the subject or simply *WOULDN'T* pacify Ben Holmes sil=
>ly=20
>> >demands to "cite" something *he and anyone else* could *very well* verif=
>y=20

>> >by simply looking at the several threads I linked to.
>> >
>> >For your ease, here again is a relevant post on the subject:
>> >

>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Jg7z5EaqAjo/RNFd6L=
>Pfv=3D

>> >BYJ
>> >
>> >Now kind viewer/lurker...I leave it up to *you* to determine what labels
>> >apply to whom is this whole matter under debate.
>> >
>> >BT George
>>
>> And, of course, you'll read my response in that thread:
>> ********************************************
>> Nope... untrue. I've read what you link to, and *NO-ONE* argues or debates
>> the point.
>> You can't quote even a single person doing so.
>> If you could, you would have just to shut me up.
>

>> This mysterious rule that you can't quote someone else is quite funny...
>> *******************************************


>No sir. Every word I said was TRUE and my summarizations of the situation
>was very accurate. The threads document posts that support a level of
>debate *very* consitent with how I summarized it to be.
>
>The fact that our viewers and lurkers can see I am correct about that, and
>yet you keep talking is CLEAR proof that you will *never* shut up even
>when you're *dead* WRONG.

"And yet, you can't quote even a single person doing so. If you could, you

would have just to shut me up."

>> If you believe that the topic came up before - THEN SIMPLY CITE THE
>> RELEVANT POST...
>> Citing entire threads, then stating that the answer is in there somewhere,
>> might work for those who aren't particularly interested.
>
>Other than the fact you just *MISSTATED* what I did,

Are you claiming that you did not cite an entire thread???

>and are *DEAD* wrong
>in implying that the posts within those threads do not support the *very*
>level of debate that characterized as previously occuring in AAJ, I guess
>your pretty right there Ben!

Then simply list the people involved in this mythical debate, and tell us
their position on the issue involved... did the HSCA lie? Any possible
explanations for their misstatement of fact?

>***DEAR VIEWERS AND LURKERS***
>
>After beholding another thread decending to ever-increasing inanity and
>repetativeness, I call on you to judge what merit there is to Ben Holmes
>many claims about this NG and about me.

Indeed, I agree. I invite everyone to do the same.

>If he has anything to say in reply that relates to actual
>*ASSASSINATION*-related evidence and arguments, I will engage him further.
>But I'm done with engaging with further whining about this NG or with his
>further claims that I have intentionally misstated *anything* in this or
>any prior thread. I leave it for *you* to decide those matters for
>yourselves.
>
>BT George

And, of course... still no cite of a post supporting your claim. Now, I'll
add that I'll probably get away with pointing that out now, to you.

But I've done nothing more than what was stated in *THIS* post, and had it
censored for "badgering".

I can certainly produce that post at any time... as I've not only posted
it in the open forum, but still have a copy of it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

There is virtually no topic which has not been discussed here before.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/22/2014 10:10 PM, BT George wrote:
> NEW MESSAGE #2
>
> All,
>
> Using Google Groups has definate limitations. My SECOND message repost
> managed to become garbled on a lot of things *not* garbled in the FIRST
> message.
>

Only ________s use Google. Groups. Have you ever seen those commercials
where some tries to do something and it fails and that causes other
failures which end up in Zombieland? Don't cause Nuclear Armageddon, don't
use Google Groups.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52e1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

No Tony... no one is suggesting that. You clearly didn't read carefully
enough to understand the point being made.

The statement is rather, what happens when someone CANNOT cite for their
claim... the fact that in *this* forum, nothing more can be said.

Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with argumentum ad
ignorantiam.

And indeed, in the cases that you've misrepresented the truth, this
doesn't apply either - since you *MUST* be able to supply a citation that
supports your claims.

You cannot simply make up historical fact.

--

[Ben Holmes]

In article <af41dbfd-2e8c-4671...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
says...

>
>NEW MESSAGE :
>
>Because I have noted *numerous* editing errors and typos in my last
>response, and at least one case where *I* clearly failed to actually
>*read* what Ben Holmes had said before responding, I have decided to try
>again.
>
>Below I have reposted the prior thread with significant corrections/new
>comments in ALL CAPS. I am also snipping some unecessary prior thread
>garbage where I can.
>
>
><On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:05:07 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> In article <40661c82-d97e-4369...@googlegroups.com>, BT Ge=

>orge
>> says...
>> >
>> >On Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:07:37 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>
>> >> >

>> >> >I don't think anyone has asked you to. All that is being suggested, i=

>s
>> >> >that just because something is true, doesn't always mean it has to be
>> >> >said.
>> >>
>> >> So you assert that true things can't be said in this forum.
>> >

>> >No. Try reading ahead sometimes. Your above statement is contradicted by=

>
>> >what I say further down.
>> Can I label someone who lies about the evidence that I can cite a "liar"?
>
>Already answered. The sad mystery is why you think that you *must* in
>order to argue the assassination or in order for others to eventually
>figure out that frequent purveyors of provably false evidence/statements
>are "liars".

Your answer is clearly "no".

Which means, of course, that you *ARE* asserting that there are true
things that cannot be said in this forum.

Your speculations about the necessity of pointing out liars is
meaningless, as I've already *given* you my reasoning.

>> >> I've always known that to be the case. Which explains why I so rarely
>> >> post here.
>> >
>> >See above comments on actually *reading* what the other poster is saying
>> >before you respond.
>>
>> Can I point out that someone has not responded without the post being
>> censored as "badgering"?
>>
>
>I don't run this place, but my answer would be that it depends. You wanto
>point out the same evasion(s) a few times in the same thread or over
>limited time frame and it should not be considered as such. Even if yowant
>to bring it up again at a future date after taking a break for a whilI
>would not consider it as such.
>
>OTOH, if you want to point it out 10-15 times in the same thread or bring
>it up daily for weeks on end or weekly for months on end, at some point,
>it starts to wear on the patience even of those who *agree* with you and
>amounts to needless "badgering" to get someone to admit what should be
>obvious at some point to all.
>
>Of course if they *continue spouting* the same PROVABLY false claim(s) it
>should be "open season" on them until they cease repeating them.

Since I can produce an example where there was *NO* repeated "badgering" -
your statement makes wonderful sense, but IS NOT THE REALITY OF THIS
FORUM.

>> Judging from my past experiences, the answer is no.
>>
>See above comments.

See above refutation.

>> >> In fact, the only reason I *started* posting is John McAdams' rule that
>> >> you can slander non-members...
>> >
>> >By "slander" you seem to mean that the very freedom to call a non-member a
>> >"liar" or worse brought you out so the no one over here can do to you the
>> >very thing that you *like* doing to others and *have* done to you
>> >routinely over at ACJ.
>>
>> It seems to be perfectly okay to label someone a liar as long as they
>> don't post here, and aren't in a position to defend themselves.
>> It's actually quite rare in an open forum where I can respond to such
>> slander. At least, those who do illustrate in *all* of their posts that
>> they aren't very credible. For example, "Vincent Bugliosi"... does anyone
>> *here* think that a person using that name is 'credible'?
>
>I've seen the character using that name over at ACJ lately. I haven't
>followed his "stuff" closely, but from what I've seen, he gives more
>evidence of being a CT *posing* as an LN than he does as a legitimate
>defender of the LN position.

No honest intelligent person who tabulates the people posting can fail to
note that the 'garbage' is coming from Warren Commission believers.

There's *NO REASON* for a critic to post anything but the truth - although
there are a few exceptions, Rob Caprio comes to mind... but this is *NOT*
true for the believers...

>Of course...he displays no less credibility as an LN, than some CT's over
>there display in defending their case. :-)

If some CT'ers display poor credibility, then why not go over and correct
'em?

I do the same thing... I correct *both* sides...

>> >That sir, makes no sense as any member here can go over there and say
>> >*whatever* they please about you anyway.
>>
>> Absolutely! And they'll have to be prepared to refute the citations I will
>> be happy to supply.
>>
>> Then, when I repeatedly point out that they've run away, no-one will
>> censor those posts for "badgering".
>
>Yes. And if you carry on pointing out the obvious long enough, there will
>soon be 2-4 views on your threads. :-)

Oh, I only need to 'point out the obvious' well enough to make the point.
That's not allowed in this forum.

>> >Further, you and others can heap
>> >ad hominem on *anybody* you please over there whether they post there or
>> >not. So why do you come over here where *neither* party can break out the
>> >"slander" you seem to treasure in one place, yet dissaprove of in another?
>>
>> Answered above.
>>
>> >So why is it *really* that lately you've started coming over here and
>> >participating in the very format you object to? Surely it has got
>> >"nothing" to do with tiring of posting "Mark Lane #10,378 over there and
>> >often getting a whopping 1-3 views? :-)
>>
>> I find it truly amusing that despite the frequently made claims that Mark
>> Lane is "dishonest," or a "liar" - there's been an amazing silence when
>> faced with Mark Lane's ACTUAL STATEMENTS... all in fairly short chunks,
>> ready to be refuted.
>>
>> But aren't.
>>
>> Indeed, I had one confirmed Warren Commission believer who stated that he
>> was going to come to the forum just for the explicit purpose of refuting
>> the Mark Lane series... he made several posts about Nolan Potter, then ran
>> away when he was quite quickly faced with more facts than he clearly
>> wanted to deal with.
>
>I never have personally claimed that Mark Lane was necessarily a frequent
>liar. However, is it *REALLY* your claim that he did not engage in *any*
>lies or "stretching of the truth"? Would you maintain that he never tried
>to "lead a witness" to agree with what *he* wanted said?

You have over 430 chances to make your point... in brief 1-5 paragraph
chunks, you can zero in on any example you want - and point it out.

Sadly for the Mark Lane despisers - there simply haven't been very many
tries.

I'm proving my point.

>> The opposite never seems to happen... I don't see people quoting from
>> Posner or Bugliosi, to name two... with any confidence that they aren't
>> going to be refuted by citations to the evidence.
>
>Which explains why you ARE going to take the RH challenge, right Ben?

As I've already responded, I'm working on it now.

You see, there's nothing in the evidence that scares critics.

>...OH THAT'S RIGHT. You "can't" because you can only expose "lies" over
>here but "cannot" state the truth. Oh go ahead Ben; GIVE IT A TRY.

I'll predict right now that much like my Mark Lane series, very few will
be answered... and only DVP will do that.



>> >> >It is not always a "lie" to leave a "truth" unsaid. Your wife may=3D2=
>0
>> >> >have gained a lot of weight to the point of becoming fat. But it is n=
>ot=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >"lying" for others to choose not to comment on that fact even though =
>it=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >might be true.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nevertheless...the truth of her weight gain will still be evident to =
>tho=3D
>> >se=3D20
>> >> >who are observant even if no one labels her as "fat". So too with tho=
>se=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >who make a habit of lying, will be seen as "liers" just by pointing o=
>ut=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >the lies. There is no need to use that label *IF* refraining from doi=
>ng=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >so accomplishes a greater overall purpose.
>> >> Not the best analogy you could have come up with.
>> >
>> >Not the worst either, and it makes the point in conjunction with what else
>> >I have to say in this thread.
>> >
>> >> >> Such truth can't be told here...
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you sell most thinking people too short. Persons *knowingly*

>> >> >making false claims generally becomes *quite* evident after a while.
>> >> There are a number of topic issues in this forum that will never become

>> >> "evident" because the contrary evidence won't be cited by anyone.
>> >
>> >Well why don't you spell it ALL out and expose how the *cumultative* case
>> >against Oswald is just the bunkem?
>> >
>> >In fact I pose a challenge to *you* right here, and right now, just as I
>> >originally did to "Ralph Yates" over at Amazon and to Robert Harris right
>> >here: in AAJ:
>> >

>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/BVY7hs=
>e3q=3D

>> >TwJ
>> Sounds like a decent enough challenge... of course, no-one will refute
>> what I state in answering such a challenge...
>> I couldn't post the answers in this forum for obvious reasons.
>
>Sure. (See prior comments.)

Yep... (See prior comments.)

>> >Here's what I posted to Bob in my intitial challenge:
>> >
>> >You recently asked "nutters" to produce their case for LHO acting alone.
>> >I have no intention or time to regurgitate a tome already in print.
>> >However the essence of Bugliosi's massive book Reclaiming History is
>> >distilled by him into a list of 53 arguments for Oswald's guilt and 32
>> >arguments that he acted alone. For reference, these link to a site where
>> >they are listed---and even---debated:
>> >

>> >http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354552=3D20
>> >
>> >http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354786=3D20

>> >
>> >
>> >I hereby challenge you Bob Harris to take up the same guantlett I laid

>> >down to a real troll Ralph Yates at Amazon who endlessly attacks LN

>> >favorable reviews with what he (claims) to be irrefutable proof of
>> >conspiracy in the JFK case.
>> >
>> >***START AMAZON POST***
>> >

>> >Thank you for your kind words of "encouragement" Mr. Yates. From what I=

>=3D20

>> >have seen you troll around on the reviews of this book and "pounce" on=

>=3D20
>> >anyone who dares to agree that Bugliosi presents a pretty strong case fo=
>r
>> >LHO's sole guilt. I see that you have again followed your typical patter=
>n
>> >in raving about the "coup d'etat", about Alan Dulles, and setting up you=

>r
>> >pet "factoid" about the brain weight issue. Tell you what my friend, I=

>=3D20

>> >will spend additional time corresponding with you and giving you my take=

>=3D20
>> >on your "The brain weight discrepancy proves all my wildest beliefs to b=
>e
>> >true scenario." (Though as a little hint "mistakes do happen sometimes."=
>)
>> >but first you will have to answer my challenge.=3D20
>> >
>> >In my review, I make the rather bold assertion that even if 70% of Vince=
>nt
>> >Bugliosi's points against Oswald and against there having been a=3D20
>> >conspiracy could be successfully refuted or rendered unimportant by the =
>CT
>> >community, there would still be plenty of good reasons to conclude LHO w=

>as
>> >guilty and that there was no conspiracy.
>>
>> Actually, quite wrong.
>> For example, merely demonstrating that the throat wound was an entry wound
>> would be sufficient, BY ITSELF, to show a conspiracy, even if Bugliosi had
>> far more than 53 reasons.
>
>Really Ben?

Yep. Really. You can pile on a THOUSAND reasons, not merely '53'... and
all will fall to a simple demonstration that bullets came from two
directions.

This is simply a fact.

>Then why don't you "merely" demonstrate for us why the autopsy
>team and the succeeding FP's that reviewed the autopsy
>evidence---including pro-CT Cyril Wecht---"missed" the "evidence" that
>proved such an allegation?

I don't need to demonstrate this. It's *HISTORICAL FACT* that the
prosectors claimed to have missed the bullet wound in the throat.

Surely you're not trying to claim otherwise?

>Also, while you're at it, please enlighten us on a workable trajectory
>that could account for a frontal entrance wound to JFK's neck:

It can come from *any* point where JFK's neck can be seen by the eyes.

>1) Just how was Connally, sitting only 6 inches lower, missed by such a
>shot?
>
>2) If he wan't missed do you have your own sort of "frontal" SBT that
>resulted in it going from his thigh, to his wrist, to his chest, to his
>rib, to his back and then into JFK's neck? If not, please account for
>JBC's various wounds.
>
>3) Did it come through the window or just above it?
>
>4) Where did the bullet go after hitting JFK's neck?
>
>a) If it remained in the body what happened to it?
>
>b) If it went through, how on earth did it not come out the other side and
>then either hit someone in the follow up cars, the crowd, of the pavement?
>
>> It's interesting to note that Bugliosi lied on this very issue... that of
>> the throat wound.
>
>Sure Ben. In your mind there seem to be *no* honest errors.

I find it incredibly silly to suppose that someone could have studied this
case for over 20 years, and not know about the problems the Warren
Commission had with this throat wound.

Clearly you don't.

>Thus there is
>*no* *possibility* that VB's statement that there was a "ragged wound" in
>association with the neck, was just an error on his part. Nopper.

Nope. He used it as evidence of an exit wound. He made an ARGUMENT on the
basis of this falsehood.

It wasn't merely something said in passing.

>Nobody
>in writing a 1,600+ page tome with about 900 pages of footnotes, could
>make any "honest" errors. It could "only" be a *deliberate* lie!

I'm amused that no-one who believes the Warren Commission can accept that
there were any lies told at all.

Yet we have provable falsehoods *that have no other explanation*.

Take, for example, the 'rich oil man' from Chief Warren when questioning
Ruby... where did it come from?

>Well at any rate, you and DVP have already gone round on this matter and I
>post here a link to his website for what I find to be a reasonable
>explanation of why VB ended up making a claim that was indeed incorrect,
>but not necessarily an intentional lie:
>

>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=3Dragged


The problem you now face, is explaining how you can rely on someone who's
going senile.

DVP claimed that Bugliosi was having a "senior moment", as I recall.


>> >My challenge to you: Show me=3D20

>> >*convincing* refutation of enough of these points to reduce Bugliosi's=

>=3D20
>> >case to ashes & I will engage with your own peculiar obsessions.=3D20
>> >
>> >What's enough? Well I suggest you plan on whittling it down to single=3D=
>20
>> >digits in both lists and then show that whatever's left is pretty=3D20
>> >non-compelling. A lot to ask? Maybe. But it shouldn't be too hard to do =
>if
>> >the WC really was the complete Dulles-led scam you seem to believe it wa=
>s.
>> >...And "no" pointing me to a website maintained by another CTer like Jam=
>es

>> >DiEugenio will not suffice...you should be able to present your own=3D20
>> >point-by-point arguments if you are so adamant that there was a conspira=
>cy
>> >in the JFK Case.=3D20
>> >
>> >***END POST FROM AMAZON***=3D20
>> >

>> >Additionally, also pointed out in this post:
>> >

>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/YPeJ5g=
>n31=3D

>> >TAJ
>> >
>> >....To put this into perspective, even if a CT leaning person were to
>> >successfully debunk or minimize 70% of the 85 points VB makes in RH, that
>> >would still leave 16 good reasons to believe LHO killed Kennedy and 10
>> >good arguments that he acted alone.
>> >
>> >
>> >Strangely, Bob and Ralph never quite "got around" to doing this. So Ben,
>> >why don't you skip "Mark Lane" #'s 10,379 - 10,450
>>
>> I'm sure that a lot of people would prefer that I not prove so
>> dramatically the inability of anyone to show "dishonesty" or "lying" on
>> Mark Lane's part.
>>
>> I'm at 430... and just 3 or 4 serious attempts to refute what he said...
>>
>
>I am far more interested in the facts of *the case* than I am about Mark
>Lane's reputation.

And I'm far more interested in people's *character*.

You see, the evidence is the same for everyone.

It's how it's *explained*... or rather, not explained, that leads this
case...

>Indeed, Ben, I am more interested in *whether* LHO
>killed JFK and acted alone, than I am what *biases* the WC or HSCA may
>have had in trying to demonstrate as much.

The sad truth is that much can be learned from how the WC and HSCA dealt
with the evidence they had.

When you learn that they lied about the evidence they knew - then you need
to find a credible explanation *WHY*.

When you find that they buried evidence they were aware of, again, you
have to be able to explain *why* they did this.

Since, as a Warren Commission believer, you rely heavily on "experts" to
judge the evidence, and these "experts", almost entirely, were part of the
major governmental investigations, you cannot ignore these investigations.

>Sometimes it seems to me that you are more concerned with "exonerating"
>Lane or "convicting" the WC and HSCA of bias, than you are about
>addressing what the *REAL, HARD, CORROBORATING, FIREARMS, BALLISTICS,
>FORENSIC, and PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE* DOES WORKING TOGETHER to show LHO's
>guilt and how the *lack* of it also undermines the likelihood of any
>conspiracy that might be posited.

And yet, every time I challenge believers to *LIST* this evidence, then
stand ready to defend it - I hear crickets...

>Why not skip Mark Lane #895 - infinity and work more on that?

The fact that there's almost dead silence on this issue, combined with
your desire that I stop this series, is the best evidence I need to
continue it.

It's downright embarrassing to every believer not to be able to refute
what Mark Lane speaks about in 'Rush to Judgment'. Over and over again he
points out problems with the evidence that are simply ignored by
believers.

>> >and take up the
>> >challenge? Heck, if you need I can actually repost the 85 points in
>> >summary form to help you just as I did here:
>> >

>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/ZE5jCC=
>mzc=3D

>> >mgJ
>> >
>> >...OK Ben the floor is yours.
>> It has been for a long time... you know where you can post all
>> 'challenges' to have them answered...
>
>If by "floor" you mean endless time to start an continue threads of
>secondary importance, then I will grant you that you seem to do *that*
>very well. I also know that *nothing* prevents you from dealing with
>*ASSASSINATION-related* facts right here in THIS NG.

Yes you do. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I've told you repeatedly
that I can produce the evidence that supports what I say.

>All you are repeatedly demonstrating, is that you truly *cannot* function
>without going some place where you can resort to ad hominem name-calling
>to make your points.

I'm sure that you desperately want this to be only about the labeling of
those who lie as liars... but the truth is that even pointing out that
someone is not answering the points raised is forbidden here.

>> If I start answering them in an open forum, will you respond?
>
>No sir.

Well, that pretty much tells the tale.

>The challenge was made *right here* in AAJ.

Indeed, my *PRECISE* argument to a number of people who desperately wanted
me to answer questions in *this* forum, despite the threads starting in an
open forum.


Hoist by your own petard strike a bell...

>There is *nothing* to
>be gained by going over to a forum where ad hominem insults routinely
>substitute for reasoned debate. Indeed, I've *repeatedly* stated that it
>is for that very reason that I do my posting mainly here.

Indeed, many people do. I can name a number of them whom I've caught
misrepresenting the evidence when they used to post in an open forum.

Those same people are quite free from the *correct* label that reasonable
people would understand to be the truth.

>Now you can either drop your *excuses* as to why the "truth" about the
>ASSASSINATION supposedly "cannot" be told at AAJ

I've repeatedly told you the truth... I have a perfect example post that I
can provide upon request.

Unfortunately, due to the 'rules of the game', that post can't be shown
here, or even discussed here without being censored.

>or go back to "play" in
>the ACJ "pigpen" to be viewed by the 10's of people who routinely come
>there to sample the insults du jour.

People who truly want the truth will find it.



>> >> >While there are some contexts that it is both necessary and useful to=
> ca=3D
>> >ll=3D20
>> >> >someone out as a lier, a debate format is generally best served by=3D=
>20
>> >> >disallowing inflammatory labels that---while sometimes correctly=3D20
>> >> >used----most often end up being misued in confrontational situations =
>and=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >shutting down sane, intelligent interchange.
>> >> What ends up happening is different, however.

>> >> What *HAS* happened in this forum is that people *routinely* say thing=

>s
>> >> that they could never get away with in an open forum.
>> >
>> >And "mysteriously" somehow, you can't point that out unless you label
>> >people and call them names. Nevertheless, it's not stopped you from

>> >posting over here and trying to highlight behavior that you (Ben Holmes)=
>
>> >deems worthy of harsh labels. C'mon, are you *really* saying you can't=

>
>> >even function without name-calling?
>> Unfortunately, you aren't being entirely truthful here... For example,
>> it's not possible for me to continue discussing Tony's incorrect claim...
>> because such posts will be censored as "badgering". (That is, of course,
>> the *PRECISE* word that John McAdams used in an email to me explaining why
>> my posts were censored)
>
>Already commented on the "badgering" issue. I've been censored here
>before too and I can't say that I have always agreed with the decisions
>rendered either.

Then if you understand this fact, why do you keep sidetracking it?

It is, of course, a FAR MORE MEANINGFUL ability for critics to be able to
point out when someone is ignoring a point raised...

People generally have no cause to complain that I don't answer statements
made in a thread. Only critics that aren't knowledgeable enough about the
evidence have any reason not to answer questions, challenges, and evidence
fully. (As you'll soon see with Bugliosi's '53' points.)



>> >> >I am glad the freedom exists to go elsewhere and say whatever one wan=
>ts =3D
>> >to=3D20

>> >> >say, but it is neither nefarious, nor evil to choose to post where an=

>=3D20
>> >> >*honest* person can state *honest* beliefs without fear of being *fal=
>sel=3D
>> >y*=3D20
>> >> >labeled a lier---and far worse---by those who disagree. This remains =
>tr=3D
>> >ue=3D20
>> >> >even though the same environment may allow *dishonest* persons to=3D2=
>0
>> >> >sometimes state *lies* without fear of directly being labeled "liers"=
>. =3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> >...PROVIDED, of course, that others *ARE* allowed to point out that t=
>he=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >statement itself is *UNTRUE*.
>> >> Most people who can and would don't post here.
>> >

>> >Well I wonder where "they" do post? It sure isn't ACJ where the volume o=
>f =3D

>> >posting activity and regular posters is paltry compared to here. :-)

>> Quantity that isn't tempered by those who hold opposing views isn't worth=

>
>> much.
>
>Opposing views on the *ASSASSINATION* and *ASSASSINATION*-related
>*evidence* are *NOT* getting censored here. AFAIC see, only the freedom
>to go into "personal attack" mode is ever curtailed. ...BUT then I've
>only said this 150 times in this thread alone!

You occasionally admit that one cannot point out to someone that they've
refused to respond to a point raised... then simply sidestep that issue 5
minutes later.

>> This is similar to a well established legal principle of adversarial
>> proceedings.
>>
>> You don't have it here very much.
>
>Yes. Unless the prosecution and defense attorneys can call each other
>"liars" every name in the book, then the adversarial *process* is
>"clearly" impossible!

Strawman...

>> >> >Since you just *successfully* pointed out an untrue statement
>> >> But not, however, the truth.
>> >

>> >So now Ben Holmes is claiming he can point out a *lie* but cannot state =

>a
>> >*truth* here. Just what kind of "truth"---besides ad hominem
>> >labeling---are you *disallowed* to state here?
>>
>> I've repeatedly answered above.
>
>You've answered repeatedly alright. To the point where I am sure it is now
>quite obvious to everyone following this tiresome little exchange that ad
>hominem is, in fact, the only "truth" you cannot tell here.

Amusing that you can admit truth that cannot be told in one breath, then
deny it with the next.

>> >Please be *specific* and let me know if the "evil" Dr. McAdams blocks you.
>> >(Based on the moaning from Robert Harris and Tony Marsh, a post
>> >complaining about a block will usually be let through.) And, of course,
>> >*nothing* stops you from *specifically* listing the "blocked" truth over
>> >in your normal venue.
>>
>> Yep... that's where I normally post such statements. They *DO* get posted
>> in the open forum.
>
>Good. I'll take a look over at ACJ in the days ahead to see your
>*specifically* calling to attention an *ASSASSINATION*-related TRUTH that
>you are saying over there, but were blocked from saying over here. If I
>see one, I will most assuredly, try to post it over here and see if the
>*ASSASSINATION*-related *IDEA* is blocked from debate.

Are you specifically asking me to provide the post that John McAdams
censored?


>> >> >made by=3D20
>> >> >another poster (whether he willfully lied or just got it wrong and re=
>fus=3D
>> >ed=3D20
>> >> >to admit it) the ability to do so is on *evident* display. Surely you=
> d=3D
>> >o=3D20

>> >> >not object to letting *others* decide for themselves if this sort of=

>=3D20
>> >> >behavior rises to the level of a wilful lie told by a "lier" or to=3D=
>20
>> >> >something else?
>> >> >
>> >> >> >I cannot disagree that there are frequent liers here and elsewhere=
> on=3D
>> > th=3D3D
>> >> >is=3D3D20
>> >> >> >topic. In a perfect world it would be nice to be able to label tho=
>se =3D
>> >who=3D3D
>> >> >> >clearly make and/or defend dishonest statements with a moniker bef=
>itt=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> >> >their actions. The downside is that in unmoderated or loosely mode=
>ra=3D
>> >ted=3D3D
>> >> >> >venues, each side constantly labels the other as "liers" (and far =
>wor=3D
>> >se)=3D3D

>> >> >> >whether the label is really justified or not.

>> >> >> And Tony would *ALWAYS* have the ability to simply cite for his cla=
>im =3D
>> >-=3D3D

>> >> >> and shut up anyone claiming him to be less than truthful.
>> >> >

>> >> >True. So you too see that an untruth or lie *CAN* be shown for what i=
>t=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >is, even without someone having to hand out the "lier" label.

>> >> It will take months or years of reading from a lurker to make a judgme=
>nt=3D

>> >> that can be made quite quickly in an open forum.
>> >
>> >So because you can call---hypothetically of course---Anthony Marsh or BT
>> >George "liers" or perhaps (as some even do) "child molesters" over there,
>> >the discerning, thoughtful, lurker will believe your claims much sooner
>> >than if you just present evidence that proves it? All I can say is that
>> >such an attitude displays and truly low-view of the intelligence of those
>> >who are *truly* interested in this case.
>>
>> I can't respond to this statement in this forum.
>
>Gee. I can only wonder why. :-)

Oh, I'm sure you know.

>> >> When I label someone a liar in an open forum - they have precisely two
>> >> choices, to defend what they said, or to run away.
>> >
>> >And when you show that they lie they have the *same* two choices here.
>> >All you are prevented from doing is apply the label. ...End of story.
>>
>> And without the ability to drive home the point that someone has run away
>> and refused to support their claim... well, I can't continue this thought
>> on this forum...
>
>See prior comments on badgering issue. However, I think if done
>judiciously you *CAN* make such points even here.

And I tell you REPEATEDLY that I can provide a perfect example post that
contradicts you.

>> >> Tony doesn't need to defend his statements here, no-one does... because
>> >> the truth can't be openly stated.
>> >
>> >Please be *specific* about any "surpressed" *truth* that is unrelated to
>> >ad hominem name-calling.
>>
>> I have, repeatedly, above.
>> One cannot point out more than once that someone has run from supporting
>> their claim.
>
>If you were really told you couldn't do it more than once, I would not
>tend to agree with that decision. However, frequent purveryors of *false*
>information ought to give you multiple "one shot" chances even here.

I can present a post where I was raising issues FOR THE FIRST TIME, and it
was censored. Although granted, it was discussing a broader issue that I'd
pointed out several times that the other person had still not answered.



>> >> >> Labeling someone a liar who clearly isn't ... is simply another lie=
> th=3D
>> >at=3D3D

>> >> >> can easily in most cases be seen for what it is.
>> >> >
>> >> >Indeed. And no labels even needed to do so! :-)
>> >>

>> >> Yet *here*, no-one need do it. I can't label someone a liar and FORCE =

>them
>> >> to either defend their statement, or stand revealed for what I stated.
>> >
>> >Pure BS. In this very thead you already highlighted Tony Marsh's claim
>> >which he could not justify with any cite from Doug Horne. A fact that *I*
>> >a LNer (and hence and unlikely supporter) backed you up on. Our *only*
>> >difference in approching the matter is that I feel no need to label Tony
>> >based on his failure to be able to justify the claim he made. I am
>> >content to leave it up to *others* to draw the proper inferences from the
>> >presented facts.
>>
>> I shouldn't have to tell anyone that repetition is a key concept in
>> learning.
>>
>> But such repetition is censored here.
>
>See prior comments on badgering issue.

See prior comment on the key concept of learning.

>> It's not in the open forum. I'm allowed to repeat as many times as I care
>> to that Dr. Humes did *NOT* burn anything at all on Saturday.
>
>Several CT's repeat their views *VERY* often over here. Strange that you
>would imply you can't bring up the Humes issue as often as they do Z285,
>Oswald in the doorway, Zfilm alteration, GK shooter, etc.

I give that as an example, because if I mentioned the actual issue, I
suspect that John would censor the post.

>> >> >> >The result is that most persons who would prefer to see sane and c=
>ivi=3D
>> >l=3D3D
>> >> >> >discourse, ulitmately find it is better to be censored from the fr=
>eed=3D
>> >om =3D3D
>> >> >to=3D3D20
>> >> >> >freely label their opponents as they see fit, than to retain that =
>fre=3D
>> >edo=3D3D
>> >> >m=3D3D20
>> >> >> >and end up with debates that rarely rise above the level of mud-sl=
>ing=3D
>> >ing=3D3D
>> >> >. =3D3D20

>> >> >> >The fact that persons usually cannot censor themselves from decend=
>ing=3D
>> > to=3D3D
>> >> >> >childish and crude name-calling in an adversarial environement, is=
> on=3D
>> >=3D3D20
>> >> >> >daily display at the alt.conspiracy.jfk NG where you frequently po=

>st.
>> >> >> And which side does that come from?
>> >> >

>> >> >Hmmm...you seem to be obliquely suggesting it is all coming from the =
>LN=3D
>> >=3D20

>> >> >side.
>> >> No, but the majority certainly is.
>> >

>> >You couldn't justify this claim to save your life---as Robert Harris is=

>
>> >fond of saying. ***I ask on our kind viewers and lurkers to go into

>> >alt.conspiracy.jfk (or any CT-oriented forum) and see if "the majority" =

>of
>> >the claims of lying come from the LN side.
>> Change of topic noted. The statement above that *I* replied to was
>> "childish and crude name-calling"
>>
>What are you even *BABBLING* about? There was *NO* (ZERO) change of
>topic. I was talking *EXACTLY* about *your* oblique allegation that
>"childish and crude name-calling" came mainly from the LN side.
>
>CORRECTION:
>
>IN READING FROM THE PRIOR TRAIL I CAN SEE WHERE I *MISTAKENLY* SINGLED OUT
>ACCUSATIONS OF LYING (AND BY THAT I MEANT OF THE BLANKET AND *UNPROVED*
>VARIETY) UNDER THE UBRELLA OF AD HOMINEM NAME-CALLING RATHER THAN
>BROADENING MY REMARKS TO INCLUDE ALL FORMS OF AD HOMINEM.
>
>I SUSPECT THIS MENTAL LAPSE ON MY PART CAME ABOUT BECAUSE THE OVERALL
>CONTEXT OF *MOST* OF THIS THREAD HAS BEEN THE ISSUE OF THE ABILITY VS.
>DESIRABILITY OF BEING ABLE TO LABEL SOMEONE A *LIAR* EVEN IF IT MAY, IN
>FACT, BE TRUE.
>
>AT ANY RATE, ALLOW ME TO RESTATE THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT MORE CORRECTLY AND
>BROADLY AND *ELIMINATE* ANY CHANGE OF SUBJECT REAL OR PERCEIVED:
>

>=93BEN YOU COULDN=92T JUSTIFY A CLAIM THAT THE *MAJORITY* OF AD HOMINEM

>ATTACKS OF ANY SORT *OR* ALLEGATIONS OF LYING (STILL LESS THAT MOST

>*FALSE* ALLEGATIONS OF LYING) COME FROM THE LN SIDE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE.=94
>
>BEN=92S ANSWER APPEARS TO BE THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY ONLY IMPLYING THAT HE
>*CAN* JUSTIFY THAT AT LEAST MOST =93CHILDISH AND CRUDE NAME-CALLING COMES

>FROM THE LN SIDE.
>
>TO THAT, I *REPEAT* YOU COULD NOT JUSTIFY THAT STATEMENT EITHER TO SAVE
>YOUR LIFE.

Oh, it wouldn't really be that hard. Simply tallying up the examples each
week would quickly show the pattern.

>> There's a very good reason that the charges of lying come from mainly one
>> side.
>
>They don't and you *couldn't* prove it to save your life---just like I
>said.

Why was James Chaney never questioned for the Warren Commission?

Where did the "rich oil man" come from in Chief Warren's questioning of
Ruby?

What credible reason can you come up with to explain Herndon's virtually
incredible performance with Ruby's lie detector test?

Why were the NAA results buried by the Warren Commission?

Why did the Warren Commission allow the FBI to fail to answer their
questions on Ruby?

Why was Dr. Burkley never questioned?

Why were the prosectors not allowed to view the clothing?

Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?

Why did the Warren Commission fail to do the investigation they had
*planned* to determine the truth or falsity of the charge that Oswald was
an FBI informant? (That 'dirty rumor')

Why did the Warren Commission ignore virtually *all* of their medical and
ballistic's experts to come up with their 'SBT'?

What part of the occipital is *NOT* located in the back of the head (thus
being visible in the 'BOH' photo...)

Why can't the slowdown testified by dozens of eyewitnesses not be seen in
the extant Z-film?

Why wasn't the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray seen by anyone
at the autopsy?

What was the reasoning behind the FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses?

Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to
government investigators?

Where did Rankin read that a fragment caused the throat wound in the
autopsy report?

Where did Rankin read that Oswald had attended the military's Monterey
Language Institute?

How did a bullet that when we *first* hear about it entered "below the
shoulder blade" - end up entering at the "base of the neck"?

These are just a few of the questions that I will not get credible answers
for... and that yes, people will intentionally lie about.

>I STAND BY THE ABOVE ANSWER.
>
>> (and probably a good reason that you changed the topic)
>
>See above.
>
>> >> >However, since you do post a lot over there I *am* assuming you've

>> >> >actually read enough posts to know the *truth*.
>> >>
>> >> I do... that's why I'm pointing it out.
>> >
>> >And I note that you have not been *prevented* in any way from making your
>> >case beyond ad hominem.
>>
>> That's simply untrue.
>
>And you have *utterly* failed to demonstrate in what way it is. Our
>discerning viewers and lurkers can plainly see it by now too.

It's also a fact that I cannot simply post here the post that demonstrates
what I've repeatedly stated, and what you occasionally agree with.



>> >> People interested in the truth won't find it here... I've pointed out =
>in=3D
>> >=3D20
>> >> the past topics that are quite scarce here... you attempted unsuccessf=
>ull=3D
>> >y=3D20

>> >> to defend one of them... but couldn't quote an example.
>> >
>> >That sir, *IS* a false claim!
>>
>> Then all you need to do is cite the post where the topic was being
>> discussed.
>>
>
>And all you need to do is come off it. What you *really* saying is that I
>need to submit to the very silly insistence for a cite that I stated from
>the *beginning* that I was NOT going to and WHY.

All that's needed is a cite to the actual post where such a discussion is being
made... not to a thread that's just vaguely related to the topic.

>No sir. The linked post and threads will forever continue to document
>both the accuracy and honesty of my claims and my stance on that
>subject--- no matter *how many* times you refuse to acknowledge it.

Indeed true...

>> Not a thread...
>
>See above.
>
>> >***Viewers and Lurkers***
>> >
>> >Please visit the following thread:
>> >

>> >https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk=
>/Jg=3D

>> >7z5EaqAjo%5B126-150-false%5D
>> >
>> >...to see for *yourselves* if BT George:
>> >

>> >(1) *Ever* misstated the nature of the subject under debate. (I.e, AAJ's=
>
>> >level of interest in debating the HSCA's reports incorrect/false stateme=

>nt
>> >about the Bethesda head wound witnesses observations.)
>> >
>> >(2) Really "couldn't" quote an example of the type of debate AAJ had

>> >previously had on the subject or simply *WOULDN'T* pacify Ben Holmes sil=
>ly
>> >demands to "cite" something *he and anyone else* could *very well* verif=

>y
>> >by simply looking at the several threads I linked to.
>> >
>> >For your ease, here again is a relevant post on the subject:
>> >

>> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Jg7z5EaqAjo/RNFd6L=
>Pfv=3D
>> >BYJ
>> >
>> >Now kind viewer/lurker...I leave it up to *you* to determine what labels=

>
>> >apply to whom is this whole matter under debate.
>> >
>> >BT George
>> And, of course, you'll read my response in that thread:
>> ********************************************
>> Nope... untrue. I've read what you link to, and *NO-ONE* argues or debates
>> the point.
>> You can't quote even a single person doing so.
>> If you could, you would have just to shut me up.
>
>No sir. Every word I said was TRUE and my summarizations of the situation
>was very accurate. The threads document posts that support a level of
>debate *very* consistent with how I summarized it to be.

The fact that you continue to refuse to cite a post tells the tale.

>The fact that our viewers and lurkers can see I am correct about that, and
>yet you keep talking is CLEAR proof that you will *never* shut up even
>when you're *dead* WRONG.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

It's quite difficult to convince lurkers however, if you refuse to provide
a citation to what supports your statement.

>> This mysterious rule that you can't quote someone else is quite funny...

And still is...

>> *******************************************
>> If you believe that the topic came up before - THEN SIMPLY CITE THE
>> RELEVANT POST...
>> Citing entire threads, then stating that the answer is in there somewhere,
>> might work for those who aren't particularly interested.
>
>Other than the fact you just *MISSTATED* what I did (BY OMITTING THE

>IMPORTANT FACT THAT DIDN=92T JUST LINK TO SOME THREADS, BUT *CORRECTLY*

>CHARACTERIZED THE TYPE/LEVEL OF DEBATE ONE WOULD FIND IN THEM), and are
>*DEAD* wrong in implying that the posts within those threads do not
>support the *very* level of debate that characterized as previously

>occurring in AAJ, I guess you=92re pretty right there Ben!

>
>***DEAR VIEWERS AND LURKERS***
>
>After beholding another thread descending to ever-increasing inanity and
>repetitiveness, I call on you to judge what merit there is to Ben Holmes
>many claims about this NG and about me.
>
>If he has anything to say in reply that relates to actual
>*ASSASSINATION*-related evidence and arguments, I will engage him further.
>But I'm done with engaging with further whining about this NG or with his
>further claims that I have intentionally misstated *anything* in this or
>any prior thread. I leave it for *you* to decide those matters for
>yourselves.
>
>BT George

Indeed... this post alone demonstrates my point.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:58:11 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <69f4739e-be70-4e1b...@googlegroups.com>, BT George

SNIPPAGE OF PRIOR THREAD GARBAGE.

AS I SAID BEFORE. I WILL RESPOND TO ANYTHING RELATED TO THE
*ASSASSINATION* OR RELATED *EVIDENCE* BELOW.

I WILL TRY TO MAKE ANY REMARKS ON THE *OTHER* STUFF AS PASSING AS POSSIBLE
OR ONLY FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION.

>
>>
> >> Can I label someone who lies about the evidence that I can cite a "liar"?
>
> >
>
> >Already answered.
>
>
>
> So you contradict yourself.
>
>
>
> The *FACT* is, you cannot tell the truth in this forum. For, as I just
>
> pointed out, even if *anyone* would recognize a statement as being
>
> completely contradicted by the actual evidence, you cannot label it a lie.
>
>
>
> All you can do is point out once or twice that someone can't cite - and
>
> then at that point any further posts will be censored. And one might not
>
> necessarily even get once or twice to point out such a fact.
>
>
>
> You see, it's *easy* to cite testimony when someone says that Dr. Humes
>
> didn't state that the bullet *exited* the back of JFK's head... you can
>
> quickly locate the statement, and both quote the statement and cite the
>
> source.
>
>
>
> But tell us, how can you refute Tony claiming that Douglas Horne claimed
>
> to be the first to discover a hole in the windshield?
>
>
>
> Can *YOU* produce a quote from Douglas Horne stating something to the
>
> effect: "I was not the first one to note a hole in the windshield?"
>
>
>
> If someone cannot produce a citation that supports their assertion, then
>
> nothing can be done in *this* forum.
>
>
>

NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED. FINAL COMMENTS:

YOU *CAN* SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT "DOUG HORNE *NEVER* MADE THAT CLAIM
TONY AND I *DEFY* YOU TO CITE OR POST A LINK TO WHERE HE DID. IF YOU
CAN'T DO EITHER, IT WILL PROVE THAT YOU HAVE MADE ANOTHER UNTRUE/FALSE
CLAIM."

NOTHING ADDITIONAL CAN BE DONE IN ACJ EXCEPT TO CALL THEM A LIAR AND DO SO
REPEATEDLY. YOU MIGHT SILENCE THEM QUICKER THAT WAY, BUT THE DOWNSIDE IS
THAT MANY PEOPLE ON *BOTH* SIDES WILL START THROWING OUT ACCUSATIONS OF
LYING--AND WORSE---IN A BLANKET FASHION. IT WILL ALSO SOON COME TO BE
APPLIED EVEN TO HONEST ERRORS (THEY DO ACTUALLY OCCUR SOMETIMES) AND
*VALID* DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON WHAT THE STATEMENTS OR OTHER EVIDENCE
ACTUALLY DEMOSTRATES.

THE EVENTUAL RESULT? ...JUST GO LOOK AT THE VOLUME OF POSTS AND VIEWS
OVER THERE THAT HAS EVEN ACJ'RS ASKING:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/HPIeCjrNRPg

:-)

>
>
>
>
> >The sad mystery is why you think that you *must* in
>
> >order to argue the assassination or in order for others to eventually
>
> >figure out that frequent purveyors of provably false evidence/statemetns
>
> >are "liars".
>
>
>
>
>
> Just pointing out that you can't tell the complete truth in a censored
>
> forum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> I've always known that to be the case. Which explains why I so rarely =
>
> >post
>
> >> >> here.
>
> >> >
>
> >> >See above comments on actually *reading* what the other poster is saying=
>
> >=20
>
> >> >before you respond.
>
> >> Can I point out that someone has not responded without the post being
>
> >> censored as "badgering"?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I don't run this place, but my answer would be that it depends. You want
>
> >to point out the same evasion(s) a few times in the same thread or over a
>
> >limited time frame and it should not be considered as such.
>
>
>
>
>
> Too bad *YOU* aren't the censor then.
>
>

NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED.

>
>
> Because I can tell you for a fact that even a *SINGLE* time is too many
>
> depending on the person you're pointing it out to.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Even if you
>
> >want to bring it up again at a future date after taking a break for awhile
>
> >I would not consider it as such.
>
>
>
>
>
> You wouldn't, perhaps.
>
>
>
> But unfortunately, *YOU* aren't censoring here...
>
>
>

NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED.

>
>
>
>
> >OTOH, if you want to point it out 10-15 times in the same thread or bring
>
> >it up daily for weeks on end or weekly for months on end, at some point,
>
> >it starts to wear on the patience even of those who *agree* with you and
>
> >amounts to needless "badgering" to get someone to admit what should be
>
> >obvious at some point to all.
>
> >
>
> >Of course if they *continue spouting* the same PROVABLY false claim(s) it
>
> >should be "open season" on them until they cease repeating them.
>
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately for your quite reasonable speculation about how it *should*
>
> be... I can tell you from experience that it isn't.
>
>
>

NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED---BUT ON THAT WE *DO* AGREE.

>
>
>
>
> >> Judging from my past experiences, the answer is no.
>
> >
>
> >See above comments.
>
>
>
> Your above comments are speculation about how it *should* be, not how it
>
> actually is.
>
>
>

NOT ASSASSINATIION RELATED, BUT SEE ABOVE.

>
>
> >> >> In fact, the only reason I *started* posting is John McAdams' rule tha=
>
> >t
>
> >> >> you can slander non-members...
>
> >> >
>
> >> >By "slander" you seem to mean that the very freedom to call a non-member=
>
> > a=20
>
> >> >"liar" or worse brought you out so the no one over here can do to you th=
>
> >e=20
>
> >> >very thing that you *like* doing to others and *have* done to you=20
>
> >> >routinely over at ACJ.
>
> >> It seems to be perfectly okay to label someone a liar as long as they=20
>
> >> don't post here, and aren't in a position to defend themselves.
>
> >> It's actually quite rare in an open forum where I can respond to such=20
>
> >> slander. At least, those who do illustrate in *all* of their posts that
>
> >> they aren't very credible. For example, "Vincent Bugliosi"... does anyone
>
> >> *here* think that a person using that name is 'credible'?
>
> >
>
> >I've seen the character using that name over at ACJ lately. I haven't
>
> >followed his "stuff" closely, but from what I've seen, he gives more
>
> >evidence of being a CT *posing* as an LN than he does as a legitimate
>
> >defender of the LN position.
>
>
>
>
>
> That doesn't even make sense.
>
>

NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED----BUT IT MAKES *PERFECT* SENSE TO ME GIVEN HOW
HE HAS PUT UP THREADS AND BARELY ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND SOME OF THEM. IN
FACT, IN ONE HIS ONLY COMEBACK (THAT I SAW) WAS SOMETHING LIKE "WATCH IT!
I HAVE CANCER NOW!"

>
> On the other hand, we've seen historical evidence of LNT'ers posing as
>
> CT'ers.
>
>
>

NOT ASSASSINTION RELATED---But it's a frequent *allegation* from the CT
side.

>
>
>
>
> >Of course...he displays no less credibility as an LN, than some CT's over
>
> >there display in defending their case. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> No-one has ever claimed that there aren't kooks in both camps. Only that
>
> they are far more prevalent in the LNT'ers camp.
>
>
>

NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED ---- BUT I AGREE THERE ARE SOME KOOKS BOTH
PLACES, BUT OF COURSE, I SEE IT 180 DEGREES DIFFERENT ON WHERE HE GREATER
PERCENTAGE LIES.

>
>
>
>
> >> >That sir, makes no sense as any member here can go over there and say=20
>
> >> >*whatever* they please about you anyway.
>
> >> Absolutely! And they'll have to be prepared to refute the citations I will
>
> >> be happy to supply.
>
> >> Then, when I repeatedly point out that they've run away, no-one will=20
>
> >> censor those posts for "badgering".
>
> >
>
> >Yes. And if you carry on pointing out the obvious long enough, there will
>
> >soon be 2-4 views on your threads. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course, *HERE* you cannot point out such a fact even once. And yes, I
>
> have an example of exactly this that was censored by John.
>
>
>

NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED----But post it over in ACJ in the next day or
two and I will take a look. If I agree, I will try to post something back
over here to discuss why. Who knows---maybe even *that* will be censored.

NOT DIRECTLY ASSASSINATION RELATED, BUT CLOSE ENOUGH.

FROM THAT ANSWER DEAR VIEWERS/LURKERS, I TAKE IT THAT BEN IS SAYING:

"YES." MARK LANE HAS *NEVER* BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE EVER LIED, STRETCHED THE
TRUTH, OR LEAD A WITNESS TRYING TO GET THEM TO SAY WHAT HE WANTED THEM TO.

WELL I INVITE YOU TO REVIEW THE FOLLOWING FOR YOURSELVES AND SEE IF YOU
AGREE THAT MARK LANE WAS ALWAYS SO SCRUPULOUSLY HONEST:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane

YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO CONSIDER WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THAT TELLING *SELECTIVE*
TRUTHS WHILE *OMITTING* OTHER (LESS CONVENIENT) TRUTHS AMOUNTS TO LYING:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane2.txt


OR WHETHER YOU CONSIDER STATEMENTS LIKE THIS TO BE INTENTIONAL
MISCHARACTERIZATION ABOUT OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/4Hhle5OOsRU/shkAshwxiEkJ


HOWEVER, DO *NOT* EXPECT BEN TO *EVER* CONCEDE LANE'S LACK OF CONSISTENT
FORTHRIGHTNESS AS DEMONSTRATED IN THREADS LIKE THESE:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/mark$20lane$20lies%7Csort:relevance%7Cspell:true/alt.assassination.jfk/D6H3EWlnGv4/2o1y97dewr4J

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/mark$20lane$20CE$20399$20undeformed/alt.assassination.jfk/JsAkkAWTPf0/D-i3quHkOZEJ

>
>
>
>
> >> The opposite never seems to happen... I don't see people quoting from=20
>
> >> Posner or Bugliosi, to name two... with any confidence that they aren't
>
> >> going to be refuted by citations to the evidence.
>
> >
>
> >Which explains why you ARE going to take the RH challenge, right Ben?
>
> >
>
> >...OH THAT'S RIGHT. You "can't" because you can only expose "lies" over
>
> >here but "cannot" state the truth. Oh go ahead Ben.
>
>
>
>
>
> Actually, I've already started on it, and should be finished and started
>
> posting them within a week or two.
>
>
>
> I've already noted some of them that are just too silly to be taken
>
> seriously.
>
>
>
> Such as Bugliosi's claim that walking fast is evidence of being a
>
> murderer...
>
>

SEE BELOW.

>
>
> Or changing clothes when you get home from work...
>
>
>

NO ONE IS SUGGESTING HE IS GUILTY *SIMPLY* BECAUSE OF ANY *ONE* PIECE OF
EVIDENCE LIKE THE ABOVE. RATHER IT IS THE *TOTALITY* OF SUCH THINGS THAT
MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE IN THE *REAL* WORLD FOR LHO TO BE AN INNOCENT MAN.

>
>
> I'd *LOVE* to see Bugliosi actually try to put stuff like that IN COURT in
>
> front of a jury... he might not like the laughter though...
>
>

THIS ISN'T A COURT. OSWALD IS DEAD. ALL THAT SHOULD MATTER TO YOU IS NOT
WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE BEEN *FOUND* GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW, BUT WHETHER
HE WAS, *IN FACT*, GUILTY. (BTW, MEN ARE FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED TO
DEATH ALL THE TIME ON FAR *LESS* EVIDENCE EVERY DAY.)

>
>
> And, like all the rest of my series... I don't expect any serious attempts
>
> at refutation.
>
>

SURE. AND BASED ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN YOU WILL SUCCEED----IN YOUR OWN MIND.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT OUR VIEWERS AND LURKERS ARE UNLIKELY TO SEE IT QUITE
THE SAME WAY AND I BELIEVE WILL FIND THAT THE *TOTALITY* OF THE EVIDENCE
THAT YOU WILL HAVE FAILED TO *CREDIBLY* DEBUNK, WILL STILL BE SUFFICIENT
TO SHOW LHO'S GUILT. AND HAVING SHOWN THAT, I BELIEVE THE *LACK* OF
*CREDIBLE* EVIDENCE OF ANYONE BEING BEHIND HIM, WILL STILL BE CLEAR TO
THOSE WHO SEEK THINGS MORE SOLID THAN "INFERENCE" AND "UNSUBSTANTIATED
CLAIMS".

YOU *DO* KNOW THAT THE DIRECT, OBVIOUS, VISIBLE EVIDENCE OF IT WAS
OBSCURED BY THE TRACHEOTOMY, THAT THEY DID NOT (AS THEY SHOULD HAVE)
DISSECT THE NECK, AND THAT THE CLOTHS (GOING FROM MEMORY) WERE NOT
IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION? THUS THEY WERE NOT AWARE THAT THE
BACK WOUND WENT THROUGH TO THE NECK UNTIL THE CALL TO PARKLAND CLARIFIED.

YOU ARE AWARE TOO, OF COURSE, THAT AFTER FINDING THAT OUT AND REVIEWING
THE X-RAYS THAT THEY WERE CONVINCED THAT THE BACK WOUND WAS INDEED THE
ENTRANCE AND THE EXIT WAS THE NECK. LIKEWISE, THE FOLLOWING FPP'S AGREED
THAT THAT IS WHAT THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS AND X-RAYS REFLECTED. CYRIL WECHT
WAS AMONG THEM, SO IT WASN'T FLAGRANT LN BIAS THAT LED THEM TO CONCLUDE AS
MUCH.

>
>
>
>
>
> >Also, while your at it, please enlighten us on a workable trajectory that
>
> >could account for a frontal entrance wound to JFK's neck:
>
> >
>
> >1) Just how was Connally, sitting only 6 inches lower, missed by such a
>
> >shot?
>
> >
>
> >2) If he wan't missed do you have your own sort of "frontal" SBT that
>
> >resulted in it going from his thigh, to his wrist, to his chest, to his
>
> >rib, to his back and then into JFK's neck? If not, please account for
>
> >JBC's various wounds.
>
> >
>
> >2) Did it come through the window or just above it?
>
> >
>
> >3) Where did the bullet go after hitting JFK's neck?
>
> >
>
> >a) If it remained in the body what happened to it?
>
> >
>
> >b) If it went through, how on earth did it not come out the other side and
>
> >then either hit someone in the follow up cars, the crowd, of the pavement?
>
>
>
>
>
> I always find it amusing that people seem to think that if it can be seen,
>
> it cannot be hit by a bullet.
>
>
>
> Are you claiming that there were no places in Dealey Plaza that JFK's neck
>
> could not be seen?
>
>
>

I AM CLAIMING YOU NEED A *CREDIBLE* ALTERNATIVE PATH(S) TO EXPLAIN THE
WOUNDS. I AM ALSO NOW STATING THAT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE NOT TOO EAGER TO
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I JUST ASKED IN ANY DETAIL.

>
>
>
>
> >> It's interesting to note that Bugliosi lied on this very issue... that of
>
> >> the throat wound.
>
> >
>
> >Sure Ben. In your mind there seem to be *no* honest errors. Thus there is
>
> >*no* *possibility* that VB's statement that there was a "ragged wound" in
>
> >association with the neck, was just an error on his part. Nopper. Nobody
>
> >in writing a 1,600+ page tome with about 900 pages of footnotes, could
>
> >make any "honest" errors. It could "only" be a *deliberate* lie!
>
>
>
>
>
> Of course, in your mind, CT authors lie... just as you can't seem to find
>
> any lies among the Warren Commission, Clark Panel, HSCA, Bugliosi, Posner,
>
> etc...
>
>

I NEVER SAID I COULD FIND ANY LIES IN THOSE EXAMPLES. IN FACT, I *AGREED*
WITH YOU THAT THE HSCA STATEMENT ABOUT THE BETHEDSA WITNESSESS STATEMENTS
SOUNDS LIKE A LIE OR ONE OF THE WILDEST MISSTATEMENTS I HAVE EVER HEARD.
I ALSO HAVE MY OWN DOUBTS ABOUT CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE BY THE CLARK PANEL
REGARDING SOME OF THE ASSASSINATION PHOTOS.

HOWEVER WHEN I FIND A DISCREPANCY THAT IS ARGUABLY A LIE IN THE TYPE OF
SOURCES YOU STATE, IT USUALLY ISOLATED AND QUITE OFTEN *COULD* BE
SOMETHING OTHER THAN A WILFULL LIE. I HAVE FOUND MORE INSTANCES OF WHAT
SEEM TO ME INEXPLICABLE DISCREPANCIES, CONTRADICTIONS, AND SEEMING WILFULL
LIES IN THE LARGE BODY OF CT LITERATURE OUT THERE. I FELT THAT WAY EVEN
WHEN I WAS STILL AN "UNDECIDED, WHO LEANED CT" MANY YEARS AGO.

>
> I find it amusing that you seem to believe that someone can study this
>
> case for more than 20 years, and never run into the issues that the throat
>
> wound posed for the Warren Commission.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Well at any rate, you and DVP have already gone round on this matter and I
>
> >post here a link to his website for what I find to be a reasonable
>
> >explanation of why VB ended up making a claim that was indeed incorrect,
>
> >but not necessarily an intentional lie:
>
> >
>
> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=3Dragged
>
>
>
>
>
> A very good example of LNT'er logic... DVP couldn't quite figure out for
>
> some time just what the topic was, as he admits in that article.
>
>
>
> But he fails to explain how someone can spend over 20 years on this case,
>
> and not know the problems faced by the Warren Commission with that throat
>
> wound.
>
>
>
> As you will fail to do...
>
>
>

I REALLY DON'T GET THE ‘DON'T KNOW’ PART YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THIS
ISSUE AT HAND IS VB'S MISUSE OF THE WORD "RAGGED" WHEN DESCRIBING THE
THROAT WOUND. WAS IT AN ERROR OR WILFULL LIE ? GIVEN THAT HE REFERENCED
SOURCES THAT DID *NOT* SUPPORT HIS ASSERTION AND THAT HE WOULD CERTAINLY
REALIZE HIS TOME WAS GOING TO BE TIGHTLY CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE CT
COMMUNITY, I BELIEVE THE FORMER TO BE MORE LIKELY.

ONLY IF YOU *ISOLATE* IT FROM THE DAMNING WHOLE AND THEN TRY TO IMPEACH IT
*PIECEMEAL*. ALSO, THE "EVERYTHING" WAS FAKED MODE WON'T CUT IT WE ME OR
WITH MOST PERSONS WHO TAKE THE TIME TO EXAMINE THE PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
OF SUCH NOTIONS.

>
>
>
>
> >> >and take up the=20
>
> >> >challenge? Heck, if you need I can actually repost the 85 points in=20
>
> >> >summary form to help you just as I did here:
>
> >> >
>
> >> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/ZE5jCC=
>
> >mzc=3D
>
> >> >mgJ
>
> >> >
>
> >> >...OK Ben the floor is yours.
>
> >> It has been for a long time... you know where you can post all
>
> >> 'challenges' to have them answered...
>
> >
>
> >If by "floor" you mean endless time to start an continue threads of
>
> >secondary importance, then I will grant you that you seem to do *that*
>
> >very well. I also know that *nothing* prevents you from dealing with
>
> >*ASSASSINATION-related* facts righ here in THIS NG.
>
>
>
>
>
> I've repeatedly pointed out why I cannot.
>
>
>
> I daresay that if I even *mentioned* the topic that was censored last time
>
> that this post would be censored.
>
>

POSSIBLY ASSASSINATION-RELATED.

SINCE YOU CONTINUE TO CLAIM THERE ARE *ASSASSINATION*-RELATED FACTS YOU
CANNOT ADDRESS HERE. THEN POST WHICH SUCH FACT IS BLOCKED IN ACJ SOMETIME
IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. IF I AGREE IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BLOCKED I WILL
THEN TRY TO TAKE IT BACK HERE TO SEE IF IT GETS BLOCKED. IF IT DOES, WE
WILL GO FROM THERE, BUT I WILL TRY TO STATE MY DISAGREEMENT HERE PUBLICLY.

IF IT IS SOMETHING I AGREE WITH THE BLOCK, I WILL STATE AS MUCH IN A NEW
THREAD HERE (TAKING CARE TO AVOID SAYING ANYTHING TO GET *THAT* BLOCKED)
AND/OR FOLLOW UP WITH A DIRECT MESSAGE TO YOUR EMAIL IF I CAN’T GET IT
PAST THE CENSORS OR YOU DON’T RESPOND HERE LETTING ME KNOW YOU’VE SEEN
THE THREAD.

>
>
>
> >All you are repeatedly demonstrating, is that you truly *cannot* function
>
> >without going some place where you can resort to ad hominem name-calling
>
> >to make your points.
>
>
>
>
>
> I can point out a post where there's *NO* ad hominem whatsoever, yet was
>
> censored.
>
>

SEE ABOVE.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> If I start answering them in an open forum, will you respond?
>
> >
>
> >No sir. The challenge was made *right here* in AAJ. There is *nothing*
>
> >to be gained by going over to a forum where ad hominem insults routinely
>
> >substitute for reasoned debate. Indeed, I've *repeatedly* stated that it
>
> >is for that very reason that I do my posting mainly here.
>
> >
>
> >Now you can either drop your *excuses* as to why the "truth" about the
>
> >ASSASSINATION supposedly "cannot" be told at AAJ or go back to "play" in
>
> >the ACJ "pigpen" to be viewed by the 10's of people who routinely come
>
> >there to sample the insults du jour.
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh, don't worry... I really never thought that anyone would respond...
>
> except for DVP, who pretty much has to.
>
>

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS

>
>
> But the topic will never come up in this forum. (just like the topic of
>
> the HSCA lying so blatantly about the Bethesda witnesses) Those interested
>
> in the truth will never see the *real* adversarial position...
>
>

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS DESCRIBING A WAY FOR US TO TEST THAT CONTENTION.

NOT ASSASSINATION-RELATED.

HOWEVER, I DO POINT OUT THAT YOU HAVE A HABIT OF MERGING CONCEPTS LIKE
‘INCORRECT’ OR ‘MISSING THE POINT’ OR ‘MISTAKEN’ AS BEING
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ‘LYING’ OR ‘NOT BEING ENTIRELY TRUTHFUL’.

PERHAPS YOU OFTEN FEEL OTHERS HAVE BEEN ‘SILENCED’ WHEN YOU NO LONGER
HERE FROM THEM MUCH ANYMORE. BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT BECOMES TRYING AFTER A
WHILE CONTINUING TO EXCHANGE WITH SOMEONE WHO SEEMS TO MAKE EVERY
DISAGREEMENT OR EVERY SITUATION WHERE ONE IS NOT YET COVINCED, INTO SOME
KIND OF ALLEGATION OF DISINGENOUSNESS.

>
> >Already commented on the "badgering" issue. I've been censored here
>
> >before too and I can't say that I have always agreed with the decisions
>
> >rendered either.
>
>
>
>
>
> Then you understand quite well that the truth cannot always be told
>
> here... even granted that *NO* ad hominem is being used.
>
>

NOT ASSASSINATION-RELATED.

BUT TO CLARIFY, I WAS NOT CENSORED FOR BADGERING OR FOR BRINGING UP ANY
TOPIC THAT WAS ‘TABOO’. I WAS CENSORED FOR MAKING REMARKS DEEMED TOO
PERSONALLY DISPARAGING BY THE MODS AND FOR MAKING AN ALLEGATION THAT A
CERTAIN CT HAD SET UP A ‘SOCK PUPPET’ TO PARROT HIS OWN *UNIQUE*
THEORIES.

SOME OF THE LATTER ALLEGATIONS HAD BEEN ALLOWED THROUGH BEFORE, BUT AT
THAT JUNCTURE IT WAS DEEMED THAT THERE WAS JUST TOO MUCH OF IT GOING ON
AND IT WAS HAMPERING RATHER THAN FURTHERING DEBATE.

>
> You just don't like to admit that the truth cannot always be told here.
>
>
>

NOT ASSASSINATION-RELATED.

BUT ALSO INCORRECT. I AM *UNCONVINCED* ANY *ASSASSINATION*-RELATED TRUTH
*CANNOT* BE TOLD HERE. I HAVE SPELLED OUT A PROPOSAL FOR TESTING THAT
THEORY ABOVE.

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS DESCRIBING A WAY FOR US TO TEST THAT CONTENTION.

>
>
>
> >AFAIC see, only the freedom
>
> >to go into "personal attack" mode is ever curtailed. ...BUT then I've
>
> >only said this 150 times in this thread alone!
>
>
>
>
>
> Speculation will never face the truth and win. I have example posts that
>
> demonstrate what I'm saying.
>
>

INDEED. I FEEL THAT WAY EVERY TIME I SEE SPECULATION AND INFERENCE AS THE
CENTERPIECE OF VARIOUS CT THEORIES COMMONLY ESPOUSED.

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS ABOUT HOW TO TEST THE ACCURACY OF THE ASSERTION THAT
*ASSASSINATION*-RELATED TOPICS ARE CENSORED.

>
> Otherwise, I'd not be saying this. You can defend this censorship as long
>
> as you want, but even *YOU* admit that it censors what shouldn't be
>
> censored.
>
>

OCCASIONALLY, YES. BUT ONLY IN SUCH CONTEXTS I HAVE INDICATED IN THIS
THREAD. OVERALL I REMAIN UNCONVINCED, AS OF YET, THAT THE OCCASIONAL
EXCESSES ARE AS SERIOUS AS YOU IMPLY AND ARE NOT *MORE* THAN OFFSET IN THE
LONG RUN BY THE FOSTERING OF GENERALLY SANE AND CIVIL DISCOURSE.

YOU CONTEND IT EXTENDS TO *ASSASSINATION*-RELATED MATTERS. AND AS I HAVE
SAID, LET’S PUT THAT TO THE TEST.

>
>
>
> >> This is similar to a well established legal principle of adversarial
>
> >> proceedings.
>
> >> You don't have it here very much.
>
> >
>
> >Yes. Unless the prosecution and defense attornies can call each other
>
> >"liars" every name in the book, then the adversarial *process* is
>
> >"clearly" impossible!
>
>
>
>
>
> I'll repeat again, I can show you a post with *NO* ad hominem in it, that
>
> was censored for "badgering".
>
>

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS.

>
>
>
> >> >> >Since you just *successfully* pointed out an untrue statement
>
> >> >> But not, however, the truth.
>
> >> >
>
> >> >So now Ben Holmes is claiming he can point out a *lie* but cannot state =
>
> >a=20
>
> >> >*truth* here. Just what kind of "truth"---besides ad hominem=20
>
> >> >labeling---are you *disallowed* to state here?
>
> >>
>
> >> I've repeatedly answered above.
>
> >
>
> >You've answered repeatedly alright. To the point where I am sure it is
>
> >now quite obvious to everyone following this tiresome little exchange that
>
> >ad hominem is, in fact, the only "truth" you cannot tell here.
>
>
>
>
>
> No... I've REPEATEDLY stated that you cannot point out that someone has
>
> not responded to a point raised without it being labeled "badgering" and
>
> then censored.
>
>

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS.

>
> I can even provide an example here, but then this post would be censored.
>
>

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS.

>
> Now, since I've *REPEATEDLY* stated that its not ad hominem that is
>
> necessary to be censored, can you acknowledge that I've said it?
>
>
>

YES. I CLEARLY SEE YOU ARES SAYING THAT. PLEASE SEE PRIOR COMMENTS
DESCRIBING A WAY FOR US TO TEST THAT CONTENTION.

>
>
> >> >Please be *specific* and let me know if the "evil" Dr. McAdams blocks yo=
>
> >u. =20
>
> >> >(Based on the moaning from Robert Harris and Tony Marsh, a post
>
> >> >complaining about a block will usually be let through.) And, of course,
>
> >> >*nothing* stops you from *specifically* listing the "blocked" truth over
>
> >> >in your normal venue.
>
> >>
>
> >> Yep... that's where I normally post such statements. They *DO* get posted
>
> >> in the open forum.
>
> >

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS ABOUT OUR LITTLE TEST.

>
> >Good. I'll take a look over at ACJ in the days ahead to see your
>
> >*specifically* calling to attention an *ASSASSINATION*-related TRUTH that
>
> >you are saying over there, but were blocked from saying over here. If I
>
> >see one, I will most assuredly, try to post it over here and see if the
>
> >*ASSASSINATION*-related *IDEA* is blocked from debate.
>
>
>
>
>
> Good... then the refutation of Bugliosi's 53 points will get posted here.
>
> I rather doubt if anyone will defend the post, however.
>
>
>
> Or do so credibly...
>
>

THE CHALLENGE WAS MADE *HERE*. I WILL ENTER INTO ANY DEBATE ABOUT IT
*HERE* UNLESS OUR LITTLE EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATES IT TO BE AMONG THE
CENSORED *ASSASSINATION*-RELATED TRUTHS ALLEGEDLY NOT ALLOWED IN AAJ.

OTOH, IF THE LATTER PROVES TRUE, YOU CAN BET I WILL PROTEST VIGOROUSLY.
I MIGHT EVEN BE PERSUADED TO COME OVER THERE TO ADDRESS ANY
*ASSASSINATION*-RELATED TRUTH THAT CANNOT BE DEBATED HERE.

HOWEVER, I DO *NOT* WILFULLY LIE ABOUT ANYTHING---PERIOD. SO YOU CAN BET
MY PATIENCE TO CONTINUE ANY SO-CALLED ‘DEBATE’ WITH ANYONE CLAIMING I
AM A LIAR OR THAT I AM WILLFULLY LYING OR WHO LAUNCHES INTO ANY OTHER FORM
OF CRUDE AD HOMINEM ATTACK WILL BE NEXT TO NILL. (IOW, I PROBABLY WON’T
MAKE IT PAST MY 1ST ONE OR TWO POSTS BASED ON THE BEHAVIOR THAT IS THE
NORM OVER THERE.)

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS.

>
>
> Or perhaps I could do it to Tony Marsh & Robert Harris, but not others.
>
>
>

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS.

>
>
> >> >> Tony doesn't need to defend his statements here, no-one does... because
>
> >> >> the truth can't be openly stated.
>
> >> >
>
> >> >Please be *specific* about any "surpressed" *truth* that is unrelated to
>
> >> >ad hominem name-calling.
>
> >>
>
> >> I have, repeatedly, above.
>
> >> One cannot point out more than once that someone has run from supporting
>
> >> their claim.
>
> >
>
> >If you were really told you couldn't do it more than once, I would not
>
> >tend to agree with that decision. However, frequent purveryors of *false*
>
> >information ought to give you multiple "one shot" chances even here.
>
>
>
>
>
> I've told you repeatedly that this was a *ONE* time reminder that someone
>
> hadn't answering the question... it was censored for badgering.
>
>
>

AS I SAID BEFORE, PLEASE POST THE EVIDENCE IN THE OTHER NG.

I DON’T YET FEEL TOO ‘REFUTED’. YOU NEED TO POST THE EVIDENCE IN
THE OTHER NG.

>
>
>
>
> >> It's not in the open forum. I'm allowed to repeat as many times as I care
>
> >> to that Dr. Humes did *NOT* burn anything at all on Saturday.
>
> >
>
> >Several CT's repeat their views *VERY* often over here. Strange that you
>
> >would imply you can't bring up the Humes issue as often as they do Z285,
>
> >Oswald in the doorway, Zfilm alteration, GK shooter, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd be happy to bring it up - but then this post would be censored.
>
>
>

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS ON HOW WE CAN TEST THIS CLAIM.

I ADDRESSED THIS IN A LATER POST YOU EVIDENTLY HADN’T SEEN WHEN YOU
REPSONDED. THE UPSHOT OF IT WAS THAT I DIDN’T INTEND TO CHANGE THE
SUBJECT, BUT STATED THINGS IN A WAY THAT I CAN SEE WHY YOU WOULD THINK
THAT WAS MY GOAL. PLEASE READ THE OTHER POST FOR MORE EXPLANATION.

>
>
>
> >There was *NO* (ZERO) change of
>
> >topic. I was talking *EXACTLY* about *your* oblique allegation that
>
> >"childish and crude name-calling" came mainly from the LN side.
>
>
>
>
>
> So you believe that pointing out that someone is lying is in the same
>
> category as "childish and crude name-calling".
>
>
>
> You and I read a different dictionary.
>
>

SEE ABOVE REMARKS.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> There's a very good reason that the charges of lying come from mainly one
>
> >> side.
>
> >
>
> >They don't and you *couldn't* prove it to save your life---just like I
>
> >said.
>
>
>
>
>
> :)
>
>
>
>
>
> >> (and probably a good reason that you changed the topic)
>
> >
>
> >See above.
>
>
>
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>

AND SEE ABOVE.

>
>
>
>
> >> >> >However, since you do post a lot over there I *am* assuming you've=3D=
>
> >20
>
> >> >> >actually read enough posts to know the *truth*.
>
> >> >>
>
> >> >> I do... that's why I'm pointing it out.
>
> >> >
>
> >> >And I note that you have not been *prevented* in any way from making your
>
> >> >case beyond ad hominem.
>
> >>
>
> >> That's simply untrue.
>
> >
>
> >And you have *utterly* failed to demonstrate in what way it is. Our
>
> >discerning viewers and lurkers can plainly see it by now too.
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh? And what are they basing it on?
>
>
>
> The post that I cannot repost to illustrate that "badgering" can consist
>
> of a single post?
>
>
>

AS I SAID BEFORE, PLEASE POST THE EVIDENCE IN THE OTHER NG.

NOT *ASSASSINATION*-RELATED----AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING OF THIS AND AT
THE END OF THE LAST POST, I AM NOT GOING TO KEEP REHASHING THIS TOPIC
EXCEPT SOME CLARIFICATION WHERE APPRORIATE.

>
>
> >What you *really* saying is that I
>
> >need to submit to the very silly insistence for a cite that I stated from
>
> >the *beginnning* that I was NOT going to and WHY.
>
>
>
>
>
> Nah, I find that in the same league as the "explanations" tendered by Tony
>
> for refusing to provide a citation for his claims.
>
>
>

THE EVIDENCE INDICATES HE REFUSED BECAUSE HE WAS *UNABLE*. I REFUSED
BECAUSE I WAS *UNWILLING* AND OUR LURKERS AND VIEWERS ARE *WELCOME* TO
REVIEW THE EVIDENCE FOR THAT STATMENT AND DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES IF I AM
TELLING THE TRUTH.

>
>
>
>
> >No sir. The linked post and threads will forever continue to document
>
> >both the accuracy and honesty of my claims and my stance on that
>
> >subject--- no matter *how many* times you refuse to acknowledge it.
>
>
>
>
>
> And yet, not a single debate on the topic can be found prior to my
>
> pointing that issue out.
>
>

INCORRECT. I SUMMARIZED *VERY* ACCURATELY THAT LIMITED, BUT NON-EXTENSIVE
DEBATE HAD OCCURED ON THE SUBJECT---A STATEMENT THAT WAS TRUE BOTH BEFORE
OR AFTER YOU POINTED IT OUT. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT AFTER YOU
POINTED IT OUT, BOTH I AND JOHN KING (CAERULEO) BROUGHT IT UP MORE
OVERTLY. THE LACK OF INTEREST EVEN AMONG THE CT’S THAT POST HERE IN
DEBATING IT SERIOUSLY WAS PALPABLE IN BOTH CASES. (SO SUE ME THAT *NO
ONE* HERE---LN OR CT---SEEMED TOO BENT OUT OF SHAPE ABOUT IT !)

ALL THAT MATTER IS THAT THE THREADS I LINKED TO DOCUMENT THE VERACITY OF
EVERY CLAIM I MADE THERE AND HERE *QUITE* WELL. YOUR FAILURE TO
APPRECIATE OR ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM, NOR THAT OF OTHERS WHO
MAY EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE FOR THEMSELVES.

>
> Nor, I rather strongly suspect, will it ever be raised again in this
>
> forum.
>
>

SEE PRIOR COMMENTS.

>
>
>
> >> Not a thread...
>
> >
>
> >See above.
>
>
>
>
>
> Threads that don't have within them the support for a statement mean
>
> nothing.
>
>
>

AND FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THOSE THREADS MEAN EVEN LESS.

NOTE THAT I SIMPLY OBSERVE THE FALSENESS OF YOUR ASSERTIONS IN THIS
REGARD. I LEAVE IT TO OTHERS TO DETERMINE THE INTENTIONALITY OR LACK
THEREOF ON YOUR PART IN MAKING THEM.

SURE IT WOULD.

>
>
>
>
> >> If you believe that the topic came up before - THEN SIMPLY CITE THE
>
> >> RELEVANT POST...
>
> >> Citing entire threads, then stating that the answer is in there somewhere,
>
> >> might work for those who aren't particularly interested.
>
> >
>
> >Other than the fact you just *MISSTATED* what I did,
>
>
>
>
>
> Are you claiming that you did not cite an entire thread???
>
>

I AM CLAIMING YOU ARE STUBBORN AND REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRUTH EVEN WHEN IT STARES YOU IN FACE AND BEFORE OTHERS VIEWING OUR EXCHANGES.

>
>
>
> >and are *DEAD* wrong
>
> >in implying that the posts within those threads do not support the *very*
>
> >level of debate that characterized as previously occuring in AAJ, I guess
>
> >your pretty right there Ben!
>
>
>
>
>
> Then simply list the people involved in this mythical debate, and tell us
>
> their position on the issue involved... did the HSCA lie? Any possible
>
> explanations for their misstatement of fact?
>
>
>

I ACTUALLY MENTIONED SOME NAMES IN THE PRIOR THREAD. I ALSO OPENED UP A
RELEVANT THREAD ON THE TOPIC AS YOU WELL KNOW. IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE IT
AGAIN THEN EITHER GO POST TO IT OR OPEN UP ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT IT.
I’VE SPENT HOURS ON THIS ONE THREAD AS IT IS.

QUITE HONESTLY, I DON’T KNOW IF IT WAS A WILFULL LIE OR A PITIFUL ERROR.
EITHER WAY, THE TRUTH IS KNOW BY MOST NOW AND THE STATEMENT HARDLY PROVES
EVERYTHING THE HSCA SAID OR DID WAS A LIE RO GROSSLY INCORRECT.

>
>
>
>
> >***DEAR VIEWERS AND LURKERS***
>
> >
>
> >After beholding another thread decending to ever-increasing inanity and
>
> >repetativeness, I call on you to judge what merit there is to Ben Holmes
>
> >many claims about this NG and about me.
>
>
>
>
>
> Indeed, I agree. I invite everyone to do the same.
>
>
>
>
>
> >If he has anything to say in reply that relates to actual
>
> >*ASSASSINATION*-related evidence and arguments, I will engage him further.
>
> >But I'm done with engaging with further whining about this NG or with his
>
> >further claims that I have intentionally misstated *anything* in this or
>
> >any prior thread. I leave it for *you* to decide those matters for
>
> >yourselves.
>
> >
>
> >BT George
>
>
>
> And, of course... still no cite of a post supporting your claim. Now, I'll
>
> add that I'll probably get away with pointing that out now, to you.
>
>

INDEED THERE IS NOT A CITE---JUST AS I HAVE PROMISED ALL ALONG.

>
> But I've done nothing more than what was stated in *THIS* post, and had it
>
> censored for "badgering".
>
>
>
> I can certainly produce that post at any time... as I've not only posted
>
> it in the open forum, but still have a copy of it.
>
>
>

PLEASE LINK TO WHERE YOU ALREADY POSTED IT ELSEWHERE.


BT GEORGE

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jan 2014 00:50:40 -0500, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Holmes claims he was "censored" when he posted an argument about the
6.5 mm. fragment in the cowlick area of Kennedy's skull.

He posted one of the usual conspiracy arguments, and I responded
(other people may have responded too).

He ignored my arguments and posted the same thing again, I responded
again.

This went on for five or six rounds, with Holmes just repeating the
same thing, and we moderators decided to kill the thread.

Some people, as you know, think that if they badger the person on the
other side of the argument enough, they can get the person to embrace
their position.

I won't name any names. :-)

You can find the exchange on Google Groups, and you'll see that it
went on for multiple rounds, with no new arguments or information
being added.

If Holmes wants to post the same argument again, but if he tries to
badger the other party incessantly, we are likely to start rejecting
his posts.

Holmes would rather had a grievance than to discuss the issues.

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jan 2014 00:30:36 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>In article <af41dbfd-2e8c-4671...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
>says...
>>
>>

Why don't you start a new thread about any of the talking points
above.

Yes, you will get answers.

And no, you won't be allowed to call people "liar" when they disagree
with you.

Prove that you can actually discuss issues, rather than call people
"liar" and bitch that you have been "censored."

[BT George]

I agree. A new thread or threads(s) on the littany of things Ben claims
he will get no good anwser to is exactly what I was thinking about
suggesting.

Of course, experience shows that Ben will be correct----well in his own
mind anyway!

It would also be another way for him to display the *alleged* censorship
that even extends to "preventing" him from effectively discussing
*assassination*-related topics and evidence.

BT George

[Ben Holmes]

In article <nt15e992rq0cqfid4...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 24 Jan 2014 00:50:40 -0500, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>Holmes claims he was "censored" when he posted an argument about the
>6.5 mm. fragment in the cowlick area of Kennedy's skull.

I still have both posts...

>He posted one of the usual conspiracy arguments, and I responded
>(other people may have responded too).

The censorship was in posts directed at *YOUR* arguments.


>He ignored my arguments

Au contraire, I *addressed* them.

>and posted the same thing again, I responded again.

Not exactly the truth of what happened. But since you have the power to
censor my response, this shows why such a discussion can't take place in
this forum.

>This went on for five or six rounds, with Holmes just repeating the
>same thing, and we moderators decided to kill the thread.

Again, not the truth of what happened. I continued to RESPOND to your
statements... for example, here's a snippet that shows this, although I'm
sure that the actual issues would be censored:

***********************************************************************
>>> You aren't allowed to badger people incessently until they give you
>>> the answer that you want.
>>
>> I'm merely responding to your posts.
>
>No, you are continuing to demand that I agree with you, and I've made
>it clear that I don't.
>
>You are posting spam.


I feel censorship coming on... you're threats are increasing, and all I'm
doing is responding to what you say (or refuse to say)

************************************************************************

>Some people, as you know, think that if they badger the person on the
>other side of the argument enough, they can get the person to embrace
>their position.
>
>I won't name any names. :-)
>
>You can find the exchange on Google Groups, and you'll see that it
>went on for multiple rounds, with no new arguments or information
>being added.

Again, not true. Were I allowed to do so, I could QUOTE the relevant 'new
argument'...

>If Holmes wants to post the same argument again, but if he tries to
>badger the other party incessantly, we are likely to start rejecting
>his posts.
>
>Holmes would rather had a grievance than to discuss the issues.

How about allowing me to post the actual posts that were censored so that
people can judge honestly?

[Anthony Marsh]

But you and your cronies will.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <gb25e99u9rjgmb51q...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

Rather than answer anything from above, you challenge me to do what I know
*CANNOT* be done in this forum

If your answers cannot withstand critical challenge (without being
censored), then you really don't have answers, do you?

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jan 2014 16:18:39 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>In article <nt15e992rq0cqfid4...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 24 Jan 2014 00:50:40 -0500, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>Holmes claims he was "censored" when he posted an argument about the
>>6.5 mm. fragment in the cowlick area of Kennedy's skull.
>
>
>I still have both posts...
>
>
>>He posted one of the usual conspiracy arguments, and I responded
>>(other people may have responded too).
>
>
>The censorship was in posts directed at *YOUR* arguments.
>
>
>>He ignored my arguments
>
>Au contraire, I *addressed* them.
>

No, you just came back with the same arguments. Multiple times.

>
>>and posted the same thing again, I responded again.
>
>
>Not exactly the truth of what happened. But since you have the power to
>censor my response, this shows why such a discussion can't take place in
>this forum.
>
>
>>This went on for five or six rounds, with Holmes just repeating the
>>same thing, and we moderators decided to kill the thread.
>
>Again, not the truth of what happened. I continued to RESPOND to your
>statements... for example, here's a snippet that shows this, although I'm
>sure that the actual issues would be censored:
>
>***********************************************************************
>>>> You aren't allowed to badger people incessently until they give you
>>>> the answer that you want.
>>>
>>> I'm merely responding to your posts.
>>
>>No, you are continuing to demand that I agree with you, and I've made
>>it clear that I don't.
>>
>>You are posting spam.
>
>
>I feel censorship coming on... you're threats are increasing, and all I'm
>doing is responding to what you say (or refuse to say)
>

You don't get to badger people until the will say what you want them
to say.

>************************************************************************
>
>
>>Some people, as you know, think that if they badger the person on the
>>other side of the argument enough, they can get the person to embrace
>>their position.
>>
>>I won't name any names. :-)
>>
>>You can find the exchange on Google Groups, and you'll see that it
>>went on for multiple rounds, with no new arguments or information
>>being added.
>
>
>Again, not true. Were I allowed to do so, I could QUOTE the relevant 'new
>argument'...
>
>
>
>>If Holmes wants to post the same argument again, but if he tries to
>>badger the other party incessantly, we are likely to start rejecting
>>his posts.
>>
>>Holmes would rather had a grievance than to discuss the issues.
>
>How about allowing me to post the actual posts that were censored so that
>people can judge honestly?
>
>

Sure. But don't pretend that it was the first thing you posted.

Post a link to the *entire* repetitive exchange.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jan 2014 16:29:15 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>

Sashay(tm)!

I think you've learned that the LNs here can kick your ass if you
actually engage in substantive arguments.

That's why you whine and bitch about not being able to call people
"liar" and about being "censored."

>If your answers cannot withstand critical challenge (without being
>censored), then you really don't have answers, do you?
>

Post any one of the buff talking points above as a separate post.

We'll discuss it.

In fact, post them all in series.

In fact, I'll answer one just to get you started:

>>>Where did Rankin read that a fragment caused the throat wound in the
>>>autopsy report?

That's what one or two of the Dallas doctors (certainly, McClelland)
first thought. So he was probably reading doctor's reports from Nov.
22.

Now show that you've got the guts to actually debate issues.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <c6050284-f7b8-469d...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
says...

Still no answers... even though by implication you promised to answer
'em... remember you claimed you'd no longer address issues that aren't
"assassination related?" There's NO POSSIBLE WAY you could make the claim
that the above issues are not "assassination related".

Nor, to be honest, do you deny that they are... you merely refuse to
answer 'em.

You are, of course, making my point for me... even if you don't realize
it.

>Of course, experience shows that Ben will be correct----well in his own
>mind anyway!

No-one is imagining any answers being provided. Are you? If they are,
they don't exist in *my* reality.

>It would also be another way for him to display the *alleged* censorship
>that even extends to "preventing" him from effectively discussing
>*assassination*-related topics and evidence.
>
>BT George

You seem to be conflicted... you keep admitting that pointing out that
someone has not answered a point should be allowed, and think it a bad
thing when it's been the cause of censorship (I trust I've not
misrepresented you on this point) - then forget what you've said, and go
back to claiming that there's "alleged" censorship.

It's real, and I've repeatedly told you that I can present the evidence
for it. You aren't willing to address it in an open forum.

Interestingly, I *STILL* don't have an answer on the question of whether
or not you accept that repetition is a key concept in learning. (perhaps
that's merely a non-assassination related issue that you'll no longer
address...)

Is there *ANYONE* here other than John and myself who know what the issues
were in the thread where he censored my posts?

Anyone?

Perhaps had I been allowed to drive home the point even a single time,
people would now understand a little bit more about the difference in
thinking between John and myself.

And the issue of the 6.5mm virtually round object that never gets critical
examination in this forum.


--

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jan 2014 18:02:44 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>In article <c6050284-f7b8-469d...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
>says...
>>
>
>

>You seem to be conflicted... you keep admitting that pointing out that
>someone has not answered a point should be allowed, and think it a bad
>thing when it's been the cause of censorship (I trust I've not
>misrepresented you on this point) - then forget what you've said, and go
>back to claiming that there's "alleged" censorship.
>
>It's real, and I've repeatedly told you that I can present the evidence
>for it. You aren't willing to address it in an open forum.
>

Do you want to discuss issues, or not?

I've invited you to start a thread on any one of your buff talking
points, and we will discuss it.

But you refuse.

Don't you know how that looks?

It looks like you know you would get your ass kicked if you actually
discussed issues, so you bitch and whine about "censorship."

Post an argument!

>Interestingly, I *STILL* don't have an answer on the question of whether
>or not you accept that repetition is a key concept in learning. (perhaps
>that's merely a non-assassination related issue that you'll no longer
>address...)
>

What you call "repetition" is what's called spam on the Internet.

>Is there *ANYONE* here other than John and myself who know what the issues
>were in the thread where he censored my posts?
>
>Anyone?
>
>Perhaps had I been allowed to drive home the point even a single time,
>people would now understand a little bit more about the difference in
>thinking between John and myself.
>

Start a "6.5 mm. fragment" thread again, if you want to.

And also post a link to the old, very long and very tedious thread.

>And the issue of the 6.5mm virtually round object that never gets critical
>examination in this forum.
>

You got your chance to debate it.

Apparently your definition of "critically examined" means that
everybody has to agree with you.

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jan 2014 18:02:44 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>

Again, do you really want to discuss issues, or not.

Take one (or many) of the above and post them as separate posts.

Just throwing a bunch of buff talking points at people is not a
serious effort at discourse.

In fact, I already answered one of them.

So the ball is in your court.

It couldn't be that you know perfect well that all of them would be
blown out of the water, could it?

[BT George]

And I'll take a stab at answering another couple of his questions:

-Why were the prosectors not allowed to view the clothing?

Because:

1) They didn't arrive at the morgue with him and thus were not on hand and
to be readily examined.

2) Once they decided it might be helpful they apparently allowed
themselves to be dissuaded from having them produced at the time, due to
the undue pressure that was felt because the Kennedy family kept insisting
to just "hurry things up". Humes should have insisted on doing many
things that were not done, but let the pressure applied by Burkey and
others on behalf of the waiting and distraught "First Family" pressure him
into taking many, many shortcuts.

However, your question is incomplete as it stands. Humes did eventually
examine them prior to his WC testimony and testified that he thought they
supported the wounds documented at autopsy.

-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?

See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
been.)

Now I am *quite* sure neither is the kind of CT answer Ben is looking for,
but they are answers nontheless. Which is MORE than he has given me.

I am *STILL* waiting for him to provide *ANY* *specific* and *credible*
frontal trajectories that would explain Kennedy's neck wounding in light
of his rejection of shots from behind and of the SBT.

If I ever get THAT...then perhaps we can proceed to determine how he
accounts for the remaining wounds on the two men.

BT George

[Ben Holmes]

In article <a32968e3-63a4-4365...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
says...

>
>
>On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:58:11 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:

>> In article <69f4739e-be70-4e1b...@googlegroups.com>, BT Ge=

>orge
>
>SNIPPAGE OF PRIOR THREAD GARBAGE.
>
>AS I SAID BEFORE. I WILL RESPOND TO ANYTHING RELATED TO THE
>*ASSASSINATION* OR RELATED *EVIDENCE* BELOW.
>
>I WILL TRY TO MAKE ANY REMARKS ON THE *OTHER* STUFF AS PASSING AS POSSIBLE
>OR ONLY FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION.

What can be said to such a statement? I cannot objectively state the
English word that describes such behavior on your part.

>> >> Can I label someone who lies about the evidence that I can cite a "liar"
>>

>> >Already answered.
>>
>> So you contradict yourself.
>>
>> The *FACT* is, you cannot tell the truth in this forum. For, as I just
>> pointed out, even if *anyone* would recognize a statement as being
>> completely contradicted by the actual evidence, you cannot label it a lie.
>>
>> All you can do is point out once or twice that someone can't cite - and
>> then at that point any further posts will be censored. And one might not
>> necessarily even get once or twice to point out such a fact.
>>
>> You see, it's *easy* to cite testimony when someone says that Dr. Humes
>> didn't state that the bullet *exited* the back of JFK's head... you can
>> quickly locate the statement, and both quote the statement and cite the
>> source.
>>
>> But tell us, how can you refute Tony claiming that Douglas Horne claimed
>> to be the first to discover a hole in the windshield?
>>
>> Can *YOU* produce a quote from Douglas Horne stating something to the
>> effect: "I was not the first one to note a hole in the windshield?"
>>
>> If someone cannot produce a citation that supports their assertion, then
>> nothing can be done in *this* forum.
>>
>
>NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED. FINAL COMMENTS:

You've already asserted that you aren't going to respond to what you
consider non-assassination related... then promptly proceed to do so.

>YOU *CAN* SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT "DOUG HORNE *NEVER* MADE THAT CLAIM
>TONY AND I *DEFY* YOU TO CITE OR POST A LINK TO WHERE HE DID. IF YOU
>CAN'T DO EITHER, IT WILL PROVE THAT YOU HAVE MADE ANOTHER UNTRUE/FALSE
>CLAIM."
>
>NOTHING ADDITIONAL CAN BE DONE IN ACJ EXCEPT TO CALL THEM A LIAR AND DO SO
>REPEATEDLY. YOU MIGHT SILENCE THEM QUICKER THAT WAY, BUT THE DOWNSIDE IS
>THAT MANY PEOPLE ON *BOTH* SIDES WILL START THROWING OUT ACCUSATIONS OF
>LYING--AND WORSE---IN A BLANKET FASHION. IT WILL ALSO SOON COME TO BE
>APPLIED EVEN TO HONEST ERRORS (THEY DO ACTUALLY OCCUR SOMETIMES) AND
>*VALID* DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON WHAT THE STATEMENTS OR OTHER EVIDENCE
>ACTUALLY DEMOSTRATES.
>
>THE EVENTUAL RESULT? ...JUST GO LOOK AT THE VOLUME OF POSTS AND VIEWS
>OVER THERE THAT HAS EVEN ACJ'RS ASKING:
>

>https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/HPIeC=
>jrNRPg
>
>:-)


Tell us ... will you even *admit* that repetition is one of the key
concepts of learning?

>> >The sad mystery is why you think that you *must* in
>> >order to argue the assassination or in order for others to eventually
>> >figure out that frequent purveyors of provably false evidence/statemetns
>> >are "liars".
>>
>> Just pointing out that you can't tell the complete truth in a censored
>> forum.

Dead silence...

>> >> >> I've always known that to be the case. Which explains why I so rarely

>> >> >> post here.
>>
>> >> >See above comments on actually *reading* what the other poster is saying

>> >> >before you respond.
>> >>
>> >> Can I point out that someone has not responded without the post being
>> >> censored as "badgering"?
>> >
>> >I don't run this place, but my answer would be that it depends. You want
>> >to point out the same evasion(s) a few times in the same thread or over a
>> >limited time frame and it should not be considered as such.
>>
>> Too bad *YOU* aren't the censor then.
>>
>>
>
>NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED.

I can well understand why you don't want to address this - you've been
desperately trying to change the topic to only ad hominem issues.

>> Because I can tell you for a fact that even a *SINGLE* time is too many
>> depending on the person you're pointing it out to.

And, of course, I have the evidence to support this statement.

>> >Even if you
>> >want to bring it up again at a future date after taking a break for awhile
>> >I would not consider it as such.
>>
>> You wouldn't, perhaps.
>>
>> But unfortunately, *YOU* aren't censoring here...
>
>NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED.

You certainly aren't going to admit that critics have a legitimate
complaint about the censorship here.

>> >OTOH, if you want to point it out 10-15 times in the same thread or bring
>> >it up daily for weeks on end or weekly for months on end, at some point,
>> >it starts to wear on the patience even of those who *agree* with you and
>> >amounts to needless "badgering" to get someone to admit what should be
>> >obvious at some point to all.
>> >
>> >Of course if they *continue spouting* the same PROVABLY false claim(s) it
>> >should be "open season" on them until they cease repeating them.
>>
>> Unfortunately for your quite reasonable speculation about how it *should*
>> be... I can tell you from experience that it isn't.
>>
>
>NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED---BUT ON THAT WE *DO* AGREE.

Then you admit that the truth can't necessarily be told in this forum.

>> >> Judging from my past experiences, the answer is no.
>>
>> >See above comments.
>>
>> Your above comments are speculation about how it *should* be, not how it
>> actually is.
>
>NOT ASSASSINATIION RELATED, BUT SEE ABOVE.

Then you admit that critics are unfairly censored here, right?



>> >> >> In fact, the only reason I *started* posting is John McAdams' rule that

>> >> >> you can slander non-members...
>>
>> >> >By "slander" you seem to mean that the very freedom to call a non-member

>> >> >a "liar" or worse brought you out so the no one over here can do to you
>> >> >the very thing that you *like* doing to others and *have* done to you

>> >> >routinely over at ACJ.
>>
>> >> It seems to be perfectly okay to label someone a liar as long as they

>> >> don't post here, and aren't in a position to defend themselves.
>>
>> >> It's actually quite rare in an open forum where I can respond to such

>> >> slander. At least, those who do illustrate in *all* of their posts that
>> >> they aren't very credible. For example, "Vincent Bugliosi"... does anyone
>> >> *here* think that a person using that name is 'credible'?
>> >
>> >I've seen the character using that name over at ACJ lately. I haven't
>> >followed his "stuff" closely, but from what I've seen, he gives more
>> >evidence of being a CT *posing* as an LN than he does as a legitimate
>> >defender of the LN position.
>>
>> That doesn't even make sense.
>>
>>
>
>NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED----BUT IT MAKES *PERFECT* SENSE TO ME GIVEN HOW
>HE HAS PUT UP THREADS AND BARELY ATTEMPTS TO DEFEND SOME OF THEM. IN
>FACT, IN ONE HIS ONLY COMEBACK (THAT I SAW) WAS SOMETHING LIKE "WATCH IT!
>I HAVE CANCER NOW!"

Again, answering a point that you said you'd not answer. I'm guessing that
you believe David Von Pein to be a critic posing as a LNT'er... right?

Because I guarantee you that I can produce many threads where he refused
to defend himself after being corrected on the evidence.

Once again, critics don't need to lie about the evidence... IT SUPPORTS
CONSPIRACY... now, you'll disagree, but you won't be able to offer
credible explanations...

>> On the other hand, we've seen historical evidence of LNT'ers posing as
>> CT'ers.
>
>NOT ASSASSINTION RELATED---But it's a frequent *allegation* from the CT
>side.

Ask John McAdams... I'll defer to *HIS* statement on this issue... will
you?

>> >Of course...he displays no less credibility as an LN, than some CT's over
>> >there display in defending their case. :-)
>>
>>
>> No-one has ever claimed that there aren't kooks in both camps. Only that
>> they are far more prevalent in the LNT'ers camp.
>>
>
>NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED ---- BUT I AGREE THERE ARE SOME KOOKS BOTH
>PLACES, BUT OF COURSE, I SEE IT 180 DEGREES DIFFERENT ON WHERE HE GREATER
>PERCENTAGE LIES.

Once again, responding where you claimed you wouldn't. A very good example
can be seen in the Amazon forums right now...

Why not go over there and tally up people listing evidence, and the
trolls... and tell us on which side each of them lie on.

I'll even agree that 'Goblueresurrection', although a CT'er, is a troll.

Come back with the list of those who've posted in the last few weeks,
along with your stats, and let's examine them.

On the other hand, if you don't want to end up retracting your opinion,
perhaps you'd better not.

>> >> >That sir, makes no sense as any member here can go over there and say

>> >> >*whatever* they please about you anyway.
>>
>> >> Absolutely! And they'll have to be prepared to refute the citations I will
>> >> be happy to supply.
>> >>
>> >> Then, when I repeatedly point out that they've run away, no-one will

>> >> censor those posts for "badgering".
>>
>> >Yes. And if you carry on pointing out the obvious long enough, there will
>> >soon be 2-4 views on your threads. :-)
>>
>> Of course, *HERE* you cannot point out such a fact even once. And yes, I
>> have an example of exactly this that was censored by John.
>
>NOT ASSASSINATION RELATED----But post it over in ACJ in the next day or
>two and I will take a look. If I agree, I will try to post something back
>over here to discuss why. Who knows---maybe even *that* will be censored.

Once again, you're making this claim that it's not "assassination related"
- yet you're responding to it. Then you want me to post the example post,
and state up front that you'll refuse to comment on it in an open forum.

>> >> >Further, you and others can heap

>> >> >ad hominem on *anybody* you please over there whether they post there or

>> >> >not. So why do you come over here where *neither* party can break out the

>> >> >"slander" you seem to treasure in one place, yet dissaprove of in

another?

>>
>> >> Answered above.
>>
>> >> >So why is it *really* that lately you've started coming over here and

>> >> >participating in the very format you object to? Surely it has got

>> >> >"nothing" to do with tiring of posting "Mark Lane #10,378 over there
>> >> >and often getting a whopping 1-3 views? :-)
>>
>> >> I find it truly amusing that despite the frequently made claims that Mark
>> >> Lane is "dishonest," or a "liar" - there's been an amazing silence when
>> >> faced with Mark Lane's ACTUAL STATEMENTS... all in fairly short chunks,
>> >> ready to be refuted.
>>
>> >> But aren't.
>>
>> >> Indeed, I had one confirmed Warren Commission believer who stated that he
>> >> was going to come to the forum just for the explicit purpose of refuting
>> >> the Mark Lane series... he made several posts about Nolan Potter, then ran
>> >> away when he was quite quickly faced with more facts than he clearly
>> >> wanted to deal with.
>>
>> >I never have personally claimed that Mark Lane was necessarily a frequent
>> >liar. However, is it *REALLY* your claim that he did not engage in *any*
>> >lies or "stretching of the truth"? Would you maintain that he never tried
>> >to "lead a witness" to agree with what *he* wanted said?
>>
>> My current total of 435 quotes from "Rush to Judgment" is ready anytime
>> you care to make your case.
>>
>
>NOT DIRECTLY ASSASSINATION RELATED, BUT CLOSE ENOUGH.

LOL!!!

>FROM THAT ANSWER DEAR VIEWERS/LURKERS, I TAKE IT THAT BEN IS SAYING:
>
>"YES." MARK LANE HAS *NEVER* BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE EVER LIED, STRETCHED THE
>TRUTH, OR LEAD A WITNESS TRYING TO GET THEM TO SAY WHAT HE WANTED THEM TO.

There's a perfectly good English word for people who don't tell the truth
about what someone has said. Kindly QUOTE me saying that, or take the time
to state right here that you have an opinion that is not reflected by my
statements.

>WELL I INVITE YOU TO REVIEW THE FOLLOWING FOR YOURSELVES AND SEE IF YOU
>AGREE THAT MARK LANE WAS ALWAYS SO SCRUPULOUSLY HONEST:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#marklane
>
>YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO CONSIDER WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THAT TELLING *SELECTIVE*
>TRUTHS WHILE *OMITTING* OTHER (LESS CONVENIENT) TRUTHS AMOUNTS TO LYING:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane2.txt
>
>
>OR WHETHER YOU CONSIDER STATEMENTS LIKE THIS TO BE INTENTIONAL
>MISCHARACTERIZATION ABOUT OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD:
>

>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/4Hhle5OOsRU/shkAshwxi=

>EkJ
>
>
>HOWEVER, DO *NOT* EXPECT BEN TO *EVER* CONCEDE LANE'S LACK OF CONSISTENT
>FORTHRIGHTNESS AS DEMONSTRATED IN THREADS LIKE THESE:
>

>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/mark$20lan=
>e$20lies%7Csort:relevance%7Cspell:true/alt.assassination.jfk/D6H3EWlnGv4/2o=
>1y97dewr4J
>
>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/mark$20lan=
>e$20CE$20399$20undeformed/alt.assassination.jfk/JsAkkAWTPf0/D-i3quHkOZEJ


No sense in checking all those URLs out... you've completely failed to do
the simple thing - just *QUOTE* a statement out of 'Rush to Judgment',
then supply the citation to the evidence that Mark Lane misled or
contradicted.

I find it truly amusing that you cannot do such a simple thing.

Which is why I've been making it easy for believers to do - by posting
short 1-5 paragraph quotes from Mark Lane... Over 430 of these quotes, and
just 2 or 3 serious attempts have been made thus far. That's a *VERY* poor
record.

Tell us, why can't you do such a simple task?

>> >> The opposite never seems to happen... I don't see people quoting from

>> >> Posner or Bugliosi, to name two... with any confidence that they aren't
>> >> going to be refuted by citations to the evidence.
>>
>> >Which explains why you ARE going to take the RH challenge, right Ben?
>> >...OH THAT'S RIGHT. You "can't" because you can only expose "lies" over
>> >here but "cannot" state the truth. Oh go ahead Ben.
>>
>> Actually, I've already started on it, and should be finished and started
>> posting them within a week or two.
>>
>> I've already noted some of them that are just too silly to be taken
>> seriously.
>>
>> Such as Bugliosi's claim that walking fast is evidence of being a
>> murderer...
>>
>SEE BELOW.
>>
>> Or changing clothes when you get home from work...
>
>NO ONE IS SUGGESTING HE IS GUILTY *SIMPLY* BECAUSE OF ANY *ONE* PIECE OF
>EVIDENCE LIKE THE ABOVE. RATHER IT IS THE *TOTALITY* OF SUCH THINGS THAT
>MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE IN THE *REAL* WORLD FOR LHO TO BE AN INNOCENT MAN.

If these individual bits of "evidence" aren't evidence, then why does
Bugliosi bother to list 'em? He wouldn't DARE stand in front of a jury,
and make the assertion that because Oswald walked fast that this was
evidence that he shot the President... that's just too silly to
consider!!!

Yet both Bugliosi and you apparently think that this is serious evidence.

How are you going to convince people when nonsense like this composes a
part of your argument? How deep is your faith that you cannot admit such
*OBVIOUS* stretches on Bugliosi's part?

>> I'd *LOVE* to see Bugliosi actually try to put stuff like that IN COURT in
>> front of a jury... he might not like the laughter though...
>
>THIS ISN'T A COURT. OSWALD IS DEAD. ALL THAT SHOULD MATTER TO YOU IS NOT
>WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE BEEN *FOUND* GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW, BUT WHETHER
>HE WAS, *IN FACT*, GUILTY. (BTW, MEN ARE FOUND GUILTY AND SENTENCED TO
>DEATH ALL THE TIME ON FAR *LESS* EVIDENCE EVERY DAY.)

You'll *NEVER* find a case where someone changing clothes at home after
work was evidence in the case, or 'walking fast'. This wasn't an attempt
to sort out the truth, this is *clearly* a 'prosecution's brief'... yet
you're trying to claim otherwise.

I'm merely pointing out how silly a few sections of it are... sort of a
'look ahead' at the refutation I'll be posting on these '53' points.

>> And, like all the rest of my series... I don't expect any serious attempts
>> at refutation.
>>
>SURE. AND BASED ON WHAT I HAVE SEEN YOU WILL SUCCEED----IN YOUR OWN MIND.

You cannot admit that 'walking fast', and the quite ordinary changing from
work clothes when getting home aren't the evidence of a guilty man. This
speaks of a deep faith, not someone willing to examine the evidence.

I will succeed not because *I* believe I will, but because no-one will
refute what I state in credible terms... that is, be able to CITE evidence
that refutes what I say. Just as I've been posting Mark Lane quotes ...
and had an amazing silence on the vast majority of posts.

>THE PROBLEM IS THAT OUR VIEWERS AND LURKERS ARE UNLIKELY TO SEE IT QUITE
>THE SAME WAY AND I BELIEVE WILL FIND THAT THE *TOTALITY* OF THE EVIDENCE
>THAT YOU WILL HAVE FAILED TO *CREDIBLY* DEBUNK, WILL STILL BE SUFFICIENT
>TO SHOW LHO'S GUILT. AND HAVING SHOWN THAT, I BELIEVE THE *LACK* OF
>*CREDIBLE* EVIDENCE OF ANYONE BEING BEHIND HIM, WILL STILL BE CLEAR TO
>THOSE WHO SEEK THINGS MORE SOLID THAN "INFERENCE" AND "UNSUBSTANTIATED
>CLAIMS".

That you can say this with a straight face, and not realize that the
'inference' that because someone changed their clothes after leaving work,
or because they walked fast, isn't compelling *AT ALL*, is amusing.

[Old material snipped]

>> >> >Bugliosi's points against Oswald and against there having been a

>> >> >conspiracy could be successfully refuted or rendered unimportant by the

>> >> >CT community, there would still be plenty of good reasons to conclude

>> >> >LHO was guilty and that there was no conspiracy.

>>
>> >> Actually, quite wrong.
>>
>> >> For example, merely demonstrating that the throat wound was an entry
>> >> wound would be sufficient, BY ITSELF, to show a conspiracy, even if
>> >> Bugliosi had far more than 53 reasons.
>>
>> >Really Ben. Then why don't you "merely" demonstrate for us why the
>> >autopsy team and the succeeding FP's that reviewed the autopsy
>> >evidence---including pro-CT Cyril Wecht---"missed" the "evidence" that
>> >proved such an allegation?
>>
>> I don't have to... the Warren Commission testimony shows it quite clearly.
>>
>> You *do* know that the prosectors claim not to have known about the throat
>> *bullet* wound, right?
>>
>>
>
>YOU *DO* KNOW THAT THE DIRECT, OBVIOUS, VISIBLE EVIDENCE OF IT WAS
>OBSCURED BY THE TRACHEOTOMY,

So you admit that your previous statement "Then why don't you "merely"
demonstrate for us why the autopsy team ... "missed" the "evidence" that
proved such an allegation?" was simply incorrect, as I pointed out.

When you imply, as you did, that the autopsy prosectors saw this evidence,
I simply point out that it's not true.

And rather than retract your prior statement, or admit that I'm right, you
start to change the topic ... now you're arguing that they couldn't see
this evidence.

>THAT THEY DID NOT (AS THEY SHOULD HAVE)
>DISSECT THE NECK,

They were *ORDERED* not to.

>AND THAT THE CLOTHS (GOING FROM MEMORY) WERE NOT
>IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE FOR EXAMINATION?

Again, untrue. It was on *military orders* that they were not allowed to
view JFK's clothing, which was being held by the Secret Service, Greer, as
I recall... *WHO WAS THERE AT THE AUTOPSY. Try doing a search for Finck's
Blumberg memo, where, as I recall, he describes being told by a superior
officer that the clothing would only be of "academic interest" - or words
to that effect.

Now, you went from *your* memory, and I went from *my* memory... I've not
bothered to go find the memo to refresh it... let's see who's memory is
more accurate and truthful to the facts in this case.

>THUS THEY WERE NOT AWARE THAT THE
>BACK WOUND WENT THROUGH TO THE NECK UNTIL THE CALL TO PARKLAND CLARIFIED.
>
>YOU ARE AWARE TOO, OF COURSE, THAT AFTER FINDING THAT OUT AND REVIEWING
>THE X-RAYS

The prosectors didn't see the X-rays again (after the actual autopsy)
until 1966... so this suggestion cannot possibly be correct.

>THAT THEY WERE CONVINCED THAT THE BACK WOUND WAS INDEED THE
>ENTRANCE AND THE EXIT WAS THE NECK. LIKEWISE, THE FOLLOWING FPP'S AGREED
>THAT THAT IS WHAT THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS AND X-RAYS REFLECTED. CYRIL WECHT
>WAS AMONG THEM, SO IT WASN'T FLAGRANT LN BIAS THAT LED THEM TO CONCLUDE AS
>MUCH.

Now you're relying on those who never examined the body.

So once again, merely showing that the throat wound was an entry - BY
ITSELF - no other evidence needed... would prove a conspiracy. Now, since
there was intimidation of doctors who *DID* see this wound - we can no
longer have this evidence, at least, evidence that hasn't been tampered
with. The best evidence was from before any intimidation ... for, as I
pointed out in the Amazon forums, the *ONLY* contemporary evidence was
that the throat wound was an entry. Someone, who's name will be withheld
(but you know him) - tried to assert that at the Parkland Press
Conference, the statement was made that this wound could have been and
exit, apparently not knowing that the transcript of this Press Conference
is widely available online.

>> >Also, while your at it, please enlighten us on a workable trajectory that
>> >could account for a frontal entrance wound to JFK's neck:
>>
>> >1) Just how was Connally, sitting only 6 inches lower, missed by such a
>> >shot?

Easy... you're presuming a trajectory coming from the 6th floor SN... I'm
not limited by your faith.

>> >2) If he wan't missed do you have your own sort of "frontal" SBT that
>> >resulted in it going from his thigh, to his wrist, to his chest, to his
>> >rib, to his back and then into JFK's neck? If not, please account for
>> >JBC's various wounds.

I'll accept what the doctors stated... that he could have been hit by 1 or
2 bullets.

>> >2) Did it come through the window or just above it?

The evidence of a hole through the window is credible to the average
person... only those of faith reject it.

>> >3) Where did the bullet go after hitting JFK's neck?

Just where the doctors suggested... (bet you don't know this!)

>> >a) If it remained in the body what happened to it?

It was taken out by Dr. Humes, the body arriving at 1835, he had the time
to do this before the official autopsy starting at 2000.

>> >b) If it went through, how on earth did it not come out the other side and
>> >then either hit someone in the follow up cars, the crowd, of the pavement?

There's *NO* medical evidence of transit.

>> I always find it amusing that people seem to think that if it can be seen,
>> it cannot be hit by a bullet.
>>
>> Are you claiming that there were no places in Dealey Plaza that JFK's neck
>> could not be seen?
>
>I AM CLAIMING YOU NEED A *CREDIBLE* ALTERNATIVE PATH(S) TO EXPLAIN THE
>WOUNDS. I AM ALSO NOW STATING THAT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE NOT TOO EAGER TO
>ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I JUST ASKED IN ANY DETAIL.


Are you claiming that there were no places in Dealey Plaza that JFK's neck
could not be seen?

And just for the fun of it, I answered all your other questions as well...

>> >> It's interesting to note that Bugliosi lied on this very issue... that of
>> >> the throat wound.
>>
>> >Sure Ben. In your mind there seem to be *no* honest errors. Thus there is
>> >*no* *possibility* that VB's statement that there was a "ragged wound" in
>> >association with the neck, was just an error on his part. Nopper. Nobody
>> >in writing a 1,600+ page tome with about 900 pages of footnotes, could
>> >make any "honest" errors. It could "only" be a *deliberate* lie!
>>
>> Of course, in your mind, CT authors lie... just as you can't seem to find
>> any lies among the Warren Commission, Clark Panel, HSCA, Bugliosi, Posner,
>> etc...
>
>I NEVER SAID I COULD FIND ANY LIES IN THOSE EXAMPLES. IN FACT, I *AGREED*
>WITH YOU THAT THE HSCA STATEMENT ABOUT THE BETHEDSA WITNESSESS STATEMENTS
>SOUNDS LIKE A LIE OR ONE OF THE WILDEST MISSTATEMENTS I HAVE EVER HEARD.

"sounds like a lie" isn't quite the ringing endorsement of a lie, is it?

Once again: Of course, in your mind, CT authors lie... just as you can't

seem to find any lies among the Warren Commission, Clark Panel, HSCA,
Bugliosi, Posner, etc...

Now, if I'm wrong, simply quote or cite the *LIE* that you recognize.

>I ALSO HAVE MY OWN DOUBTS ABOUT CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE BY THE CLARK PANEL
>REGARDING SOME OF THE ASSASSINATION PHOTOS.

Doubts are not what I was speaking of. Do I have to quote myself again?

>HOWEVER WHEN I FIND A DISCREPANCY THAT IS ARGUABLY A LIE IN THE TYPE OF
>SOURCES YOU STATE, IT USUALLY ISOLATED AND QUITE OFTEN *COULD* BE
>SOMETHING OTHER THAN A WILFULL LIE. I HAVE FOUND MORE INSTANCES OF WHAT
>SEEM TO ME INEXPLICABLE DISCREPANCIES, CONTRADICTIONS, AND SEEMING WILFULL
>LIES IN THE LARGE BODY OF CT LITERATURE OUT THERE. I FELT THAT WAY EVEN
>WHEN I WAS STILL AN "UNDECIDED, WHO LEANED CT" MANY YEARS AGO.

Feel free to QUOTE such a statement... let's compare it against the many
lies told by the WC, the HSCA, Bugliosi, Posner, etc...

>> I find it amusing that you seem to believe that someone can study this
>> case for more than 20 years, and never run into the issues that the throat
>> wound posed for the Warren Commission.

Dead silence...

>> >Well at any rate, you and DVP have already gone round on this matter and I
>> >post here a link to his website for what I find to be a reasonable
>> >explanation of why VB ended up making a claim that was indeed incorrect,
>> >but not necessarily an intentional lie:
>>

>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=3D3Dragged

>>
>>
>> A very good example of LNT'er logic... DVP couldn't quite figure out for
>> some time just what the topic was, as he admits in that article.
>>
>> But he fails to explain how someone can spend over 20 years on this case,
>> and not know the problems faced by the Warren Commission with that throat
>> wound.
>>
>> As you will fail to do...
>>
>>
>>
>
>I REALLY DON'T GET THE "DON'T KNOW" PART YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Yep... I predicted it. I said "as you will fail to do".

My crystal ball is still working fine...

>THIS
>ISSUE AT HAND IS VB'S MISUSE OF THE WORD "RAGGED" WHEN DESCRIBING THE
>THROAT WOUND. WAS IT AN ERROR OR WILFULL LIE ? GIVEN THAT HE REFERENCED
>SOURCES THAT DID *NOT* SUPPORT HIS ASSERTION AND THAT HE WOULD CERTAINLY
>REALIZE HIS TOME WAS GOING TO BE TIGHTLY CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE CT
>COMMUNITY, I BELIEVE THE FORMER TO BE MORE LIKELY.

Speculation will never replace evidence in supporting the truth. Once
again, kindly give a credible reason how someone can spend more than
twenty years on this case and not know anything about the problems the
Warren Commission had with that throat wound.

I must admit, it was somewhat cheating of me to predict you wouldn't
answer... for there really is *NO* credible explanation. So I understand
why you can't give one, and it was somewhat unfair for me to point out
that you wouldn't.

Bugliosi was certainly aware, as most people who study this case, that the
throat wound is *CLEARLY* one of the strongest pieces of evidence for a
conspiracy... which is why he spent time on the issue.


[Old material snipped]

>> >> >Strangely, Bob and Ralph never quite "got around" to doing this. So Ben,

>> >> >why don't you skip "Mark Lane" #'s 10,379 - 10,450

>> >> I'm sure that a lot of people would prefer that I not prove so

>> >> dramatically the inability of anyone to show "dishonesty" or "lying" on

>> >> Mark Lane's part.
>>
>> >> I'm at 430... and just 3 or 4 serious attempts to refute what he said...
>>
>> >I am far more interested in the facts of *the case* than I am about Mark
>> >Lane's reputation. Indeed, Ben, I am more interested in *whether* LHO
>> >killed JFK and acted alone, than I am what *biases* the WC or HSCA may
>> >have had in trying to demonstrate as much.
>>
>> >Sometimes it seems to me that you are more concerned with "exhonorating"
>> >Lane of "convicting" the WC and HSCA than addressing what the *REAL, HARD,
>> >CORROBORATING, FIREARMS, BALLISTICS, FORENSIC, and PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE*
>> >works together to show LHO's guilt and how the *lack* of it undermines the
>> >likelihood of any conspiracy that might be posited. Why not skip Mark
>> >Lane #895 - infinity and work on that?
>>
>>
>> The problem, of course, is that the evidence doesn't do what you claim it
>> does.
>
>ONLY IF YOU *ISOLATE* IT FROM THE DAMNING WHOLE AND THEN TRY TO IMPEACH IT
>*PIECEMEAL*. ALSO, THE "EVERYTHING" WAS FAKED MODE WON'T CUT IT WE ME OR
>WITH MOST PERSONS WHO TAKE THE TIME TO EXAMINE THE PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
>OF SUCH NOTIONS.

If evidence cannot stand on its own, and is easily impeached, then it
doesn't matter *how* much evidence you have. I know you despise the idea
that Oswald was framed, but the evidence is there.

Evidence that has major problems you can't explain, such as the 6.5mm
virtually round object, is easy grounds for censorship.


>> >> >and take up the

>> >> >challenge? Heck, if you need I can actually repost the 85 points in

>> >> >summary form to help you just as I did here:
>>

>> >> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/e4PJH3WUCxc/ZE5=jCC
>> >mzc=3D3D

>> >> >mgJ
>> >> >...OK Ben the floor is yours.
>>
>> >> It has been for a long time... you know where you can post all
>> >> 'challenges' to have them answered...
>>
>> >If by "floor" you mean endless time to start an continue threads of
>> >secondary importance, then I will grant you that you seem to do *that*
>> >very well. I also know that *nothing* prevents you from dealing with
>> >*ASSASSINATION-related* facts righ here in THIS NG.
>>
>> I've repeatedly pointed out why I cannot.
>>
>> I daresay that if I even *mentioned* the topic that was censored last time
>> that this post would be censored.
>
>POSSIBLY ASSASSINATION-RELATED.
>
>SINCE YOU CONTINUE TO CLAIM THERE ARE *ASSASSINATION*-RELATED FACTS YOU
>CANNOT ADDRESS HERE. THEN POST WHICH SUCH FACT IS BLOCKED IN ACJ SOMETIME
>IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. IF I AGREE IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BLOCKED I WILL
>THEN TRY TO TAKE IT BACK HERE TO SEE IF IT GETS BLOCKED. IF IT DOES, WE
>WILL GO FROM THERE, BUT I WILL TRY TO STATE MY DISAGREEMENT HERE PUBLICLY.
>
> IF IT IS SOMETHING I AGREE WITH THE BLOCK, I WILL STATE AS MUCH IN A NEW
>THREAD HERE (TAKING CARE TO AVOID SAYING ANYTHING TO GET *THAT* BLOCKED)

>AND/OR FOLLOW UP WITH A DIRECT MESSAGE TO YOUR EMAIL IF I CAN=92T GET IT
>PAST THE CENSORS OR YOU DON=92T RESPOND HERE LETTING ME KNOW YOU=92VE SEEN
>THE THREAD.


I really don't need your validation. I merely point out that censorship is
used in this forum to prevent reasonable debate... and to avoid pointing
out that some people here are allowed to tell misstruths... mislead, and
avoid reasonable points made by others.


I'll repost the censored post when I get the chance, but your validation
isn't needed. Indeed, if you refuse to respond to it in the open forum,
everyone will understand why.

>> >All you are repeatedly demonstrating, is that you truly *cannot* function
>> >without going some place where you can resort to ad hominem name-calling
>> >to make your points.
>>
>> I can point out a post where there's *NO* ad hominem whatsoever, yet was
>> censored.
>
>SEE ABOVE.

Oh, you'll never admit it... so I certainly don't expect such...

People in this forum are invested in this censorship as it is, and aren't
interested in any changes.

>> >> If I start answering them in an open forum, will you respond?
>>
>> >No sir. The challenge was made *right here* in AAJ. There is *nothing*
>> >to be gained by going over to a forum where ad hominem insults routinely
>> >substitute for reasoned debate. Indeed, I've *repeatedly* stated that it
>> >is for that very reason that I do my posting mainly here.
>>
>> >Now you can either drop your *excuses* as to why the "truth" about the
>> >ASSASSINATION supposedly "cannot" be told at AAJ or go back to "play" in
>> >the ACJ "pigpen" to be viewed by the 10's of people who routinely come
>> >there to sample the insults du jour.
>>
>> Oh, don't worry... I really never thought that anyone would respond...
>> except for DVP, who pretty much has to.
>
>SEE PRIOR COMMENTS
>
>> But the topic will never come up in this forum. (just like the topic of
>> the HSCA lying so blatantly about the Bethesda witnesses) Those interested
>> in the truth will never see the *real* adversarial position...
>
>SEE PRIOR COMMENTS DESCRIBING A WAY FOR US TO TEST THAT CONTENTION.

No validation needed. What's needed is for someone to *defend* that post.

Which will never happen.

>> >> >> >While there are some contexts that it is both necessary and useful to

>> >> >> >call someone out as a lier, a debate format is generally best served
by

>> >> >> >disallowing inflammatory labels that---while sometimes correctly

>> >> >> >used----most often end up being misued in confrontational situations

>> >> >> >and shutting down sane, intelligent interchange.

>>
>> >> >> What ends up happening is different, however.

>> >> >> What *HAS* happened in this forum is that people *routinely* say things

>> >> >> that they could never get away with in an open forum.
>> >> >
>> >> >And "mysteriously" somehow, you can't point that out unless you label

>> >> >people and call them names. Nevertheless, it's not stopped you from

>> >> >posting over here and trying to highlight behavior that you (Ben Holmes)

>> >> >deems worthy of harsh labels. C'mon, are you *really* saying you can't

>> >> >even function without name-calling?
>>
>> >> Unfortunately, you aren't being entirely truthful here... For example,
>> >> it's not possible for me to continue discussing Tony's incorrect claim...
>> >>
>> >> because such posts will be censored as "badgering". (That is, of course,
>> >> the *PRECISE* word that John McAdams used in an email to me
>> >> explaining why my posts were censored)
>
>NOT ASSASSINATION-RELATED.

But you feel compelled to answer anyway... despite the fact that you've
agreed repeatedly with me on what I've *actually* stated, as opposed to
your constant attempt to make this about 'ad hominem' attacks.

>HOWEVER, I DO POINT OUT THAT YOU HAVE A HABIT OF MERGING CONCEPTS LIKE
>"INCORRECT" OR "MISSING THE POINT" OR "MISTAKEN" AS BEING
>INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM "LYING" OR "NOT BEING ENTIRELY TRUTHFUL"

I defy you to produce an example, IN CONTEXT... for you clearly believe
that I'm wrong, and it would be a simple matter to prove otherwise.

>PERHAPS YOU OFTEN FEEL OTHERS HAVE BEEN "SILENCED" WHEN YOU NO LONGER
>HERE FROM THEM MUCH ANYMORE. BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT BECOMES TRYING AFTER A
>WHILE CONTINUING TO EXCHANGE WITH SOMEONE WHO SEEMS TO MAKE EVERY
>DISAGREEMENT OR EVERY SITUATION WHERE ONE IS NOT YET COVINCED, INTO SOME
>KIND OF ALLEGATION OF DISINGENOUSNESS.

If I only had a dime for every time I've seen an excuse similar to this
one.

>> >Already commented on the "badgering" issue. I've been censored here
>> >before too and I can't say that I have always agreed with the decisions
>> >rendered either.

Yet another agreement of the several you've offered. Yet you *STILL* are
capable of referring to "alleged" censorship.

>> Then you understand quite well that the truth cannot always be told
>> here... even granted that *NO* ad hominem is being used.
>
>NOT ASSASSINATION-RELATED.
>
>BUT TO CLARIFY, I WAS NOT CENSORED FOR BADGERING OR FOR BRINGING UP ANY
>TOPIC THAT WAS "TABOO". I WAS CENSORED FOR MAKING REMARKS DEEMED TOO
>PERSONALLY DISPARAGING BY THE MODS AND FOR MAKING AN ALLEGATION THAT A
>CERTAIN CT HAD SET UP A "SOCK PUPPET" TO PARROT HIS OWN *UNIQUE*
>THEORIES.
>
>SOME OF THE LATTER ALLEGATIONS HAD BEEN ALLOWED THROUGH BEFORE, BUT AT
>THAT JUNCTURE IT WAS DEEMED THAT THERE WAS JUST TOO MUCH OF IT GOING ON
>AND IT WAS HAMPERING RATHER THAN FURTHERING DEBATE.

Not related at all to the posts that *I* had censored.

>> You just don't like to admit that the truth cannot always be told here.
>
>NOT ASSASSINATION-RELATED.
>
>BUT ALSO INCORRECT. I AM *UNCONVINCED* ANY *ASSASSINATION*-RELATED TRUTH
>*CANNOT* BE TOLD HERE. I HAVE SPELLED OUT A PROPOSAL FOR TESTING THAT
>THEORY ABOVE.

Sounds like another strawman argument to me.

At *NO TIME WHATSOEVER* have I ever stated or implied that a particular
topic cannot be brought up (unless, of course, it's the censored posts I
mentioned)

I could get *THIS* post censored by merely stating here that XXXX refused
to explain why he claimed that XXXXXXXXXXX.


[Old material snipped]

>> >Opposing views on the *ASSASSINATION* and *ASSASSINATION*-related
>> >*evidence* are *NOT* getting censored here.
>>
>> Yes... they are. I have experienced it, and I've posted examples in the
>> open forum.
>
>SEE PRIOR COMMENTS DESCRIBING A WAY FOR US TO TEST THAT CONTENTION.

Certainly... have John allow me to post the two censored posts, and then
we'll examine them and see if any of your ad hominem attacks can be found
in them.

Alternately, I can post 'em in the open forum, and have you answer them
there.

>> >AFAIC see, only the freedom
>> >to go into "personal attack" mode is ever curtailed. ...BUT then I've
>> >only said this 150 times in this thread alone!

And yet, you repeatedly admit that you cannot point out that someone is
refusing to cite, or answer, or anything else that John deems "badgering".

Are you being consistent?

>> Speculation will never face the truth and win. I have example posts that
>> demonstrate what I'm saying.
>>
>
>INDEED. I FEEL THAT WAY EVERY TIME I SEE SPECULATION AND INFERENCE AS THE
>CENTERPIECE OF VARIOUS CT THEORIES COMMONLY ESPOUSED.
>
>SEE PRIOR COMMENTS ABOUT HOW TO TEST THE ACCURACY OF THE ASSERTION THAT
>*ASSASSINATION*-RELATED TOPICS ARE CENSORED.

Censorship is a fact. You really aren't going to get anywhere denying
that...

>> Otherwise, I'd not be saying this. You can defend this censorship as long
>> as you want, but even *YOU* admit that it censors what shouldn't be
>> censored.
>
>OCCASIONALLY, YES.

But you just said: "AFAIC see, only the freedom to go into "personal

attack" mode is ever curtailed. ...BUT then I've only said this 150 times
in this thread alone!

What is anyone to believe?

One statement you make?

Or a contrary statement that you make?

>BUT ONLY IN SUCH CONTEXTS I HAVE INDICATED IN THIS
>THREAD. OVERALL I REMAIN UNCONVINCED, AS OF YET, THAT THE OCCASIONAL
>EXCESSES ARE AS SERIOUS AS YOU IMPLY AND ARE NOT *MORE* THAN OFFSET IN THE
>LONG RUN BY THE FOSTERING OF GENERALLY SANE AND CIVIL DISCOURSE.
>
>YOU CONTEND IT EXTENDS TO *ASSASSINATION*-RELATED MATTERS. AND AS I HAVE
>SAID, LET'S PUT THAT TO THE TEST.

Is the size of the 6.5mm virtually round object an "assassination related"
matter?

And why do we need to 'put it to the test'?

I can produce the censored posts... no "test" needed. Indeed, John can now
influence any such test, since he's reading these posts.

>> >> This is similar to a well established legal principle of adversarial
>> >> proceedings.
>>
>> >> You don't have it here very much.
>>
>> >Yes. Unless the prosecution and defense attornies can call each other
>> >"liars" every name in the book, then the adversarial *process* is
>> >"clearly" impossible!

[One can wonder if you understand what adversarial process actually is -
you certainly don't describe it accurately here.]

>> I'll repeat again, I can show you a post with *NO* ad hominem in it, that
>> was censored for "badgering".
>>
>>
>
>SEE PRIOR COMMENTS.

See prior comments.

>> >> >> >Since you just *successfully* pointed out an untrue statement
>>
>> >> >> But not, however, the truth.
>>
>> >> >So now Ben Holmes is claiming he can point out a *lie* but cannot state

>> >> >a *truth* here. Just what kind of "truth"---besides ad hominem

>> >> >labeling---are you *disallowed* to state here?
>>
>> >> I've repeatedly answered above.
>>
>> >You've answered repeatedly alright. To the point where I am sure it is
>> >now quite obvious to everyone following this tiresome little exchange that
>> >ad hominem is, in fact, the only "truth" you cannot tell here.
>>
>> No... I've REPEATEDLY stated that you cannot point out that someone has
>> not responded to a point raised without it being labeled "badgering" and
>> then censored.
>>
>>
>
>SEE PRIOR COMMENTS.

The only prior comments on *THIS* issue is that you agree that this should
not be done. (Extreme examples obviously fit in another category)


Now, why can't you differentiate between me labeling someone a liar or a
coward, and me pointing out that someone is refusing to answer or cite?

Why is this difficult?

>> I can even provide an example here, but then this post would be censored.
>>
>>
>
>SEE PRIOR COMMENTS.

See prior refutations.

>> Now, since I've *REPEATEDLY* stated that its not ad hominem that is
>> necessary to be censored, can you acknowledge that I've said it?
>>
>
>YES. I CLEARLY SEE YOU ARES SAYING THAT. PLEASE SEE PRIOR COMMENTS
>DESCRIBING A WAY FOR US TO TEST THAT CONTENTION.

It's simple. I just repost them (although they've already been posted - it
may take some time for others to find them) in the open forum.


Then you can point out any "ad hominem" or unreasonable "badgering".

>> >> >Please be *specific* and let me know if the "evil" Dr. McAdams blocks

you.

>> >> >(Based on the moaning from Robert Harris and Tony Marsh, a post
>> >> >complaining about a block will usually be let through.) And, of course,
>>
>> >> >*nothing* stops you from *specifically* listing the "blocked" truth over
>> >> >in your normal venue.
>>
>> >> Yep... that's where I normally post such statements. They *DO* get posted
>> >> in the open forum.
>>
>
>SEE PRIOR COMMENTS ABOUT OUR LITTLE TEST.

No test needed, no validation from you required.

>> >Good. I'll take a look over at ACJ in the days ahead to see your
>> >*specifically* calling to attention an *ASSASSINATION*-related TRUTH that
>> >you are saying over there, but were blocked from saying over here. If I
>> >see one, I will most assuredly, try to post it over here and see if the
>> >*ASSASSINATION*-related *IDEA* is blocked from debate.
>>
>> Good... then the refutation of Bugliosi's 53 points will get posted here.
>> I rather doubt if anyone will defend the post, however.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or do so credibly...
>>
>>
>
>THE CHALLENGE WAS MADE *HERE*.

As were my challenges in the open forum that were brought to *THIS*
forum...

I can well understand your desire to host "challenges" where ... well, I'm
sure you already know.

>I WILL ENTER INTO ANY DEBATE ABOUT IT
>*HERE* UNLESS OUR LITTLE EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATES IT TO BE AMONG THE
>CENSORED *ASSASSINATION*-RELATED TRUTHS ALLEGEDLY NOT ALLOWED IN AAJ.

Since it was censored, the proof is in the emails I received from John
stating that they were censored.

>OTOH, IF THE LATTER PROVES TRUE, YOU CAN BET I WILL PROTEST VIGOROUSLY.
>I MIGHT EVEN BE PERSUADED TO COME OVER THERE TO ADDRESS ANY
>*ASSASSINATION*-RELATED TRUTH THAT CANNOT BE DEBATED HERE.

:)

Somehow, I doubt that...

>HOWEVER, I DO *NOT* WILFULLY LIE ABOUT ANYTHING---PERIOD. SO YOU CAN BET
>MY PATIENCE TO CONTINUE ANY SO-CALLED "DEBATE" WITH ANYONE CLAIMING I
>AM A LIAR OR THAT I AM WILLFULLY LYING OR WHO LAUNCHES INTO ANY OTHER FORM
>OF CRUDE AD HOMINEM ATTACK WILL BE NEXT TO NILL. (IOW, I PROBABLY WON'T
>MAKE IT PAST MY 1ST ONE OR TWO POSTS BASED ON THE BEHAVIOR THAT IS THE
>NORM OVER THERE.)

Very few Warren Commission believers can discuss the evidence without
being labeled liars, that's true.


The rest of this post has been snipped... it's far too long as it is...
and you've already indicated that you probably won't respond...

[Anthony Marsh]

He doesn't want to play ball. He wants to SPAM and play Don Quixote.

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jan 2014 22:42:31 -0500, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, January 24, 2014 5:17:34 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 24 Jan 2014 18:02:44 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>
>> >>>
>>

It seems that Ben hasn't responded to this.

He's just continuing to bitch about being "censored."

If he really *wanted* to discuss assassination issues, he would
respond.

But it seems his strategy here is merely to bitch about "censorship,"
just as his strategy on The Nuthouse is to call everybody a liar.

[John McAdams]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:38:54 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
McAdams) wrote:

>On 24 Jan 2014 16:29:15 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>

>Sashay(tm)!
>
>I think you've learned that the LNs here can kick your ass if you
>actually engage in substantive arguments.
>
>That's why you whine and bitch about not being able to call people
>"liar" and about being "censored."
>
>
>>If your answers cannot withstand critical challenge (without being
>>censored), then you really don't have answers, do you?
>>
>
>Post any one of the buff talking points above as a separate post.
>
>We'll discuss it.
>
>In fact, post them all in series.
>
>In fact, I'll answer one just to get you started:
>
>>>>Where did Rankin read that a fragment caused the throat wound in the
>>>>autopsy report?
>
>That's what one or two of the Dallas doctors (certainly, McClelland)
>first thought. So he was probably reading doctor's reports from Nov.
>22.
>
>Now show that you've got the guts to actually debate issues.
>

Seems Ben has not responded to this.

He claims to want to discuss "assassination issues," but it doesn't
appear that he really does.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52e2dbd4....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 24 Jan 2014 16:18:39 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <nt15e992rq0cqfid4...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 24 Jan 2014 00:50:40 -0500, BT George <brockg...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Holmes claims he was "censored" when he posted an argument about the
>>>6.5 mm. fragment in the cowlick area of Kennedy's skull.
>>
>>
>>I still have both posts...
>>
>>
>>>He posted one of the usual conspiracy arguments, and I responded
>>>(other people may have responded too).
>>
>>
>>The censorship was in posts directed at *YOUR* arguments.
>>
>>
>>>He ignored my arguments
>>
>>Au contraire, I *addressed* them.
>>
>
>No, you just came back with the same arguments. Multiple times.

There were new issues in the posts... you've said that you'll allow them
to be reposted so that everyone can judge.

>>>and posted the same thing again, I responded again.
>>
>>
>>Not exactly the truth of what happened. But since you have the power to
>>censor my response, this shows why such a discussion can't take place in
>>this forum.
>>
>>
>>>This went on for five or six rounds, with Holmes just repeating the
>>>same thing, and we moderators decided to kill the thread.
>>
>>Again, not the truth of what happened. I continued to RESPOND to your
>>statements... for example, here's a snippet that shows this, although I'm
>>sure that the actual issues would be censored:
>>
>>***********************************************************************
>>>>> You aren't allowed to badger people incessently until they give you
>>>>> the answer that you want.
>>>>
>>>> I'm merely responding to your posts.
>>>
>>>No, you are continuing to demand that I agree with you, and I've made
>>>it clear that I don't.
>>>
>>>You are posting spam.
>>
>>
>>I feel censorship coming on... you're threats are increasing, and all I'm
>>doing is responding to what you say (or refuse to say)
>>
>
>You don't get to badger people until the will say what you want them
>to say.

As is clear in the posts you censored, all I wanted from you is for you to
SUPPORT what you claimed.

You repeatedly made statements that you could not cite for.

>>************************************************************************
>>
>>
>>>Some people, as you know, think that if they badger the person on the
>>>other side of the argument enough, they can get the person to embrace
>>>their position.
>>>
>>>I won't name any names. :-)
>>>
>>>You can find the exchange on Google Groups, and you'll see that it
>>>went on for multiple rounds, with no new arguments or information
>>>being added.
>>
>>
>>Again, not true. Were I allowed to do so, I could QUOTE the relevant 'new
>>argument'...

And now that you've offered to let the posts be posted for all to judge,
everyone will be able to see for themselves if there were new issues or
not.

>>>If Holmes wants to post the same argument again, but if he tries to
>>>badger the other party incessantly, we are likely to start rejecting
>>>his posts.
>>>
>>>Holmes would rather had a grievance than to discuss the issues.
>>
>>How about allowing me to post the actual posts that were censored so that
>>people can judge honestly?
>>
>>
>
>Sure. But don't pretend that it was the first thing you posted.
>
>Post a link to the *entire* repetitive exchange.

The post itself contains *EVERYTHING* from the thread that was not snipped
by you. I *NEVER* snipped any content out of those threads. The proof that
I'm lying and that I *did* snip would be incredibly simple, just post the
censored posts that I sent, then post the previous post that I was
answering, and compare.



>.John


--

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52e2f178....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 24 Jan 2014 18:02:44 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <c6050284-f7b8-469d...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
>>says...
>>>
>>
>>
>>You seem to be conflicted... you keep admitting that pointing out that
>>someone has not answered a point should be allowed, and think it a bad
>>thing when it's been the cause of censorship (I trust I've not
>>misrepresented you on this point) - then forget what you've said, and go
>>back to claiming that there's "alleged" censorship.
>>
>>It's real, and I've repeatedly told you that I can present the evidence
>>for it. You aren't willing to address it in an open forum.
>>
>
>Do you want to discuss issues, or not?

You're asking an impossible question, John.

You know quite well that honest debate isn't possible in an arena where
one person has the power to censor what he doesn't like.

The questions have been asked, and they are there for you to deal with.
You can continue to refuse to answer them, and it won't bother me at all.

>I've invited you to start a thread on any one of your buff talking
>points, and we will discuss it.
>
>But you refuse.

You're refusing to answer the questions, despite the fact that I posted
them... why is that, John?

>Don't you know how that looks?

Yep... I know EXACTLY how it looks now that I've asked the questions, and
multiple forum members here have seen and responded, and yet not a one of
them has answered a *SINGLE QUESTION*. There's a perfectly good English
word that describes such a situation, but were I to use it, this post
would be censored.

So why ask a question that you *KNOW* I cannot truthfully answer?

>It looks like you know you would get your ass kicked if you actually
>discussed issues, so you bitch and whine about "censorship."
>
>Post an argument!

The questions are still here. They aren't going anywhere.

>>Interestingly, I *STILL* don't have an answer on the question of whether
>>or not you accept that repetition is a key concept in learning. (perhaps
>>that's merely a non-assassination related issue that you'll no longer
>>address...)
>>
>
>What you call "repetition" is what's called spam on the Internet.

Coming from someone in the educational field, that's quite revealing!

>>Is there *ANYONE* here other than John and myself who know what the issues
>>were in the thread where he censored my posts?
>>
>>Anyone?
>>
>>Perhaps had I been allowed to drive home the point even a single time,
>>people would now understand a little bit more about the difference in
>>thinking between John and myself.
>>
>
>Start a "6.5 mm. fragment" thread again, if you want to.
>
>And also post a link to the old, very long and very tedious thread.

As I snipped precisely *NOTHING* from the post, everything from the entire
thread of that post will be contained in it. Unless, of course, *you*
snipped material... (Which I know to be the case...)

Hoist by your own petard again comes to mind.

>>And the issue of the 6.5mm virtually round object that never gets critical
>>examination in this forum.
>>
>
>You got your chance to debate it.

You got your chance to defend it.

>Apparently your definition of "critically examined" means that
>everybody has to agree with you.

Tell me John, is there even *ONE* person on this forum that agrees with
you that you can determine "mass" from a 2 dimensional format such as
photos or X-rays?



>.John

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 15:35:00 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>

wrote:

>In article <52e2f178....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 24 Jan 2014 18:02:44 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>

>>>And the issue of the 6.5mm virtually round object that never gets critical
>>>examination in this forum.
>>>
>>
>>You got your chance to debate it.
>
>
>You got your chance to defend it.
>
>
>
>>Apparently your definition of "critically examined" means that
>>everybody has to agree with you.
>
>
>Tell me John, is there even *ONE* person on this forum that agrees with
>you that you can determine "mass" from a 2 dimensional format such as
>photos or X-rays?
>
>

See, you are at it again, making the same silly argument.

You can determine mass from *multiple* two dimensional views.

The object you are talking about has a large cross section in the AP
x-ray, but it's a sliver, barely visible on the lateral.

Now, are you going to ignore what I said, and keep making the same
silly argument?

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 15:33:17 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>>

>>Sure. But don't pretend that it was the first thing you posted.
>>
>>Post a link to the *entire* repetitive exchange.
>
>
>The post itself contains *EVERYTHING* from the thread that was not snipped
>by you. I *NEVER* snipped any content out of those threads. The proof that
>I'm lying and that I *did* snip would be incredibly simple, just post the
>censored posts that I sent, then post the previous post that I was
>answering, and compare.
>
>

I don't save old posts.

But you *could* post a link to the entire exchange from Google Groups.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <5eff0f15-9d4c-4685...@googlegroups.com>, BT George

says...
>
>On Friday, January 24, 2014 5:17:34 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 24 Jan 2014 18:02:44 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In article <c6050284-f7b8-469d...@googlegroups.com>, BT

G=
>eorge>>>> >says...

>>>> >>
>>>> >>On Friday, January 24, 2014 9:43:09 AM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> >>> On 24 Jan 2014 00:30:36 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> wrote:

>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >In article <af41dbfd-2e8c-4671-89a6-
04dd75...@googlegroups.com>, =

>BT>>>> >George>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >says...
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>They don't and you *couldn't* prove it to save your life---

just lik=

>e I
>>>> >>> >>said.
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Why was James Chaney never questioned for the Warren
Commission?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Where did the "rich oil man" come from in Chief Warren's

questioning=

> of
>>>> >>> >Ruby?
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >What credible reason can you come up with to explain Herndon's

virtu=

>ally >>>> >>> >incredible performance with Ruby's lie detector test?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Why were the NAA results buried by the Warren Commission?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Why did the Warren Commission allow the FBI to fail to answer
their
>>>> >>> >questions on Ruby?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Why was Dr. Burkley never questioned?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Why were the prosectors not allowed to view the clothing?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Why did the Warren Commission fail to do the investigation

they had=
>>>>> >>> >*planned* to determine the truth or falsity of the charge that Oswal=

>d was>>>> >>> >an FBI informant? (That 'dirty rumor')
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Why did the Warren Commission ignore virtually *all* of their

medica=

>l and>>>> >>> >ballistic's experts to come up with their 'SBT'?
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >What part of the occipital is *NOT* located in the back of the

head =

>(thus>>>> >>> >being visible in the 'BOH' photo...)
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >Why can't the slowdown testified by dozens of eyewitnesses not

be se=

>en in>>>> >>> >the extant Z-film?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Why wasn't the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray

seen by =

>anyone>>>> >>> >at the autopsy?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >What was the reasoning behind the FBI intimidation of
eyewitnesses?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released...

even t=

>o
>>>> >>> >government investigators?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Where did Rankin read that a fragment caused the throat wound

in the=

>>>>> >>> >autopsy report?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >Where did Rankin read that Oswald had attended the military's

Monter=
>ey>>>> >>> >Language Institute?

>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >How did a bullet that when we *first* hear about it entered

"below t=
>he>>>> >>> >shoulder blade" - end up entering at the "base of the neck"?

>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >These are just a few of the questions that I will not get

credible a=
>nswers>>>> >>> >for... and that yes, people will intentionally lie about.

>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> Why don't you start a new thread about any of the
talking points
>>>> >>> above.
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> Yes, you will get answers.
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> And no, you won't be allowed to call people "liar" when they
disagree
>>>> >>> with you.
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> Prove that you can actually discuss issues, rather than call
people
>>>> >>> "liar" and bitch that you have been "censored."
>>>> >>
>>>> >>

>>>> >>I agree. A new thread or threads(s) on the littany of things Ben claim=
>s>>>> >>he will get no good anwser to is exactly what I was thinking about>>>>

>>suggesting.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >Still no answers... even though by implication you promised to answer>>>>

>'em... remember you claimed you'd no longer address issues that aren't=
>>>>> >"assassination related?" There's NO POSSIBLE WAY you could make the clai=
>m>>>> >that the above issues are not "assassination related".

>>>> >
>>>>>>>> Again, do you really want to discuss issues, or not.
>>>>>>>> Take one (or many) of the above and post them as separate posts.
>>>>>>>> Just throwing a bunch of buff talking points at people is not a
>>>> serious effort at discourse.
>>>>>>>> In fact, I already answered one of them.
>>>>>>>> So the ball is in your court.
>>>>>>>> It couldn't be that you know perfect well that all of them would be
>>>> blown out of the water, could it?
>>>>>>>> .John
>>>>>>>> --
>>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
>
>And I'll take a stab at answering another couple of his questions:
>
>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to view the clothing?>
>Because:
>
>1) They didn't arrive at the morgue with him and thus were not on hand and
>to be readily examined.

This is an issue that can readily be answered... who was it that retained
the clothing?

And where was he located at the time of the autopsy?

Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer and refute your own argument.

But it will be interesting to see if *ANYONE* in this forum will answer
and tell us just who retained possession of JFK's clothing, and where he
was during the autopsy.

>2) Once they decided it might be helpful they apparently allowed
>themselves to be dissuaded from having them produced at the time, due to
>the undue pressure that was felt because the Kennedy family kept insisting
>to just "hurry things up". Humes should have insisted on doing many
>things that were not done, but let the pressure applied by Burkey and
>others on behalf of the waiting and distraught "First Family" pressure him
>into taking many, many shortcuts.

I seem to recall correcting you on this before.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?
docId=145280&relPageId=150

>However, your question is incomplete as it stands. Humes did eventually
>examine them prior to his WC testimony and testified that he thought they
>supported the wounds documented at autopsy.

Meaningless.

At that time, the body was not in front of him.

>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>
>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>been.)

Tell us where the adrenal glands are located in relation to the alleged
path of the bullet through JFK's back.

Give us your best estimate of how many inches or feet it is from the
adrenals to the back wound and throat wound.

But you won't.

>Now I am *quite* sure neither is the kind of CT answer Ben is looking for,
>but they are answers nontheless. Which is MORE than he has given me.

If this is the best of the answers that can be given, and immediately
refutable by the known evidence... it seems you have a problem.

>I am *STILL* waiting for him to provide *ANY* *specific* and *credible*
>frontal trajectories that would explain Kennedy's neck wounding in light
>of his rejection of shots from behind and of the SBT.

From what locations were JFK's neck visible?

>If I ever get THAT...then perhaps we can proceed to determine how he
>accounts for the remaining wounds on the two men.
>
>BT George
>

[Ben Holmes]

In article <k458e9hput0pojgkj...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

How strange!!!

A post ... posted, according to the date that I see, on 1/25/14... and
here it is, 1/25/14 and I've already posted my response...

Tell us John, in a censored forum where debating posts are quite *often* a
day or two apart, why is it that you've allowed not even a single day for
me to respond?

Just what is your agenda here?

>He's just continuing to bitch about being "censored."

Do you want me to stop responding to statements made, John?


Then simply tell everyone not to respond to my posts.

>If he really *wanted* to discuss assassination issues, he would
>respond.

Indeed, this is the very statement that *MANY* people would make to you,
John.

>But it seems his strategy here is merely to bitch about "censorship,"
>just as his strategy on The Nuthouse is to call everybody a liar.

Your opinion is not fact, John.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52e2dc7b....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...

An interesting term to refer to points raised that you refuse to answer...

>I think you've learned that the LNs here can kick your ass if you
>actually engage in substantive arguments.

No John... I've learned that any real debate has to be in an open forum,
where one side of the debate cannot simply shut down and censor anything
they don't like.

Were it possible for 'LNs to kick my ass' - they've had several decades in
which to do so... I'm in the open forum every day... I'm in Amazon forums
every day.

Where's the 'ass kicking', John? Can you cite an example?

You see, it's easy to cite a DVP web page where he's responded to me
without any chance for me to answer...

It's not nearly as easy to cite a thread that I'm in where I cannot be
censored, and that shows any such 'ass kicking'.

I can, on the other hand, show many examples where believers have simply
stopped responding, and indeed, simply left the forum on any number of
issues that they could not answer.

Such as the *still* unanswered question of why no-one at the autopsy saw
the largest foreign object that can today be seen in the AP X-ray.

>That's why you whine and bitch about not being able to call people
>"liar" and about being "censored."

What's the word for someone who intentionally says something about the
evidence they know not to be true, John?

>>If your answers cannot withstand critical challenge (without being
>>censored), then you really don't have answers, do you?
>>
>
>Post any one of the buff talking points above as a separate post.
>
>We'll discuss it.

No John... you know, and I know, that no real debate is possible in this
forum. We've tried this before, and I ended up being censored for merely
responding to your claims.

As another example, BT George just posted several points that are refuted
easily by reference to the actual evidence. (I suspect you already know
this)

I will never be allowed to get him to admit this. If he does, fine... and
a good sign of his character... but I'll never be allowed to repeatedly
ask him to support his claims in contradiction to the evidence that exists
about JFK's clothing.

Will I?

>In fact, post them all in series.
>
>In fact, I'll answer one just to get you started:
>
>>>>Where did Rankin read that a fragment caused the throat wound in the
>>>>autopsy report?
>
>That's what one or two of the Dallas doctors (certainly, McClelland)
>first thought. So he was probably reading doctor's reports from Nov.
>22.
>
>Now show that you've got the guts to actually debate issues.
>
>.John

Tell us John, if Rankin was so stupid as to confuse the *DALLAS* reports
with the autopsy, just why would we believe him on anything at all?

You see, Rankin *SPECIFICALLY* referred to the autopsy.

So your answer doesn't even make credible sense.

But, let's examine the actual statement:

"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came
out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come
from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the
picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered
below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the
place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neck band of the
shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any
bone at all, that particular bullet, and go though."

So we have two statements of interest here, the statement that "a fragment
came out the front of the neck", and the statement "and the bullet,
according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all" - referring to the
bullet that struck JFK's back.

Now, both statements are referenced by Rankin as coming from the
"autopsy".

Yet Dallas DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT A BULLET IN JFK'S BACK.

I defy you to produce any statement coming out of Dallas by those doctors,
that mentioned the bullet that struck JFK's back.

You can't do it.

So your assertion isn't even credible enough to explain the statements
made by Rankin. Did you take the time to examine what Rankin said before
responding???

[Ben Holmes]

In article <da58e95p6q28spncg...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

Posted yesterday, and the answer was posted today.

Since many posts aren't posted on the same day as they are sent, you seem
to be in an incredible hurry to be refuted.

>He claims to want to discuss "assassination issues," but it doesn't
>appear that he really does.

If you really wanted discussion - you wouldn't demand it be held where you
have total control over what is said.

Now, tell us John - what *CREDIBLE* reason can you give for complaining
that I've not responded to posts dated the 24th and the 25th - when on the
25th I've answered both of them?

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 15:41:18 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>In article <5eff0f15-9d4c-4685...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
>says...
>>
>>

>>1) They didn't arrive at the morgue with him and thus were not on hand and
>>to be readily examined.
>
>
>This is an issue that can readily be answered... who was it that retained
>the clothing?
>
>And where was he located at the time of the autopsy?
>
>Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer and refute your own argument.
>

I assume the Secret Service retained the clothing, but won't bother to
check, since it doesn't matter.

The clothing was not readily at hand, and the autopsists were not
allowed to take the time to have it produced and to examine it.

>But it will be interesting to see if *ANYONE* in this forum will answer
>and tell us just who retained possession of JFK's clothing, and where he
>was during the autopsy.
>
>
>>2) Once they decided it might be helpful they apparently allowed
>>themselves to be dissuaded from having them produced at the time, due to
>>the undue pressure that was felt because the Kennedy family kept insisting
>>to just "hurry things up". Humes should have insisted on doing many
>>things that were not done, but let the pressure applied by Burkey and
>>others on behalf of the waiting and distraught "First Family" pressure him
>>into taking many, many shortcuts.
>
>I seem to recall correcting you on this before.
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=145280&relPageId=150
>

What?

The document you cited proves my point.

The doctors were not allowed to examine the clothing.

BTW, are you aware that the FBI did?

Thus, the clothing eventually made it into the body of evidence.

Are you claiming some sinister reason they did not see the clothing?

Then tell us what that way?

Otherwise, this proves nothing.

>
>
>
>>However, your question is incomplete as it stands. Humes did eventually
>>examine them prior to his WC testimony and testified that he thought they
>>supported the wounds documented at autopsy.
>
>
>Meaningless.
>

Not at all. Had Humes examined the clothing on that night of the
autopsy, he would have come to the same conclusion.

Actually, had he seen the exit defect in the collar of the shirt, he
would have figured it out much more quickly.

>At that time, the body was not in front of him.
>

So what?

>
>
>>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>
>>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>been.)
>
>
>Tell us where the adrenal glands are located in relation to the alleged
>path of the bullet through JFK's back.
>

Far below.

>Give us your best estimate of how many inches or feet it is from the
>adrenals to the back wound and throat wound.
>
>But you won't.
>

You are asking an absurdly silly question.

What is your point?

>
>>Now I am *quite* sure neither is the kind of CT answer Ben is looking for,
>>but they are answers nontheless. Which is MORE than he has given me.
>
>
>If this is the best of the answers that can be given, and immediately
>refutable by the known evidence... it seems you have a problem.
>

What is the "known evidence" that refutes what BT said?

>
>
>>I am *STILL* waiting for him to provide *ANY* *specific* and *credible*
>>frontal trajectories that would explain Kennedy's neck wounding in light
>>of his rejection of shots from behind and of the SBT.
>

Huh? Who rejected the SBT and shots from behind?

What buffs think is not relevant.

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 15:47:49 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>

wrote:

>In article <52e2dc7b....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 24 Jan 2014 16:29:15 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>

>I can, on the other hand, show many examples where believers have simply
>stopped responding, and indeed, simply left the forum on any number of
>issues that they could not answer.
>

Sure, you call them "liars" and poison the atmosphere, and drive them
away.

And then you declare victory.

You can't really win a debate with obnoxiousness, but you apparently
think you can.

>Such as the *still* unanswered question of why no-one at the autopsy saw
>the largest foreign object that can today be seen in the AP X-ray.
>

See? I have answered that, but you just don't like the answer.

So you say it "hasn't been answered."

[John McAdams]

Now note that Ben, who claims he can't really debate assassination
issues here, procedes to debate an issue.

On 25 Jan 2014 15:47:49 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>In article <52e2dc7b....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>

>>In fact, post them all in series.
>>
>>In fact, I'll answer one just to get you started:
>>
>>>>>Where did Rankin read that a fragment caused the throat wound in the
>>>>>autopsy report?
>>
>>That's what one or two of the Dallas doctors (certainly, McClelland)
>>first thought. So he was probably reading doctor's reports from Nov.
>>22.
>>
>>Now show that you've got the guts to actually debate issues.
>>
>>.John
>
>Tell us John, if Rankin was so stupid as to confuse the *DALLAS* reports
>with the autopsy, just why would we believe him on anything at all?
>
>You see, Rankin *SPECIFICALLY* referred to the autopsy.
>

But we have the autopsy report, and it doesn't say that.

We also have Dallas reports, and at least one says that.

I think you believe that nobody is ever confused or mistaken.

>So your answer doesn't even make credible sense.
>
>But, let's examine the actual statement:
>
>"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came
>out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come
>from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the
>picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered
>below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the
>place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neck band of the
>shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any
>bone at all, that particular bullet, and go though."
>
>So we have two statements of interest here, the statement that "a fragment
>came out the front of the neck", and the statement "and the bullet,
>according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all" - referring to the
>bullet that struck JFK's back.
>
>Now, both statements are referenced by Rankin as coming from the
>"autopsy".
>
>Yet Dallas DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT A BULLET IN JFK'S BACK.
>
>I defy you to produce any statement coming out of Dallas by those doctors,
>that mentioned the bullet that struck JFK's back.
>
>You can't do it.
>
>So your assertion isn't even credible enough to explain the statements
>made by Rankin. Did you take the time to examine what Rankin said before
>responding???
>

I've given you my explanation.

Now you give me your explanation.

See if you can come up with a conspiracy explanation that makes any
sense.

[cmikes]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 10:42:31 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
Stuff Trimmed

> 2) Once they decided it might be helpful they apparently allowed
>
> themselves to be dissuaded from having them produced at the time, due to
>
> the undue pressure that was felt because the Kennedy family kept insisting
>
> to just "hurry things up". Humes should have insisted on doing many
>
> things that were not done, but let the pressure applied by Burkey and
>
> others on behalf of the waiting and distraught "First Family" pressure him
>
> into taking many, many shortcuts.
>
>
>
> However, your question is incomplete as it stands. Humes did eventually
>
> examine them prior to his WC testimony and testified that he thought they
>
> supported the wounds documented at autopsy.
>
>
>
> -Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>
>
>
> See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>
> adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>
> yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>
> been.)
>
>

>
>

> BT George

This, in my mind, was one of the biggest mistakes made in the whole
investigation. If Burkley had had the balls to stand up to the Kennedy
family had just come out and tell that the autopsy was going to take at
least all night and they should give up any hope of an open coffin, it
would have answered a lot of questions right off the bat and would have
given the buffs a lot less ammunition. I'm not saying he would have to be
very blunt to them or upset Jackie and RFK more than they already were,
but he could have explained to them that the things required for a full
autopsy would take much longer. If they had shaved the head to precisely
locate the entry wound on the back of the head, and dissected the wound
track from back to front through the neck, it would have immediately
answered a lot of questions.

Of course, that still wouldn't be good enough for most of the buffs, we'd
still be hearing now, 50 years later, that all the evidence is faked, but
at least it would be something.

[John Fiorentino]

McAdams says..............

"You can't really win a debate with obnoxiousness, but you apparentl think
you can."

I say..................

You mean much the way *you've* been acting of late?


John F.


"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:pd98e9pj3tfnq1s7r...@4ax.com...

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 18:32:33 -0500, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>McAdams says..............
>
>"You can't really win a debate with obnoxiousness, but you apparentl think
>you can."
>
>I say..................
>
>You mean much the way *you've* been acting of late?
>
>

You somehow can't understand, John, and you haven't explain yourself
very well.

I still don't know what you are saying, other than that you think
Baden mounted the photo upside down.

You've mostly be huffing and puffing.

You will admit that Kennedy way lying on his back on the table, right?

I know what you think was his forehead in the photo, since your marked
it in a photo you posted.

But if Kennedy was on his back, his forehead would be toward the top
of the photo, right?

With the notch in the bone pointing upward?

You won't seem to address these questions. You just get huffy.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <b188e9hlhifdth4ui...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 25 Jan 2014 15:35:00 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <52e2f178....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 24 Jan 2014 18:02:44 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>And the issue of the 6.5mm virtually round object that never gets critical
>>>>examination in this forum.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You got your chance to debate it.
>>
>>
>>You got your chance to defend it.
>>
>>
>>>Apparently your definition of "critically examined" means that
>>>everybody has to agree with you.
>>
>>
>>Tell me John, is there even *ONE* person on this forum that agrees with
>>you that you can determine "mass" from a 2 dimensional format such as
>>photos or X-rays?
>>
>
>See, you are at it again, making the same silly argument.

It's clearly not "silly" if not even a single person is willing to step up
to the plate and argue that you can determine "mass" from a photo or
X-ray.

Nor is it "silly" when you cannot cite for it. I asked before if your
college had a physics department, you never answered. I invite you to ask
someone with a scientific background to address this.

How can something be "silly" if you cannot defend it by citing or by
logical argument?

Which fragment *WEIGHED MORE*... the 6.5mm object, or the 7x2mm object?

You're stating that one had more mass, therefore, you should be able to
'show your work' - show in a REPEATABLE fashion how you determined the
mass of an object in 2 dimensions.

>You can determine mass from *multiple* two dimensional views.

No John, you cannot.

You can judge *SIZE*... not mass.

As one website put it: "The mass of an object is a fundamental property of
the object; a numerical measure of its inertia; a fundamental measure of
the amount of matter in the object."

I'd guess that a birds feather, despite being far larger than a dime,
would weigh less. No-one who's reasonably scientifically literate, would
confuse size with mass.

But let's get back to the fundamentals, John.

Answer this one question: "WHAT IS THE LARGEST FOREIGN OBJECT SEEN IN THE
AP X- RAY BY THE NAKED EYE?"

If you were a doctor, John, and your object were to recover a few
fragments from JFK's brain, can you offer a credible explanation for why
you'd completely ignore the 6.5mm object?

>The object you are talking about has a large cross section in the AP
>x-ray, but it's a sliver, barely visible on the lateral.

Consider this:

Commander Humes: ...and we attempted to further examine the brain, and
seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size
which would permit us to recover it.

Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there,
are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's
right eye? Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the
President's eye.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in
fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain
tissue in just precisely this location.

Mr. SPECTER - How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes?

Commander HUMES - I refer to my notes for the measurements of that
fragment. I find in going back to my report, sir, that we found, in fact,
two small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of these
measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.

Now, a simple question: "TO WHICH X-RAY OR X-RAYS WAS DR. HUMES REFERRING
TO?"

Or, to put it another way, in which X-ray could the determination be made
that the 7x2 fragment was "above and somewhat behind the President's eye"?

Once you've decided which X-ray or X-rays were utilized, can you point out
the *LARGEST SEEN FOREIGN OBJECTS*?

>Now, are you going to ignore what I said, and keep making the same
>silly argument?

Au contraire, I'm not "ignoring" what you said at all, I'm ASKING YOU TO
DEFEND IT AGAINST MY REFUTATIONS.

And, just for the record, note that I've not snipped *ANYTHING* from the
post I responded to. I'd like to get that on the record before I'm accused
of snipping again.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <8688e99a3adrr52f9...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

It was *YOUR* claim that I snipped.

Under what theory of debate am I required to prove *YOUR* claim?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <pr88e9l4ohkmloep4...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 25 Jan 2014 15:41:18 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <5eff0f15-9d4c-4685...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>1) They didn't arrive at the morgue with him and thus were not on hand and
>>>to be readily examined.
>>
>>
>>This is an issue that can readily be answered... who was it that retained
>>the clothing?
>>
>>And where was he located at the time of the autopsy?
>>
>>Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer and refute your own argument.
>>
>
>I assume the Secret Service retained the clothing, but won't bother to
>check, since it doesn't matter.

No assumption is needed... we have the testimony of the man who possessed
JFK's clothing.

We also know where he was during the autopsy.

I can well understand your desire not to learn who had the clothing, or
where it was, since this would refute your statement immediately below.

>The clothing was not readily at hand, and the autopsists were not
>allowed to take the time to have it produced and to examine it.

You are unwilling to examine the evidence to determine where the clothing
was, yet make the unsupported claim that the clothing wasn't available.

You cannot cite for such a claim. You have this in common with Tony Marsh.

We also know that time wasn't an issue, as the autopsy had not just three
prosectors, but a number of others helping, any of which could have
examined the clothing without slowing down the autopsy.

An examination of the clothing wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes
at best... or would you like to dispute that?

But we *ALSO* know that it wasn't "time" that was the critical element.
Finck makes it quite clear in his contemporaneous memo just why they
weren't allowed to view the clothing.

And coming from the academic world, you should remember why they weren't
allowed to view the clothing.

If this is an 'ass kicking', it sure doesn't hurt very much! :)

>>But it will be interesting to see if *ANYONE* in this forum will answer
>>and tell us just who retained possession of JFK's clothing, and where he
>>was during the autopsy.

Still no answer...

>>>2) Once they decided it might be helpful they apparently allowed
>>>themselves to be dissuaded from having them produced at the time, due to
>>>the undue pressure that was felt because the Kennedy family kept insisting
>>>to just "hurry things up". Humes should have insisted on doing many
>>>things that were not done, but let the pressure applied by Burkey and
>>>others on behalf of the waiting and distraught "First Family" pressure him
>>>into taking many, many shortcuts.
>>
>>I seem to recall correcting you on this before.
>>
>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?
docId=145280&relPageId=150
>>
>
>What?
>
>The document you cited proves my point.
>
>The doctors were not allowed to examine the clothing.

The document proves *MY* point. It was a military decision, not coming
from the Kennedy family on the basis of any lack of time.

It also gives the reason - that doesn't support your claimed reasons, for
why they weren't allowed to view the clothing.

What is it about this document that supports anything you've stated thus
far?

>BTW, are you aware that the FBI did?

Oh? And what medical training did they have? Where they able to compare it
with the body at the autopsy as is normal in a forensic autopsy?

>Thus, the clothing eventually made it into the body of evidence.
>
>Are you claiming some sinister reason they did not see the clothing?

Are you claiming that there isn't?

What's your credible explanation for why prosectors in the course of their
normal duties were forbidden from doing what is ordinary and normal?

>Then tell us what that way?
>
>Otherwise, this proves nothing.

Well, it *does* prove that there are questions you cannot answer in a
credible manner.

The prosectors were stopped from doing their *ordinary* job, and the
reason you give cannot be supported by the evidence... which you aren't
interested in viewing.

But since you've demonstrated your lack of interest, I invite everyone to
read Greer's testimony, and tell me where JFK's clothing was.

>>>However, your question is incomplete as it stands. Humes did eventually
>>>examine them prior to his WC testimony and testified that he thought they
>>>supported the wounds documented at autopsy.
>>
>>
>>Meaningless.
>>
>
>Not at all. Had Humes examined the clothing on that night of the
>autopsy, he would have come to the same conclusion.

Speculation.

>Actually, had he seen the exit defect in the collar of the shirt, he
>would have figured it out much more quickly.

More speculation.

>>At that time, the body was not in front of him.
>>
>
>So what?

Tell us John, why do *YOU* think that a victim's clothing is normally
examined by a prosector?

>>>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>>
>>>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>>been.)
>>
>>
>>Tell us where the adrenal glands are located in relation to the alleged
>>path of the bullet through JFK's back.
>>
>
>Far below.

Then what possible excuse can this be?

>>Give us your best estimate of how many inches or feet it is from the
>>adrenals to the back wound and throat wound.
>>
>>But you won't.
>>
>
>You are asking an absurdly silly question.
>
>What is your point?

I've just made it.

But, in case anyone missed it, I'll get more specific:

You apparently believe that the historical fact that the prosectors were
forbidden from dissecting the back and throat wounds had to do with the
Adrenal glands, about a foot or two away...

Yet the doctors were *NOT* forbidden from removing organs in the body
cavity, and examining and weighing them. The kidneys are SPECIFICALLY
MENTIONED in the autopsy supplemental report, but I'm willing to predict
that you *KNEW* that the adrenals are right on top of the kidneys.

So the claim that dissection of *WOUNDS* wasn't allowed because they might
see the adrenal glands is just one of the many Warren Commission
believer's factoids that keeps getting passed along... despite the actual
evidence.

Now, you, John, didn't make this claim... but you defended without comment
BT George's claim.

So tell us John... why didn't you correct BT George?

You *DID* know that his statement was incorrect, didn't you?

>>>Now I am *quite* sure neither is the kind of CT answer Ben is looking for,
>>>but they are answers nontheless. Which is MORE than he has given me.
>>
>>
>>If this is the best of the answers that can be given, and immediately
>>refutable by the known evidence... it seems you have a problem.
>>
>
>What is the "known evidence" that refutes what BT said?

The very evidence that you're unwilling to examine (that Greer had the
clothing, and was present at the autopsy), and that on the basis of not
knowing it, can make statements that you cannot support or cite for. (that
the clothing wasn't available for examination)


Ooooh! This 'ass kicking' is really getting to me! :)

>>>I am *STILL* waiting for him to provide *ANY* *specific* and *credible*
>>>frontal trajectories that would explain Kennedy's neck wounding in light
>>>of his rejection of shots from behind and of the SBT.
>>
>
>Huh? Who rejected the SBT and shots from behind?
>
>What buffs think is not relevant.

This was, of course, a statement made by a Warren Commission believer that
John is now claiming isn't relevant.

Tell us John, why do you think that what BT George said is not relevant?

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 18:38:36 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>

You need three dimensions to figure out the weight.

Assuming that two objects are made of the same subject, to figure out
volume, you need three dimensions.

>You're stating that one had more mass, therefore, you should be able to
>'show your work' - show in a REPEATABLE fashion how you determined the
>mass of an object in 2 dimensions.
>

You need three dimensions.

I really don't understand how you are failing to understand this.

>
>>You can determine mass from *multiple* two dimensional views.
>
>No John, you cannot.
>
>You can judge *SIZE*... not mass.
>
>As one website put it: "The mass of an object is a fundamental property of
>the object; a numerical measure of its inertia; a fundamental measure of
>the amount of matter in the object."
>
>I'd guess that a birds feather, despite being far larger than a dime,
>would weigh less. No-one who's reasonably scientifically literate, would
>confuse size with mass.
>

But all the fragments were lead -- with some trace elements.

>But let's get back to the fundamentals, John.
>
>Answer this one question: "WHAT IS THE LARGEST FOREIGN OBJECT SEEN IN THE
>AP X- RAY BY THE NAKED EYE?"
>

That's oxymoronic. See with the naked eye and in an x-ray are
different things.

>If you were a doctor, John, and your object were to recover a few
>fragments from JFK's brain, can you offer a credible explanation for why
>you'd completely ignore the 6.5mm object?
>
>

Probably because it was embedded in the skull, and you were involved
in removing the brain.

>>The object you are talking about has a large cross section in the AP
>>x-ray, but it's a sliver, barely visible on the lateral.
>
>
>Consider this:
>
>Commander Humes: ...and we attempted to further examine the brain, and
>seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size
>which would permit us to recover it.
>
>Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there,
>are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's
>right eye? Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the
>President's eye.
>
>Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
>
>Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in
>fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain
>tissue in just precisely this location.
>
>Mr. SPECTER - How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes?
>
>Commander HUMES - I refer to my notes for the measurements of that
>fragment. I find in going back to my report, sir, that we found, in fact,
>two small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of these
>measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.
>
>Now, a simple question: "TO WHICH X-RAY OR X-RAYS WAS DR. HUMES REFERRING
>TO?"
>

The laterials and the AP, both of which we still have in the Archives.

>Or, to put it another way, in which X-ray could the determination be made
>that the 7x2 fragment was "above and somewhat behind the President's eye"?
>

One of the laterals, apparently.

>Once you've decided which X-ray or X-rays were utilized, can you point out
>the *LARGEST SEEN FOREIGN OBJECTS*?
>

Since he used the laterial, the 7 x 2 mm. object would have been the
largest.

>>Now, are you going to ignore what I said, and keep making the same
>>silly argument?
>
>Au contraire, I'm not "ignoring" what you said at all, I'm ASKING YOU TO
>DEFEND IT AGAINST MY REFUTATIONS.
>

You haven't refuted it. You just continue to insist that fragment in
the cowlick area was the "largest," in spite of the fact that Humes
did not think so, and it was not the largest in volume.

We know from the lateral that it was just a sliver.

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 18:44:22 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>

wrote:

>In article <pr88e9l4ohkmloep4...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 25 Jan 2014 15:41:18 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5eff0f15-9d4c-4685...@googlegroups.com>, BT George
>>>says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>1) They didn't arrive at the morgue with him and thus were not on hand and
>>>>to be readily examined.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is an issue that can readily be answered... who was it that retained
>>>the clothing?
>>>
>>>And where was he located at the time of the autopsy?
>>>
>>>Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer and refute your own argument.
>>>
>>
>>I assume the Secret Service retained the clothing, but won't bother to
>>check, since it doesn't matter.
>
>No assumption is needed... we have the testimony of the man who possessed
>JFK's clothing.
>
>We also know where he was during the autopsy.
>
>I can well understand your desire not to learn who had the clothing, or
>where it was, since this would refute your statement immediately below.
>

It doesn't matter. The autopists were rushed, and were not allowed to
take the time to examine the clothing.

>
>>The clothing was not readily at hand, and the autopsists were not
>>allowed to take the time to have it produced and to examine it.
>
>
>You are unwilling to examine the evidence to determine where the clothing
>was, yet make the unsupported claim that the clothing wasn't available.
>
>You cannot cite for such a claim. You have this in common with Tony Marsh.
>
>We also know that time wasn't an issue, as the autopsy had not just three
>prosectors, but a number of others helping, any of which could have
>examined the clothing without slowing down the autopsy.
>

Prosectors were in charge. It would not be proper to delegate that to
non-medical people.

Also: we have the clothing now, and it shows the wounds consistent
with what the autopsy found.

>An examination of the clothing wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes
>at best... or would you like to dispute that?
>

They were being rushed. It wasn't thought worth the time. That was a
mistake, but it wasn't conspiratorial.

>But we *ALSO* know that it wasn't "time" that was the critical element.
>Finck makes it quite clear in his contemporaneous memo just why they
>weren't allowed to view the clothing.
>

They were told not to.

But that was because of "the family." That's what Finck said in his
Shaw trial testimony.

Also, Manchester makes it clear that the folks on the 17th floor were
rushing matters by continually calling down to the autopsy theater
asking "when will it be done."

The HSCA also found that the autopsy was rushed.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt

>And coming from the academic world, you should remember why they weren't
>allowed to view the clothing.
>
>If this is an 'ass kicking', it sure doesn't hurt very much! :)
>

Maybe you have been ingesting something that protects you from feeling
pain.

>
>>>But it will be interesting to see if *ANYONE* in this forum will answer
>>>and tell us just who retained possession of JFK's clothing, and where he
>>>was during the autopsy.
>
>
>Still no answer...
>
>
>
>>>>2) Once they decided it might be helpful they apparently allowed
>>>>themselves to be dissuaded from having them produced at the time, due to
>>>>the undue pressure that was felt because the Kennedy family kept insisting
>>>>to just "hurry things up". Humes should have insisted on doing many
>>>>things that were not done, but let the pressure applied by Burkey and
>>>>others on behalf of the waiting and distraught "First Family" pressure him
>>>>into taking many, many shortcuts.
>>>
>>>I seem to recall correcting you on this before.
>>>
>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?
>docId=145280&relPageId=150
>>>
>>
>>What?
>>
>>The document you cited proves my point.
>>
>>The doctors were not allowed to examine the clothing.
>
>
>The document proves *MY* point. It was a military decision, not coming
>from the Kennedy family on the basis of any lack of time.

See above.

The people in the autopsy theater were being pressured from the 17th
floor.

The military people in the room were reacting to the perceived wishes
of their civilian masters.

Robert McNamara was there, you know.

>
>It also gives the reason - that doesn't support your claimed reasons, for
>why they weren't allowed to view the clothing.
>
>What is it about this document that supports anything you've stated thus
>far?
>

The autopsists were being pressured to do it quickly.

>
>
>>BTW, are you aware that the FBI did?
>
>
>Oh? And what medical training did they have? Where they able to compare it
>with the body at the autopsy as is normal in a forensic autopsy?
>

Their training did allow them to make forensic determinations, right.

We are talking about top experts like Robert Frazier.

>
>>Thus, the clothing eventually made it into the body of evidence.
>>
>>Are you claiming some sinister reason they did not see the clothing?
>
>
>Are you claiming that there isn't?
>

Yes.

Do you think the clothing now if evidence is faked or forged?

I'll expect an honest "yes" or "no."

>What's your credible explanation for why prosectors in the course of their
>normal duties were forbidden from doing what is ordinary and normal?
>

They were rushed.

>
>
>>Then tell us what that way?
>>
>>Otherwise, this proves nothing.
>
>
>Well, it *does* prove that there are questions you cannot answer in a
>credible manner.
>
>The prosectors were stopped from doing their *ordinary* job, and the
>reason you give cannot be supported by the evidence... which you aren't
>interested in viewing.
>
>But since you've demonstrated your lack of interest, I invite everyone to
>read Greer's testimony, and tell me where JFK's clothing was.
>

So what?

>
>>>>However, your question is incomplete as it stands. Humes did eventually
>>>>examine them prior to his WC testimony and testified that he thought they
>>>>supported the wounds documented at autopsy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Meaningless.
>>>
>>
>>Not at all. Had Humes examined the clothing on that night of the
>>autopsy, he would have come to the same conclusion.
>
>
>Speculation.
>

No, we know what the clothing showed.

>
>>Actually, had he seen the exit defect in the collar of the shirt, he
>>would have figured it out much more quickly.
>
>
>More speculation.
>

Pretty solid inference.

The fibers on the shirt were displaced outward. That showed an
exiting bullet.

>
>>>At that time, the body was not in front of him.
>>>
>>
>>So what?
>
>
>Tell us John, why do *YOU* think that a victim's clothing is normally
>examined by a prosector?
>
>
>
>>>>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>>>
>>>>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>>>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>>>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>>>been.)
>>>
>>>
>>>Tell us where the adrenal glands are located in relation to the alleged
>>>path of the bullet through JFK's back.
>>>
>>
>>Far below.
>
>
>Then what possible excuse can this be?
>

You think it's sinister that the adrenals were not described in the
autopsy?

That was at the behest of Adm. Burkley, who asked Humes not to mention
them.

>
>>>Give us your best estimate of how many inches or feet it is from the
>>>adrenals to the back wound and throat wound.
>>>
>>>But you won't.
>>>
>>
>>You are asking an absurdly silly question.
>>
>>What is your point?
>
>
>I've just made it.
>
>But, in case anyone missed it, I'll get more specific:
>
>You apparently believe that the historical fact that the prosectors were
>forbidden from dissecting the back and throat wounds had to do with the
>Adrenal glands, about a foot or two away...
>

No, those were entirely different issues.

>Yet the doctors were *NOT* forbidden from removing organs in the body
>cavity, and examining and weighing them. The kidneys are SPECIFICALLY
>MENTIONED in the autopsy supplemental report, but I'm willing to predict
>that you *KNEW* that the adrenals are right on top of the kidneys.
>
>So the claim that dissection of *WOUNDS* wasn't allowed because they might
>see the adrenal glands is just one of the many Warren Commission
>believer's factoids that keeps getting passed along... despite the actual
>evidence.
>

I never made that claim. We know why the adrenals were not mentioned.
It was to conceal a health problem that Kennedy had.

>Now, you, John, didn't make this claim... but you defended without comment
>BT George's claim.
>
>So tell us John... why didn't you correct BT George?
>
>You *DID* know that his statement was incorrect, didn't you?
>

I didn't know he made the claim.

But why don't you address what *I'm* saying?

>
>>>>Now I am *quite* sure neither is the kind of CT answer Ben is looking for,
>>>>but they are answers nontheless. Which is MORE than he has given me.
>>>
>>>
>>>If this is the best of the answers that can be given, and immediately
>>>refutable by the known evidence... it seems you have a problem.
>>>
>>
>>What is the "known evidence" that refutes what BT said?
>
>
>The very evidence that you're unwilling to examine (that Greer had the
>clothing, and was present at the autopsy), and that on the basis of not
>knowing it, can make statements that you cannot support or cite for. (that
>the clothing wasn't available for examination)
>
>
>Ooooh! This 'ass kicking' is really getting to me! :)
>

I think you don't understand at all how lame your arguments are.

>
>>>>I am *STILL* waiting for him to provide *ANY* *specific* and *credible*
>>>>frontal trajectories that would explain Kennedy's neck wounding in light
>>>>of his rejection of shots from behind and of the SBT.
>>>
>>
>>Huh? Who rejected the SBT and shots from behind?
>>
>>What buffs think is not relevant.
>
>
>This was, of course, a statement made by a Warren Commission believer that
>John is now claiming isn't relevant.
>
>Tell us John, why do you think that what BT George said is not relevant?
>
>

If he doesn't believe the SBT, and doesn't think shots came from
behind, he's wrong.

But so what?

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 18:39:18 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>

wrote:

>In article <8688e99a3adrr52f9...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 25 Jan 2014 15:33:17 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Sure. But don't pretend that it was the first thing you posted.
>>>>
>>>>Post a link to the *entire* repetitive exchange.
>>>
>>>
>>>The post itself contains *EVERYTHING* from the thread that was not snipped
>>>by you. I *NEVER* snipped any content out of those threads. The proof that
>>>I'm lying and that I *did* snip would be incredibly simple, just post the
>>>censored posts that I sent, then post the previous post that I was
>>>answering, and compare.
>>>
>>
>>I don't save old posts.
>>
>>But you *could* post a link to the entire exchange from Google Groups.
>
>
>It was *YOUR* claim that I snipped.
>
>Under what theory of debate am I required to prove *YOUR* claim?

You could refute my claim, if I'm wrong.

But you know I'm right.

[Ben Holmes]

Posts are being snipped by John... I've not been snipping anything. So if
someone accuses me of snipping this post - I've stated up front that it
was not I who did it.


In article <pd98e9pj3tfnq1s7r...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 25 Jan 2014 15:47:49 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <52e2dc7b....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 24 Jan 2014 16:29:15 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>
>>I can, on the other hand, show many examples where believers have simply
>>stopped responding, and indeed, simply left the forum on any number of
>>issues that they could not answer.
>>
>
>Sure, you call them "liars" and poison the atmosphere, and drive them
>away.

You cannot show this in the posts that you censored, John.

>And then you declare victory.
>
>You can't really win a debate with obnoxiousness, but you apparently
>think you can.

You really cannot win a debate by censoring what you cannot answer, John.

>>Such as the *still* unanswered question of why no-one at the autopsy saw
>>the largest foreign object that can today be seen in the AP X-ray.
>>
>
>See? I have answered that, but you just don't like the answer.

QUOTE the answer, John.

This is a tactic that Tony Marsh often employs.

>So you say it "hasn't been answered."

Simply quote your previous answer, John.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ok98e99cgajnooeis...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>Now note that Ben, who claims he can't really debate assassination
>issues here, procedes to debate an issue.

Who said I can't debate?

I said that my posts will be censored when you cannot answer anymore.

If someone begins to look foolish or gets too embarrassed, the post will
be censored.

>On 25 Jan 2014 15:47:49 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <52e2dc7b....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>
>>>In fact, post them all in series.
>>>
>>>In fact, I'll answer one just to get you started:
>>>
>>>>>>Where did Rankin read that a fragment caused the throat wound in the
>>>>>>autopsy report?
>>>
>>>That's what one or two of the Dallas doctors (certainly, McClelland)
>>>first thought. So he was probably reading doctor's reports from Nov.
>>>22.
>>>
>>>Now show that you've got the guts to actually debate issues.
>>>
>>>.John
>>
>>Tell us John, if Rankin was so stupid as to confuse the *DALLAS* reports
>>with the autopsy, just why would we believe him on anything at all?
>>
>>You see, Rankin *SPECIFICALLY* referred to the autopsy.
>>
>
>But we have the autopsy report, and it doesn't say that.

This is *YOUR* problem to explain.

We *KNOW FOR A FACT* that there were two autopsy reports, who's to say
that there weren't three?

We also have the Dallas Doctor's reports, AND THEY DON'T SAY WHAT RANKIN
SAID EITHER.

You somehow forgot to mention that. (even though I explicitly explained it
below)

>We also have Dallas reports, and at least one says that.

*NONE* of them refer to the back wound. Surely you understand that after
my careful explanation given below.

>I think you believe that nobody is ever confused or mistaken.

Then all you have to do is admit what the evidence says, and claim that
they were mistaken.

That's certainly an explanation.

It may not be the most *credible* one... but then, that would go to
personal opinion and judgment.

>>So your answer doesn't even make credible sense.
>>
>>But, let's examine the actual statement:
>>
>>"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came
>>out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come
>>from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the
>>picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered
>>below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the
>>place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neck band of the
>>shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any
>>bone at all, that particular bullet, and go though."
>>
>>So we have two statements of interest here, the statement that "a fragment
>>came out the front of the neck", and the statement "and the bullet,
>>according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all" - referring to the
>>bullet that struck JFK's back.
>>
>>Now, both statements are referenced by Rankin as coming from the
>>"autopsy".
>>
>>Yet Dallas DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT A BULLET IN JFK'S BACK.
>>
>>I defy you to produce any statement coming out of Dallas by those doctors,
>>that mentioned the bullet that struck JFK's back.
>>
>>You can't do it.

And, of course, you didn't.

>>So your assertion isn't even credible enough to explain the statements
>>made by Rankin. Did you take the time to examine what Rankin said before
>>responding???
>
>I've given you my explanation.

And now that I've refuted it, you'll refuse to address the issue again.

You see, *I'm* willing to discuss... but discussion is not a one way
street.

>Now you give me your explanation.

You won't like it.

>See if you can come up with a conspiracy explanation that makes any
>sense.

It makes *perfect* sense... you just don't like the idea that anyone was
covering up anything.


But, there's lots more questions that you've not touched yet...


--

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52e330fc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

You've just proven, by *your* refusal to answer the questions, that you
"don't want to play ball".

I don't blame you.

>> It couldn't be that you know perfect well that all of them would be
>> blown out of the water, could it?
>>
>> .John
>>
>> --
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>
>

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 19:16:04 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>In article <ok98e99cgajnooeis...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>Now note that Ben, who claims he can't really debate assassination
>>issues here, procedes to debate an issue.
>
>
>

>>Now you give me your explanation.
>
>
>You won't like it.
>
>
>>See if you can come up with a conspiracy explanation that makes any
>>sense.
>
>
>It makes *perfect* sense... you just don't like the idea that anyone was
>covering up anything.
>

So you think the neck defect really *was* from a fragment, and not a
shot?

I thought most of you conspiracists believed Kennedy was hit in the
throat from the front.

You *don't* believe that?

If you think the defect really was from a shot, then Rankin was simply
mistaken.

>
>But, there's lots more questions that you've not touched yet...

By all means post any you want.

[John Fiorentino]

Crapola John, I've already addressed them.

You've either not read the posts, or are being disingenuous, or maybe
both.

John F.





"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:odi8e99f4s0u65afn...@4ax.com...

[Ben Holmes]

In article <i3j8e99ro272m6n33...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

Dead silence... You claim I've not refuted you, yet you cannot produce
even ONE person who will agree that you can determine mass from a two
dimensional photo or X-ray.

Indeed, just below you admit that you cannot determine *WEIGHT* with only
two dimensions - are you now asserting no correlation between mass and
weight?

You also responded below implying that you cannot determine mass with only
two dimensions - WHICH IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.

>>Which fragment *WEIGHED MORE*... the 6.5mm object, or the 7x2mm object?
>>
>
>You need three dimensions to figure out the weight.

You also need three dimensions to figure out the mass, John.

>Assuming that two objects are made of the same subject, to figure out
>volume, you need three dimensions.

It's good that you're illustrating some knowledge of the topic... but you
still cannot explain how *ANYONE* can duplicate your knowledge that the
7x2mm object had more mass than the 6.5mm object.

In other words, everyone simply has to take your word for it.

It's not science, that can be duplicated by others.


But *MY* assertion, that the 6.5mm virtually round object is the largest
foreign object seen in the AP X-ray can be duplicated day in and day out
with anyone either familiar with or even *NOT* intimately familiar with
X-rays.

It's not rocket science... *ANYONE* can easily see what the largest
foreign object in the AP X-ray is. As Mantik showed, even a 5 year old can
figure it out.

That you continue to deny this is more telling of your faith than any
actual fact in this case.

>>You're stating that one had more mass, therefore, you should be able to
>>'show your work' - show in a REPEATABLE fashion how you determined the
>>mass of an object in 2 dimensions.
>>
>
>You need three dimensions.
>
>I really don't understand how you are failing to understand this.

Oh, but I DO understand it, John. That's why I'm asking *YOU* these
questions.

If you need three dimensions, as you're now stating, THEN HOW CAN YOU
CLAIM ONE OBJECT HAD MORE MASS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THREE DIMENSIONS TO
WORK WITH?


Why is this difficult to understand, John? You pretend that *I* don't
understand it, but this has been my theme all along - ever since you first
change the word from "size" to "mass".

>>>You can determine mass from *multiple* two dimensional views.
>>
>>No John, you cannot.
>>
>>You can judge *SIZE*... not mass.

I should correct that to mean you can determine size in two dimensions. A
photo of a photo of a car might not look any different than a photo of a
car, yet one would have much greater total size.

>>As one website put it: "The mass of an object is a fundamental property of
>>the object; a numerical measure of its inertia; a fundamental measure of
>>the amount of matter in the object."
>>
>>I'd guess that a birds feather, despite being far larger than a dime,
>>would weigh less. No-one who's reasonably scientifically literate, would
>>confuse size with mass.
>>
>
>But all the fragments were lead -- with some trace elements.

No John, we don't *HAVE* the 6.5mm virtually round object... you're merely
*speculating* that it was lead.

And even if you presumed that it *was* lead, YOU STILL CAN'T PRODUCE A
REPEATABLE METHOD FOR OTHERS TO COME TO YOUR DETERMINATION THAT IT HAD
LESS MASS THAN THE 7x2mm FRAGMENT.

>>But let's get back to the fundamentals, John.
>>
>>Answer this one question: "WHAT IS THE LARGEST FOREIGN OBJECT SEEN IN THE
>>AP X- RAY BY THE NAKED EYE?"
>>
>
>That's oxymoronic. See with the naked eye and in an x-ray are
>different things.

Oh, I don't know about you John, but I *DO* view X-rays with my naked eye.
Photos too... but I'm willing to play along...

I can keep at it until you censor me from asking what you refuse to
answer... "WHAT IS THE LARGEST FOREIGN OBJECT SEEN IN THE AP X-RAY?" I
think we've almost established that "large" in two dimensions is only the
size of an object IN TWO DIMENSIONS...

So ... care to try answering?

>>If you were a doctor, John, and your object were to recover a few
>>fragments from JFK's brain, can you offer a credible explanation for why
>>you'd completely ignore the 6.5mm object?
>>
>
>Probably because it was embedded in the skull, and you were involved
>in removing the brain.

Ah! So you'd be like the detective who, at the bloody crime scene,
completely ignored the knife because it wasn't stuck *IN* the victim.

But no, that's not quite right either... we'll have to have the victim
LAYING ON TOP OF THE KNIFE to get a proper analogy.

There's a reason that I almost always include the modifier "credible" in
my questions.

Dr. Humes was using the X-rays to determine *WHAT* to try to go after - I
suspect that even you will agree with this.

So why didn't the detective bag the knife lying under the bloody victim?

>>>The object you are talking about has a large cross section in the AP
>>>x-ray, but it's a sliver, barely visible on the lateral.
>>
>>
>>Consider this:
>>
>>Commander Humes: ...and we attempted to further examine the brain, and
>>seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size
>>which would permit us to recover it.
>>
>>Mr. SPECTER - When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there,
>>are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's
>>right eye? Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the
>>President's eye.
>>
>>Mr. SPECTER - Will you proceed, then, to tell us what you did then?
>>
>>Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We directed carefully in this region and in
>>fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain
>>tissue in just precisely this location.
>>
>>Mr. SPECTER - How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes?
>>
>>Commander HUMES - I refer to my notes for the measurements of that
>>fragment. I find in going back to my report, sir, that we found, in fact,
>>two small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of these
>>measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.
>>
>>Now, a simple question: "TO WHICH X-RAY OR X-RAYS WAS DR. HUMES REFERRING
>>TO?"
>>
>
>The laterials and the AP, both of which we still have in the Archives.

Good... excellent!!! You correctly divine that the Lateral X-ray wouldn't
give the 7x2 object in terms of the orbit, and the AP X-ray wouldn't give
the 7x2 object in terms of being in front (other than vaguely in terms of
the fuzziness of the object)

You understand that Humes was looking at both.


That's a start.

>>Or, to put it another way, in which X-ray could the determination be made
>>that the 7x2 fragment was "above and somewhat behind the President's eye"?
>>
>
>One of the laterals, apparently.

No John... you got it right at first, now you missed it again. The lateral
will locate the 7x2 object in the front to back directions... BUT IT
CANNOT PHYSICALLY SHOW YOU LEFT AND RIGHT. (other, than as previously
noted, that 'far' objects will be somewhat sharper in detail due to being
closer to the film)

Now perhaps *technically* you're correct, it can be determined *ONLY* on
the basis of the lateral to be "above and somewhat behind the President's
eye" - but you know, and I know, that we're speaking of the President's
*RIGHT* eye, don't we?

>>Once you've decided which X-ray or X-rays were utilized, can you point out
>>the *LARGEST SEEN FOREIGN OBJECTS*?
>>
>
>Since he used the laterial, the 7 x 2 mm. object would have been the
>largest.

No John, again you start off on the right foot, then slip up.

You *KNOW* that Dr. Humes had to have used both X-rays. You've already
stated this.

YOU'VE ALREADY STATED THIS. Why do you contradict yourself now?

Now, tell us which object seen in the lateral is *LARGER IN TWO
DIMENSIONAL SIZE* than the 6.5mm virtually round object seen in the AP
X-ray...


I can keep this up until you censor me again, John. These are basic facts
that anyone 'not of the faith' can determine in a matter of a few minutes.

>>>Now, are you going to ignore what I said, and keep making the same
>>>silly argument?
>>
>>Au contraire, I'm not "ignoring" what you said at all, I'm ASKING YOU TO
>>DEFEND IT AGAINST MY REFUTATIONS.
>
>You haven't refuted it.

Yes John, I have.

I've pointed out that you cannot offer any repeatable way for *ANYONE* to
determine that the 7x2mm object has greater mass than the 6.5mm object.

*THAT* refutes your assertion quite completely.

If *YOU* are the only source of this information, and *NO-ONE ELSE* can
possibly duplicate your work, then what you have is merely *YOUR OPINION*,
and not facts.

Indeed you're correct that I can't refute your OPINION.

So simply state for the record that these are your OPINIONS, and nothing
more need be said.

>You just continue to insist that fragment in
>the cowlick area was the "largest," in spite of the fact that Humes
>did not think so, and it was not the largest in volume.

I defy you to produce *ANY TESTIMONY WHATSOEVER* that would lead anyone to
believe that Dr. Humes did not think that the 6.5mm object was not the
largest.

You are *SPECULATING* based on your beliefs.

>We know from the lateral that it was just a sliver.

No John, we *don't* know that. You have a fundamental preconception here
that you've not demonstrated.

>>And, just for the record, note that I've not snipped *ANYTHING* from the
>>post I responded to. I'd like to get that on the record before I'm accused
>>of snipping again.

[John Fiorentino]

TRY READING THIS REPOST THIS TIME!!!


>>>>> But did you answer my question? Was Kennedy on his back on the table?

THIS I HAVE ANSWERED SEVERAL TIMES - YES, YES, YES. He WAS ON HIS BACK!


>>>>> If so, was or was not his forehead higher than the posterior part of
>>>>> this head?

NO, NO, NO, it WAS NOT - One of the reasons Baden couldn't point to the
"top" of JFK's head is because the damn picture was CROPPED. The TOP
showed the back of JFK's head from the top looking into the empty cranial
vault.

The autopsists gloved finger tips with the RULER constituted the TOP. This
is not even visible in Baden's gross bastardization of F-8. Which was
ENLARGED and CROPPED so as to be essentially USELESS.


>>>>> And if so, was not the forehead toward the top of the picture when
>>>>> photographed?

NO, NO, NO - (See above)

OVER and OUT Commander Cody!

John F.





"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:odi8e99f4s0u65afn...@4ax.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, we have the third dimension. You are forgetting that there were
two X-rays. The one showing the object is the A-P ray which someone
claims shows a bullet fragment with a diameter of 6.5 mm in the BACK of
the head. The right lateral X-ray shows nothing in the back of the head.
So the third dimension would be 0.0 mm. If the object is actually in the
front of the head, perspective would mean that it is larger. That does
not help frame Oswald if it is 7.0 mm in diameter in the front of the head.
The figure of 6.5 was chosen specifically to frame Oswald. It could have
been 6.0 or 7.0, but the cover-up said exactly 6.5 mm in order to frame
Oswald because they were so stupid that they thought a bullet from
Oswald's 6.5 mm rifle must be 6.5 mm wide. Because they knew nothing
about rifles they did not realize that Oswald's WCC ammo was actually
6.8 mm wide. This is how you can spot a cover-up. When the experts do
not actually measure something accurately, but guess based on which
number they think it should be.

Humes was talking about the two fragments he actually removed from the
brain, not what he saw on the X-rays.

>
>> Or, to put it another way, in which X-ray could the determination be made
>> that the 7x2 fragment was "above and somewhat behind the President's eye"?
>>
>
> One of the laterals, apparently.
>
>> Once you've decided which X-ray or X-rays were utilized, can you point out
>> the *LARGEST SEEN FOREIGN OBJECTS*?
>>
>
> Since he used the laterial, the 7 x 2 mm. object would have been the
> largest.
>
>
>>> Now, are you going to ignore what I said, and keep making the same
>>> silly argument?
>>
>> Au contraire, I'm not "ignoring" what you said at all, I'm ASKING YOU TO
>> DEFEND IT AGAINST MY REFUTATIONS.
>>
>
> You haven't refuted it. You just continue to insist that fragment in
> the cowlick area was the "largest," in spite of the fact that Humes
> did not think so, and it was not the largest in volume.
>
> We know from the lateral that it was just a sliver.
>

Exactly how many mm is a sliver? Can you see it? That is your third
dimension to estimate weight.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/25/2014 6:39 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <8688e99a3adrr52f9...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>> On 25 Jan 2014 15:33:17 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure. But don't pretend that it was the first thing you posted.
>>>>
>>>> Post a link to the *entire* repetitive exchange.
>>>
>>>
>>> The post itself contains *EVERYTHING* from the thread that was not snipped
>>> by you. I *NEVER* snipped any content out of those threads. The proof that
>>> I'm lying and that I *did* snip would be incredibly simple, just post the
>>> censored posts that I sent, then post the previous post that I was
>>> answering, and compare.
>>>
>>
>> I don't save old posts.
>>
>> But you *could* post a link to the entire exchange from Google Groups.
>
>
> It was *YOUR* claim that I snipped.
>
> Under what theory of debate am I required to prove *YOUR* claim?
>
>

Under Usenet protocols you are required to accurately quote the claim
you are disputing.

[John McAdams]

Holmes has again insisted that the 6.5 mm. fragment in the skull at
the cowlick area is the "largest" object in the x-ray.

It's ignoring the fact that it's also visible in the lateral x-rays,
and it's just a sliver.

He just goes round and round, ignoring my argument, and merely
repeating himself.

I think he wants to argue that the object was put there by the Evil
Minions of The Conspiracy.

But that would be silly, since there is plenty of evidence of the
entry without the fragment.

First, there is the pattern of radiating fractures from the cowlick
entry.

Second, there is the Back of the Head photo, which shows an entry
defect in the scalp at that point.

On 25 Jan 2014 21:01:18 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 21:02:24 -0500, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>TRY READING THIS REPOST THIS TIME!!!
>
>
>>>>>> But did you answer my question? Was Kennedy on his back on the table?
>
>THIS I HAVE ANSWERED SEVERAL TIMES - YES, YES, YES. He WAS ON HIS BACK!
>
>
>>>>>> If so, was or was not his forehead higher than the posterior part of
>>>>>> this head?
>
>NO, NO, NO, it WAS NOT - One of the reasons Baden couldn't point to the
>"top" of JFK's head is because the damn picture was CROPPED. The TOP
>showed the back of JFK's head from the top looking into the empty cranial
>vault.
>
>The autopsists gloved finger tips with the RULER constituted the TOP. This
>is not even visible in Baden's gross bastardization of F-8. Which was
>ENLARGED and CROPPED so as to be essentially USELESS.
>
>
>>>>>> And if so, was not the forehead toward the top of the picture when
>>>>>> photographed?
>
>NO, NO, NO - (See above)
>
>OVER and OUT Commander Cody!
>

I've looked at the clip in Pat Speer's video again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvZWeYXpec

He orientes the notch on the anterior edge of the defect about about
1:00 o'clock. He also points to the bevelled exit defect.

He points to bone anterior to the defect (toward the top of the photo)
and says "this is the front part of the skull."

He's right about all that.

He has oriented the photo 180 degrees from the way it's usually shown,
but he describes all the features properly.

So what makes it "upside down?"

Did or did not Stringer see it that way in his viewfinder?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/25/2014 6:36 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2014 18:32:33 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>> McAdams says..............
>>
>> "You can't really win a debate with obnoxiousness, but you apparentl think
>> you can."
>>
>> I say..................
>>
>> You mean much the way *you've* been acting of late?
>>
>>
>
> You somehow can't understand, John, and you haven't explain yourself
> very well.
>
> I still don't know what you are saying, other than that you think
> Baden mounted the photo upside down.
>

He's trying to claim that Baden was part of the cover-up, trying to
mislead the public.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <uhj8e91slc1kl73jg...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 25 Jan 2014 18:44:22 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <pr88e9l4ohkmloep4...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 25 Jan 2014 15:41:18 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <5eff0f15-9d4c-4685...@googlegroups.com>, BT
George
>>>>says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>1) They didn't arrive at the morgue with him and thus were not on hand and
>>>>>to be readily examined.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This is an issue that can readily be answered... who was it that retained
>>>>the clothing?
>>>>
>>>>And where was he located at the time of the autopsy?
>>>>
>>>>Don't worry, I don't expect you to answer and refute your own argument.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I assume the Secret Service retained the clothing, but won't bother to
>>>check, since it doesn't matter.
>>
>>No assumption is needed... we have the testimony of the man who possessed
>>JFK's clothing.
>>
>>We also know where he was during the autopsy.
>>
>>I can well understand your desire not to learn who had the clothing, or
>>where it was, since this would refute your statement immediately below.
>>
>
>It doesn't matter. The autopists were rushed, and were not allowed to
>take the time to examine the clothing.

It *DOES* matter John. You aren't stating historical reality... when you
misrepresent what happened and refuse to examine the evidence, you can
come up with all sorts of ideas.

For example, the idea that the clothing was not *available* for
examination isn't true, is it John?

>>>The clothing was not readily at hand, and the autopsists were not
>>>allowed to take the time to have it produced and to examine it.
>>
>>
>>You are unwilling to examine the evidence to determine where the clothing
>>was, yet make the unsupported claim that the clothing wasn't available.
>>
>>You cannot cite for such a claim. You have this in common with Tony Marsh.
>>
>>We also know that time wasn't an issue, as the autopsy had not just three
>>prosectors, but a number of others helping, any of which could have
>>examined the clothing without slowing down the autopsy.
>>
>
>Prosectors were in charge. It would not be proper to delegate that to
>non-medical people.

Col Finck clearly disagrees with your claim, John.

>Also: we have the clothing now, and it shows the wounds consistent
>with what the autopsy found.

No John, we don't know that. There's a reason prosectors examine the
clothing of a victim.

>>An examination of the clothing wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes
>>at best... or would you like to dispute that?
>>
>
>They were being rushed. It wasn't thought worth the time. That was a
>mistake, but it wasn't conspiratorial.

It had nothing to do with time, John. Can you quote the exact reference to
"academic" interest?

>>But we *ALSO* know that it wasn't "time" that was the critical element.
>>Finck makes it quite clear in his contemporaneous memo just why they
>>weren't allowed to view the clothing.
>>
>
>They were told not to.
>
>But that was because of "the family." That's what Finck said in his
>Shaw trial testimony.

No John, that's *NOT* what Finck wrote in his memo.

>Also, Manchester makes it clear that the folks on the 17th floor were
>rushing matters by continually calling down to the autopsy theater
>asking "when will it be done."
>
>The HSCA also found that the autopsy was rushed.
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt

Tell us John, can you QUOTE the relevant evidence concerning the order
that they not be allowed to view the clothing?

It gives the exact reasoning, dare you quote it?

>>And coming from the academic world, you should remember why they weren't
>>allowed to view the clothing.
>>
>>If this is an 'ass kicking', it sure doesn't hurt very much! :)
>>
>
>Maybe you have been ingesting something that protects you from feeling
>pain.

Oh, I'm not feeling any pain at all John... I have the evidence on my
side...

>>>>But it will be interesting to see if *ANYONE* in this forum will answer
>>>>and tell us just who retained possession of JFK's clothing, and where he
>>>>was during the autopsy.
>>
>>
>>Still no answer...

Tell us John, does Greer strike a bell?

>>>>>2) Once they decided it might be helpful they apparently allowed
>>>>>themselves to be dissuaded from having them produced at the time, due to
>>>>>the undue pressure that was felt because the Kennedy family kept insisting
>>>>>to just "hurry things up". Humes should have insisted on doing many
>>>>>things that were not done, but let the pressure applied by Burkey and
>>>>>others on behalf of the waiting and distraught "First Family" pressure him
>>>>>into taking many, many shortcuts.
>>>>
>>>>I seem to recall correcting you on this before.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?
>>docId=145280&relPageId=150
>>>>
>>>
>>>What?
>>>
>>>The document you cited proves my point.
>>>
>>>The doctors were not allowed to examine the clothing.
>>
>>
>>The document proves *MY* point. It was a military decision, not coming
>>from the Kennedy family on the basis of any lack of time.
>
>See above.
>
>The people in the autopsy theater were being pressured from the 17th
>floor.
>
>The military people in the room were reacting to the perceived wishes
>of their civilian masters.
>
>Robert McNamara was there, you know.

What does the document say the reason was, John?

>>It also gives the reason - that doesn't support your claimed reasons, for
>>why they weren't allowed to view the clothing.
>>
>>What is it about this document that supports anything you've stated thus
>>far?
>>
>
>The autopsists were being pressured to do it quickly.

Where does that say that in the document I referenced describing the
prohibition from examining the clothing, John?

>>>BTW, are you aware that the FBI did?
>>
>>
>>Oh? And what medical training did they have? Where they able to compare it
>>with the body at the autopsy as is normal in a forensic autopsy?
>>
>
>Their training did allow them to make forensic determinations, right.
>
>We are talking about top experts like Robert Frazier.

It's a sad day when you have to argue that the FBI agents are doing a
prosector's job.

>>>Thus, the clothing eventually made it into the body of evidence.
>>>
>>>Are you claiming some sinister reason they did not see the clothing?
>>
>>
>>Are you claiming that there isn't?
>
>
>Yes.
>
>Do you think the clothing now if evidence is faked or forged?
>
>I'll expect an honest "yes" or "no."

Nope... I see no reason that the clothing has been altered (speaking of
JFK's, not the proven change of Connally's)

Tell us, what was the reason given for the prohibition from doing their
job?

>>What's your credible explanation for why prosectors in the course of their
>>normal duties were forbidden from doing what is ordinary and normal?
>>
>
>They were rushed.

How long did the autopsy take in relation to other autopsies?


And why doesn't your explanation square with the reason given by Finck in
his contemporaneous memo?

>>>Then tell us what that way?
>>>
>>>Otherwise, this proves nothing.
>>
>>
>>Well, it *does* prove that there are questions you cannot answer in a
>>credible manner.
>>
>>The prosectors were stopped from doing their *ordinary* job, and the
>>reason you give cannot be supported by the evidence... which you aren't
>>interested in viewing.
>>
>>But since you've demonstrated your lack of interest, I invite everyone to
>>read Greer's testimony, and tell me where JFK's clothing was.
>>
>
>So what?

This contradicts the claim made that the clothing was not IMMEDIATELY
available, doesn't it?


(Don't you just *hate* the evidence?)

>>>>>However, your question is incomplete as it stands. Humes did eventually
>>>>>examine them prior to his WC testimony and testified that he thought they
>>>>>supported the wounds documented at autopsy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Meaningless.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not at all. Had Humes examined the clothing on that night of the
>>>autopsy, he would have come to the same conclusion.
>>
>>
>>Speculation.
>>
>
>No, we know what the clothing showed.

No John, we don't.

It has *NEVER* been matched up with the wounds on the body.

>>>Actually, had he seen the exit defect in the collar of the shirt, he
>>>would have figured it out much more quickly.
>>
>>
>>More speculation.
>>
>
>Pretty solid inference.
>
>The fibers on the shirt were displaced outward. That showed an
>exiting bullet.

Presuming that the fibers hadn't been pushed in that direction... Frazier
was quite careful to include those qualifiers.

Had the clothing been examined by the prosectors in conjunction with the
body, we might have a much better set of facts to work with.

But you're stuck with speculations.

>>>>At that time, the body was not in front of him.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So what?
>>
>>
>>Tell us John, why do *YOU* think that a victim's clothing is normally
>>examined by a prosector?

Dead silence...

>>>>>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>>>>
>>>>>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>>>>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>>>>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>>>>been.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tell us where the adrenal glands are located in relation to the alleged
>>>>path of the bullet through JFK's back.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Far below.
>>
>>
>>Then what possible excuse can this be?
>>
>
>You think it's sinister that the adrenals were not described in the
>autopsy?
>
>That was at the behest of Adm. Burkley, who asked Humes not to mention
>them.

No John, I find it "sinister" that Warren Commission believers are still
passing off this factoid about why they ordered the prosectors not to
dissect the throat.

Surely you've followed this reasoning well enough to understand my point.

>>>>Give us your best estimate of how many inches or feet it is from the
>>>>adrenals to the back wound and throat wound.
>>>>
>>>>But you won't.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are asking an absurdly silly question.
>>>
>>>What is your point?
>>
>>
>>I've just made it.
>>
>>But, in case anyone missed it, I'll get more specific:
>>
>>You apparently believe that the historical fact that the prosectors were
>>forbidden from dissecting the back and throat wounds had to do with the
>>Adrenal glands, about a foot or two away...
>>
>
>No, those were entirely different issues.

Here it is again, John:

>>>>>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>>>>
>>>>>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>>>>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>>>>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>>>>been.)

From this very post, unsnipped by you...

Why did *YOU* think I was asking where the adrenals were located?

>>Yet the doctors were *NOT* forbidden from removing organs in the body
>>cavity, and examining and weighing them. The kidneys are SPECIFICALLY
>>MENTIONED in the autopsy supplemental report, but I'm willing to predict
>>that you *KNEW* that the adrenals are right on top of the kidneys.
>>
>>So the claim that dissection of *WOUNDS* wasn't allowed because they might
>>see the adrenal glands is just one of the many Warren Commission
>>believer's factoids that keeps getting passed along... despite the actual
>>evidence.
>>
>
>I never made that claim. We know why the adrenals were not mentioned.
>It was to conceal a health problem that Kennedy had.

You've been *defending* that claim of BT George. *NO-ONE* has discussed
why the adrenals were not mentioned... NO-ONE.

>>Now, you, John, didn't make this claim... but you defended without comment
>>BT George's claim.
>>
>>So tell us John... why didn't you correct BT George?
>>
>>You *DID* know that his statement was incorrect, didn't you?
>>
>
>I didn't know he made the claim.

It's in this post... you've been a party to it all along.

>But why don't you address what *I'm* saying?

I am, John. Feel free to QUOTE AGAIN anything you feel I've not addressed.

>>>>>Now I am *quite* sure neither is the kind of CT answer Ben is looking for,
>>>>>but they are answers nontheless. Which is MORE than he has given me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If this is the best of the answers that can be given, and immediately
>>>>refutable by the known evidence... it seems you have a problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What is the "known evidence" that refutes what BT said?
>>
>>
>>The very evidence that you're unwilling to examine (that Greer had the
>>clothing, and was present at the autopsy), and that on the basis of not
>>knowing it, can make statements that you cannot support or cite for. (that
>>the clothing wasn't available for examination)
>>
>>
>>Ooooh! This 'ass kicking' is really getting to me! :)
>>
>
>I think you don't understand at all how lame your arguments are.

I'm basing everything I say on the evidence, John.

You're speculating, and OPENLY STATING that you aren't interested in the
evidence here.


You apparently believe it's "lame" to point out the common believer
factoid about the adrenals being the cause of the order to not dissect the
throat, or that the 'rushing' of the autopsy (which, by the way, has
*never* been demonstrated) caused the order prohibiting the viewing of the
clothing, which were, despite claims to the contrary, right there at
Parkland.

My only question would be... what meaning do you assign to the word
"lame"?

>>>>>I am *STILL* waiting for him to provide *ANY* *specific* and *credible*
>>>>>frontal trajectories that would explain Kennedy's neck wounding in light
>>>>>of his rejection of shots from behind and of the SBT.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? Who rejected the SBT and shots from behind?
>>>
>>>What buffs think is not relevant.
>>
>>
>>This was, of course, a statement made by a Warren Commission believer that
>>John is now claiming isn't relevant.
>>
>>Tell us John, why do you think that what BT George said is not relevant?
>>
>>
>
>If he doesn't believe the SBT, and doesn't think shots came from
>behind, he's wrong.
>
>But so what?

So you won't mind if I go around asserting that John McAdams believes that
the Adrenal glands are located in the neck?


--

[slats]

John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in

news:uhj8e91slc1kl73jg...@4ax.com:

I'm surprised they put his clothes on public display.

http://postimg.org/image/eamz9r8eh/full/

[Ben Holmes]

In article <tjk8e91cbqcc68th1...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

No John, you cannot prove that you're right, so you make the claim that
because I'm not interested in wasting time to prove you wrong, only to be
censored, that this means that you've been right all along.

You weren't willing to address the issue when I first challenged you on
it.

Now, once again, under *what* theory of debate am I required to prove
*YOUR* claim?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/25/2014 6:31 PM, cmikes wrote:
> On Friday, January 24, 2014 10:42:31 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> Stuff Trimmed
>
>> 2) Once they decided it might be helpful they apparently allowed
>>
>> themselves to be dissuaded from having them produced at the time, due to
>>
>> the undue pressure that was felt because the Kennedy family kept insisting
>>
>> to just "hurry things up". Humes should have insisted on doing many
>>
>> things that were not done, but let the pressure applied by Burkey and
>>
>> others on behalf of the waiting and distraught "First Family" pressure him
>>
>> into taking many, many shortcuts.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, your question is incomplete as it stands. Humes did eventually
>>
>> examine them prior to his WC testimony and testified that he thought they
>>
>> supported the wounds documented at autopsy.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>
>>
>>
>> See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>
>> adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>
>> yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>
>> been.)
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>> BT George
>
> This, in my mind, was one of the biggest mistakes made in the whole
> investigation. If Burkley had had the balls to stand up to the Kennedy
> family had just come out and tell that the autopsy was going to take at
> least all night and they should give up any hope of an open coffin, it
> would have answered a lot of questions right off the bat and would have

The problems with the autopsy have nothing to do with time.
The two major problems were:
1. The inexperience of the doctors who were not forensic pathologists.
2. The control by the military.

Then all the lies to frame Oswald complicated it even more.

> given the buffs a lot less ammunition. I'm not saying he would have to be
> very blunt to them or upset Jackie and RFK more than they already were,
> but he could have explained to them that the things required for a full
> autopsy would take much longer. If they had shaved the head to precisely
> locate the entry wound on the back of the head, and dissected the wound

You know nothing about autopsies. You don't shave the whole head. You
shave the hair around the wound. Read Spitz.

> track from back to front through the neck, it would have immediately
> answered a lot of questions.
>

An Army General ordered them to not dissect the back wound.

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jan 2014 21:34:23 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>

When you cite "evidence" that is irrelevant, you just confuse the
issues.

Which is a common strategy of buffs.

>For example, the idea that the clothing was not *available* for
>examination isn't true, is it John?
>

It *would* have been available if the people in the autopsy theater
had been willing to take the time to examine them. But they weren't.

>
>
>>>>The clothing was not readily at hand, and the autopsists were not
>>>>allowed to take the time to have it produced and to examine it.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are unwilling to examine the evidence to determine where the clothing
>>>was, yet make the unsupported claim that the clothing wasn't available.
>>>
>>>You cannot cite for such a claim. You have this in common with Tony Marsh.
>>>
>>>We also know that time wasn't an issue, as the autopsy had not just three
>>>prosectors, but a number of others helping, any of which could have
>>>examined the clothing without slowing down the autopsy.
>>>
>>
>>Prosectors were in charge. It would not be proper to delegate that to
>>non-medical people.
>
>
>Col Finck clearly disagrees with your claim, John.
>

Nonsense. He thinks that the prosectors should have been allowed to
examine the clothes.

>
>
>>Also: we have the clothing now, and it shows the wounds consistent
>>with what the autopsy found.
>
>
>No John, we don't know that. There's a reason prosectors examine the
>clothing of a victim.
>

Yes, we know that.

Are you actually saying the clothing now in evidence is faked, forged
or tampered with?

If not, we know what it shows.

>
>
>>>An examination of the clothing wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes
>>>at best... or would you like to dispute that?
>>>
>>
>>They were being rushed. It wasn't thought worth the time. That was a
>>mistake, but it wasn't conspiratorial.
>
>
>It had nothing to do with time, John. Can you quote the exact reference to
>"academic" interest?
>

See below.

I cited several sources for the fact that the people on the 17th floor
were regularly calling down to the autopsy theater asking "when will
this be done."

They wanted to fix up JFK for an open casket viewing.

>
>
>>>But we *ALSO* know that it wasn't "time" that was the critical element.
>>>Finck makes it quite clear in his contemporaneous memo just why they
>>>weren't allowed to view the clothing.
>>>
>>
>>They were told not to.
>>
>>But that was because of "the family." That's what Finck said in his
>>Shaw trial testimony.
>
>
>No John, that's *NOT* what Finck wrote in his memo.
>

It *is* what he said that the Clay Shaw trial.

>
>>Also, Manchester makes it clear that the folks on the 17th floor were
>>rushing matters by continually calling down to the autopsy theater
>>asking "when will it be done."
>>
>>The HSCA also found that the autopsy was rushed.
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
>
>
>Tell us John, can you QUOTE the relevant evidence concerning the order
>that they not be allowed to view the clothing?
>

Wasn't that in the Finck memo you posted?

The issue is not that they were ordered not to examine the clothing.

The issue is whether that was conspiratorial.

I cited three sources above showing that the people in the autopsy
were being rushed.

The military men were hurrying things up because the people on the
17th floor wanted it hurried up.

>It gives the exact reasoning, dare you quote it?
>

You are just flat out ignoring what I'm saying.

>
>
>>>And coming from the academic world, you should remember why they weren't
>>>allowed to view the clothing.
>>>
>>>If this is an 'ass kicking', it sure doesn't hurt very much! :)
>>>
>>
>>Maybe you have been ingesting something that protects you from feeling
>>pain.
>
>
>Oh, I'm not feeling any pain at all John... I have the evidence on my
>side...
>

I'm sure, at least, that you aren't feeling any pain.

>
>
>>>>>But it will be interesting to see if *ANYONE* in this forum will answer
>>>>>and tell us just who retained possession of JFK's clothing, and where he
>>>>>was during the autopsy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Still no answer...
>
>
>Tell us John, does Greer strike a bell?
>

So what?

>
>
>
>>>>>>2) Once they decided it might be helpful they apparently allowed
>>>>>>themselves to be dissuaded from having them produced at the time, due to
>>>>>>the undue pressure that was felt because the Kennedy family kept insisting
>>>>>>to just "hurry things up". Humes should have insisted on doing many
>>>>>>things that were not done, but let the pressure applied by Burkey and
>>>>>>others on behalf of the waiting and distraught "First Family" pressure him
>>>>>>into taking many, many shortcuts.
>>>>>
>>>>>I seem to recall correcting you on this before.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?
>>>docId=145280&relPageId=150
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What?
>>>>
>>>>The document you cited proves my point.
>>>>
>>>>The doctors were not allowed to examine the clothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>The document proves *MY* point. It was a military decision, not coming
>>>from the Kennedy family on the basis of any lack of time.
>>
>>See above.
>>
>>The people in the autopsy theater were being pressured from the 17th
>>floor.
>>
>>The military people in the room were reacting to the perceived wishes
>>of their civilian masters.
>>
>>Robert McNamara was there, you know.
>
>
>What does the document say the reason was, John?
>

The memo says:

> THE ORGANS OF THE NECK WERE NOT REMOVED: THE PRESIDENT'S FAMILY
> INSISTED TO HAVE ONLY THE HEAD EXAMINED Later, the permission
> was extended to the CHEST.

"The family," in other words, was imposing limits.

That was improper, but it was not conspiratorial.

>
>
>>>It also gives the reason - that doesn't support your claimed reasons, for
>>>why they weren't allowed to view the clothing.
>>>
>>>What is it about this document that supports anything you've stated thus
>>>far?
>>>
>>
>>The autopsists were being pressured to do it quickly.
>
>
>Where does that say that in the document I referenced describing the
>prohibition from examining the clothing, John?
>

All kinds of other evidence shows that.

Let me repeat the citations I gave above:

>>But that was because of "the family." That's what Finck said in his
>>Shaw trial testimony.
>
>

>>Also, Manchester makes it clear that the folks on the 17th floor were
>>rushing matters by continually calling down to the autopsy theater
>>asking "when will it be done."
>>
>>The HSCA also found that the autopsy was rushed.
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt

But of course, you ignored all this.

>
>
>
>>>>BTW, are you aware that the FBI did?
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh? And what medical training did they have? Where they able to compare it
>>>with the body at the autopsy as is normal in a forensic autopsy?
>>>
>>
>>Their training did allow them to make forensic determinations, right.
>>
>>We are talking about top experts like Robert Frazier.
>
>
>It's a sad day when you have to argue that the FBI agents are doing a
>prosector's job.
>

But Frazier was an expert, and the clothing exists today.

And it shows defects perfectly consistent with the torso wounds as
described in the autopsy.

>
>
>>>>Thus, the clothing eventually made it into the body of evidence.
>>>>
>>>>Are you claiming some sinister reason they did not see the clothing?
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you claiming that there isn't?
>>
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>Do you think the clothing now if evidence is faked or forged?
>>
>>I'll expect an honest "yes" or "no."
>
>
>Nope... I see no reason that the clothing has been altered (speaking of
>JFK's, not the proven change of Connally's)
>
>Tell us, what was the reason given for the prohibition from doing their
>job?
>

I've answered this already.

>
>
>>>What's your credible explanation for why prosectors in the course of their
>>>normal duties were forbidden from doing what is ordinary and normal?
>>>
>>
>>They were rushed.
>
>
>How long did the autopsy take in relation to other autopsies?
>

It was much quicker.

>
>And why doesn't your explanation square with the reason given by Finck in
>his contemporaneous memo?
>

It does.

You don't understand that the "military ordered it" explanation is
perfectly consistent with the "people on the 17th floor were hurrying
things up" explanation.

>
>>>>Then tell us what that way?
>>>>
>>>>Otherwise, this proves nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, it *does* prove that there are questions you cannot answer in a
>>>credible manner.
>>>
>>>The prosectors were stopped from doing their *ordinary* job, and the
>>>reason you give cannot be supported by the evidence... which you aren't
>>>interested in viewing.
>>>
>>>But since you've demonstrated your lack of interest, I invite everyone to
>>>read Greer's testimony, and tell me where JFK's clothing was.
>>>
>>
>>So what?
>
>
>This contradicts the claim made that the clothing was not IMMEDIATELY
>available, doesn't it?
>
>
>(Don't you just *hate* the evidence?)
>

You are the one who only looks at buff evidence.

>>>>>>However, your question is incomplete as it stands. Humes did eventually
>>>>>>examine them prior to his WC testimony and testified that he thought they
>>>>>>supported the wounds documented at autopsy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. Had Humes examined the clothing on that night of the
>>>>autopsy, he would have come to the same conclusion.
>>>
>>>
>>>Speculation.
>>>
>>
>>No, we know what the clothing showed.
>
>
>No John, we don't.
>
>It has *NEVER* been matched up with the wounds on the body.
>

Huh? You think the prosectors put the clothing back on to see if it
"matches" the wounds?

They just look at it, just as Frazier did.

>
>
>>>>Actually, had he seen the exit defect in the collar of the shirt, he
>>>>would have figured it out much more quickly.
>>>
>>>
>>>More speculation.
>>>
>>
>>Pretty solid inference.
>>
>>The fibers on the shirt were displaced outward. That showed an
>>exiting bullet.
>
>
>Presuming that the fibers hadn't been pushed in that direction... Frazier
>was quite careful to include those qualifiers.
>
>Had the clothing been examined by the prosectors in conjunction with the
>body, we might have a much better set of facts to work with.
>
>But you're stuck with speculations.
>

You are stuck with the wacky theory that the rushed autopsy was
conspiratorial.

>
>>>>>At that time, the body was not in front of him.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So what?
>>>
>>>
>>>Tell us John, why do *YOU* think that a victim's clothing is normally
>>>examined by a prosector?
>
>
>Dead silence...
>

What's your point?

We all know the prosectors *should* have looked at the clothing.

>
>
>>>>>>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>>>>>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>>>>>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>>>>>been.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell us where the adrenal glands are located in relation to the alleged
>>>>>path of the bullet through JFK's back.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Far below.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then what possible excuse can this be?
>>>
>>
>>You think it's sinister that the adrenals were not described in the
>>autopsy?
>>
>>That was at the behest of Adm. Burkley, who asked Humes not to mention
>>them.
>
>
>No John, I find it "sinister" that Warren Commission believers are still
>passing off this factoid about why they ordered the prosectors not to
>dissect the throat.
>

Do you think you can take *any* statement by any non-conspiracist and
claim that "Warren Commission believers" think such and so?

>Surely you've followed this reasoning well enough to understand my point.
>

Your point is that you will grab onto anything to us to bitch.

>
>>>>>Give us your best estimate of how many inches or feet it is from the
>>>>>adrenals to the back wound and throat wound.
>>>>>
>>>>>But you won't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are asking an absurdly silly question.
>>>>
>>>>What is your point?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've just made it.
>>>
>>>But, in case anyone missed it, I'll get more specific:
>>>
>>>You apparently believe that the historical fact that the prosectors were
>>>forbidden from dissecting the back and throat wounds had to do with the
>>>Adrenal glands, about a foot or two away...
>>>
>>
>>No, those were entirely different issues.
>
>Here it is again, John:
>
>>>>>>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>>>>>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>>>>>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>>>>>been.)
>
>From this very post, unsnipped by you...
>

But posted by BT.

>Why did *YOU* think I was asking where the adrenals were located?
>
>
>>>Yet the doctors were *NOT* forbidden from removing organs in the body
>>>cavity, and examining and weighing them. The kidneys are SPECIFICALLY
>>>MENTIONED in the autopsy supplemental report, but I'm willing to predict
>>>that you *KNEW* that the adrenals are right on top of the kidneys.
>>>
>>>So the claim that dissection of *WOUNDS* wasn't allowed because they might
>>>see the adrenal glands is just one of the many Warren Commission
>>>believer's factoids that keeps getting passed along... despite the actual
>>>evidence.
>>>
>>
>>I never made that claim. We know why the adrenals were not mentioned.
>>It was to conceal a health problem that Kennedy had.
>
>
>You've been *defending* that claim of BT George. *NO-ONE* has discussed
>why the adrenals were not mentioned... NO-ONE.
>

I have not "defended" that claim.

>
>
>>>Now, you, John, didn't make this claim... but you defended without comment
>>>BT George's claim.
>>>
>>>So tell us John... why didn't you correct BT George?
>>>
>>>You *DID* know that his statement was incorrect, didn't you?
>>>
>>
>>I didn't know he made the claim.
>
>
>It's in this post... you've been a party to it all along.
>

You actually think I read every post in detail?

Or feel obligated to correct every error?

>
>>But why don't you address what *I'm* saying?
>
>
>I am, John. Feel free to QUOTE AGAIN anything you feel I've not addressed.
>

The fact that the people on the 17th floor were pressuring the people
in the autopsy theater to hurry up.

>
>
>>>>>>Now I am *quite* sure neither is the kind of CT answer Ben is looking for,
>>>>>>but they are answers nontheless. Which is MORE than he has given me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If this is the best of the answers that can be given, and immediately
>>>>>refutable by the known evidence... it seems you have a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What is the "known evidence" that refutes what BT said?
>>>
>>>
>>>The very evidence that you're unwilling to examine (that Greer had the
>>>clothing, and was present at the autopsy), and that on the basis of not
>>>knowing it, can make statements that you cannot support or cite for. (that
>>>the clothing wasn't available for examination)
>>>
>>>
>>>Ooooh! This 'ass kicking' is really getting to me! :)
>>>
>>
>>I think you don't understand at all how lame your arguments are.
>
>
>I'm basing everything I say on the evidence, John.
>
>You're speculating, and OPENLY STATING that you aren't interested in the
>evidence here.
>

I'm not interested in irrelevancies.

>
>You apparently believe it's "lame" to point out the common believer
>factoid about the adrenals being the cause of the order to not dissect the
>throat, or that the 'rushing' of the autopsy

It's not common.

>(which, by the way, has
>*never* been demonstrated) caused the order prohibiting the viewing of the
>clothing, which were, despite claims to the contrary, right there at
>Parkland.
>

The autopsy was not at Parkland.

And yes, the hurring of he autopsy was the reason why various things
were skipped.

>My only question would be... what meaning do you assign to the word
>"lame"?
>

Ignoring evidence. Claiming that "all LNs" believe something that all
LNs don't believe.

>
>>>>>>I am *STILL* waiting for him to provide *ANY* *specific* and *credible*
>>>>>>frontal trajectories that would explain Kennedy's neck wounding in light
>>>>>>of his rejection of shots from behind and of the SBT.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Huh? Who rejected the SBT and shots from behind?
>>>>
>>>>What buffs think is not relevant.
>>>
>>>
>>>This was, of course, a statement made by a Warren Commission believer that
>>>John is now claiming isn't relevant.
>>>
>>>Tell us John, why do you think that what BT George said is not relevant?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If he doesn't believe the SBT, and doesn't think shots came from
>>behind, he's wrong.
>>
>>But so what?
>
>
>So you won't mind if I go around asserting that John McAdams believes that
>the Adrenal glands are located in the neck?

No, because nobody would believe you.

And then, you would by lying.

[Ben Holmes]

I see that you're still snipping posts...


In article <r9q8e9l6mpsscrn8e...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 25 Jan 2014 19:16:04 -0500, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ok98e99cgajnooeis...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>Now note that Ben, who claims he can't really debate assassination
>>>issues here, procedes to debate an issue.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Now you give me your explanation.
>>
>>
>>You won't like it.
>>
>>
>>>See if you can come up with a conspiracy explanation that makes any
>>>sense.
>>
>>
>>It makes *perfect* sense... you just don't like the idea that anyone was
>>covering up anything.
>>
>
>So you think the neck defect really *was* from a fragment, and not a
>shot?

Strawman...

>I thought most of you conspiracists believed Kennedy was hit in the
>throat from the front.
>
>You *don't* believe that?

Quote *ANY* statement by me that would lead an honest man to thinking that I
said that, John.

>If you think the defect really was from a shot, then Rankin was simply
>mistaken.
>
>>
>>But, there's lots more questions that you've not touched yet...
>
>By all means post any you want.

They've been posted...


Haven't they, John?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52e45a0c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

That's simply not true. Dr. Humes makes it crystal clear that he used the
X-rays to determine where the fragments that were large enough to recover
were.

>>> Or, to put it another way, in which X-ray could the determination be made
>>> that the 7x2 fragment was "above and somewhat behind the President's eye"?
>>>
>>
>> One of the laterals, apparently.
>>
>>> Once you've decided which X-ray or X-rays were utilized, can you point out
>>> the *LARGEST SEEN FOREIGN OBJECTS*?
>>>
>>
>> Since he used the laterial, the 7 x 2 mm. object would have been the
>> largest.
>>
>>
>>>> Now, are you going to ignore what I said, and keep making the same
>>>> silly argument?
>>>
>>> Au contraire, I'm not "ignoring" what you said at all, I'm ASKING YOU TO
>>> DEFEND IT AGAINST MY REFUTATIONS.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't refuted it. You just continue to insist that fragment in
>> the cowlick area was the "largest," in spite of the fact that Humes
>> did not think so, and it was not the largest in volume.
>>
>> We know from the lateral that it was just a sliver.
>>
>
>Exactly how many mm is a sliver? Can you see it? That is your third
>dimension to estimate weight.

You claim three dimensions Tony... go ahead and tell us the weight of the
6.5mm and the 7x2mm fragments...

Be sure to show your work so that others can duplicate it.

>>> And, just for the record, note that I've not snipped *ANYTHING* from the
>>> post I responded to. I'd like to get that on the record before I'm accused
>>> of snipping again.
>>
>
>

[Ben Holmes]

In article <52e45cef$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

It's in the censored post that was just reposted... feel free to read it
yourself.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <8nr8e95gfearu47m7...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>Holmes has again insisted that the 6.5 mm. fragment in the skull at
>the cowlick area is the "largest" object in the x-ray.

You cannot quote such a statement, John. The 6.5mm virtually round object
is the largest foreign object in size seen in the AP X-ray. That's a fact
no matter how much you want to deny it.


Feel free to point out the one that's larger if you believe another one
exists.

>It's ignoring the fact that it's also visible in the lateral x-rays,
>and it's just a sliver.

What's the weight again, John?

>He just goes round and round, ignoring my argument, and merely
>repeating himself.

If you keep making claims about what I state that aren't true, don't you
expect me to correct you?

>I think he wants to argue that the object was put there by the Evil
>Minions of The Conspiracy.

How silly!

>But that would be silly, since there is plenty of evidence of the
>entry without the fragment.

Change of topic noted.

>First, there is the pattern of radiating fractures from the cowlick
>entry.

Not, however, from the 6.5mm object.

>Second, there is the Back of the Head photo, which shows an entry
>defect in the scalp at that point.

I can understand why you want to change the topic... you've been unable to
answer my questions on the original topic.


Indeed, all the questions below that you are now evading.

Still no answers...

[BT George]

This is not rightly called *MY* claim. Let's re-quote what I actually
said, this time with appropriate emphasis on key words that seem to be
getting missed here:

"...with the *SPECULATION* by *SOME* that Kennedy's atrophied adrenal

glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was yet
another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have been.)"

So we see that I am clearly passing on a *SPECULATIVE* claim I've seen
made by *OTHERS* that I had not, as of the time I wrote it, determined for
myself the reasonableness/correctness of.

Let me be *clear* here. I am a full-time Financial Controller---an
accountant by training---*not* a qualified medical or forensic expert.
Moreover due to career, family, ministry commitments, etc. I am NOT (as so
many who frequent these venues are) a FULL-TIME JFK researcher who has
been able to dedicate hours on end to becoming a lay "expert" in *every*
*aspect* of the case.

I simply mentioned a speculation I recall hearing/reading before, and not
having studied that particular issue in any *great* detail, had assumed
*may* have some merit. Evidently, it does not, and if so I stand
corrected and will not mention it as a possible reason again.

Nevertheless, the pressure from the Kennedy family to *hurry* *was* real
and is attested to in various statements in the testimonial record.

Enough! *I* am *NOT* the one I was saying rejected the SBT. I am saying
Ben Holmes does! (If I am wrong about that I apologize as I can't keep up
with what every prominent Internet CT actually does and does not believe.
But I think I am correct on that score.)

I am simply saying that w/o the SBT that *he* rejects he needs to come up
with a trajectory or trajectories that can explain *ALL* of the following
wounds:

1) The penetrating back wound in JFK's uppermost back seen easily enough
in the autopsy photos.

2) The front neck wound that *Ben* says is an entrance not an exit.

3) Connally's back wound that was ovoid in appearance, leaving the kind of
"keyhole" characteristic of a bullet that was tumbling/yawing.

4) His broken/shattered 5th rib.

5) The ragged 5 centimeter (2 inch) hole in his chest just below the
nipple.

6) His shattered radius.

7) The shallow puncture wound to his thigh.

So far Ben keeps coming back with some *non-specific* NONSENSE like asking:

"Are you claiming that there were no places in Dealey Plaza that JFK's
neck could not be seen?"

Of course Ben Holmes knows *very well* that is NOT the issue. The issue
is how many places in Dealey Plaza were there in *FRONT* of JFK that would
allow a shot to be fired that:

1) would *NOT* hit Connally,

2) would pass through JFK's neck and *not* hit someone or something behind
JFK, or

3) would fail to pass through?

a) If the latter, was it a FMJ bullet? If so, how does he account for its
failure to transverse something as thin as a neck?

b) If a non-FMJ bullet, why did they not find it or remnants of it on the
X-rays or fail to note the distinctive internal damage that should have
been seen on the same?

My guess is he is really not too interested in getting too *specific* on
such questions because he *knows* that *specificity* is not his friend in
this case. But let's see...

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Why is it that you know nothing in this case? The autopsy doctors
were told that the clothing was locked up and they didn't need to see it.

>
>>
>>
>>>>> The clothing was not readily at hand, and the autopsists were not
>>>>> allowed to take the time to have it produced and to examine it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are unwilling to examine the evidence to determine where the clothing
>>>> was, yet make the unsupported claim that the clothing wasn't available.
>>>>
>>>> You cannot cite for such a claim. You have this in common with Tony Marsh.
>>>>
>>>> We also know that time wasn't an issue, as the autopsy had not just three
>>>> prosectors, but a number of others helping, any of which could have
>>>> examined the clothing without slowing down the autopsy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Prosectors were in charge. It would not be proper to delegate that to
>>> non-medical people.
>>
>>
>> Col Finck clearly disagrees with your claim, John.
>>
>
> Nonsense. He thinks that the prosectors should have been allowed to
> examine the clothes.
>

Who? Ben Holmes or Pierre Finck?

>
>
>>
>>
>>> Also: we have the clothing now, and it shows the wounds consistent
>>> with what the autopsy found.
>>
>>
>> No John, we don't know that. There's a reason prosectors examine the
>> clothing of a victim.
>>
>
> Yes, we know that.
>
> Are you actually saying the clothing now in evidence is faked, forged
> or tampered with?
>
> If not, we know what it shows.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> An examination of the clothing wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes
>>>> at best... or would you like to dispute that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They were being rushed. It wasn't thought worth the time. That was a
>>> mistake, but it wasn't conspiratorial.
>>
>>
>> It had nothing to do with time, John. Can you quote the exact reference to
>> "academic" interest?
>>
>
> See below.
>
> I cited several sources for the fact that the people on the 17th floor
> were regularly calling down to the autopsy theater asking "when will
> this be done."
>
> They wanted to fix up JFK for an open casket viewing.
>

No one said anything about an open casket.

>
>>
>>
>>>> But we *ALSO* know that it wasn't "time" that was the critical element.
>>>> Finck makes it quite clear in his contemporaneous memo just why they
>>>> weren't allowed to view the clothing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They were told not to.
>>>
>>> But that was because of "the family." That's what Finck said in his
>>> Shaw trial testimony.
>>
>>
>> No John, that's *NOT* what Finck wrote in his memo.
>>
>
> It *is* what he said that the Clay Shaw trial.
>
>>
>>> Also, Manchester makes it clear that the folks on the 17th floor were
>>> rushing matters by continually calling down to the autopsy theater
>>> asking "when will it be done."
>>>
>>> The HSCA also found that the autopsy was rushed.
>>>
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
>>
>>
>> Tell us John, can you QUOTE the relevant evidence concerning the order
>> that they not be allowed to view the clothing?
>>
>
> Wasn't that in the Finck memo you posted?
>
> The issue is not that they were ordered not to examine the clothing.
>
> The issue is whether that was conspiratorial.
>
> I cited three sources above showing that the people in the autopsy
> were being rushed.
>

That does not excuse their incompetence.

> The military men were hurrying things up because the people on the
> 17th floor wanted it hurried up.
>

The people on the 17th floor had nothing to do with the Army doctor.

They extended the permission to examine the torso. But then the Army
General told them to not dissect the back wound.

> That was improper, but it was not conspiratorial.
>

So Nixon ordering the cover-up was improper, but not conspiratorial.
How much will you twist definitions to avoid the truth?

Wrong. The Army General was not a representative of the Kennedy family.

That is not the claim. The autopsy being controlled by the military is
what's conspiratorial.

So, it's ok for you to accuse a conspiracy believer of lying, but a
conspiracy believer is not allowed to accuse a WC defender of lying?
That's what you call a level playing field?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/25/2014 9:16 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> Holmes has again insisted that the 6.5 mm. fragment in the skull at
> the cowlick area is the "largest" object in the x-ray.
>
> It's ignoring the fact that it's also visible in the lateral x-rays,
> and it's just a sliver.
>

Exactly how many mms is a sliver?

> He just goes round and round, ignoring my argument, and merely
> repeating himself.
>
> I think he wants to argue that the object was put there by the Evil
> Minions of The Conspiracy.
>

I like that. To make us think it was a conspiracy. Boy are they clever!

> But that would be silly, since there is plenty of evidence of the
> entry without the fragment.
>

Exactly how does the fragment prove the entry?
It certainly didn't prove the entry for H,B&F EOP wound.
So according to you theory the large fragment above the right eye proves
that's where the entrance was?

> First, there is the pattern of radiating fractures from the cowlick
> entry.
>

Funny how they were radiating from the EOP for H,B,&F.

> Second, there is the Back of the Head photo, which shows an entry
> defect in the scalp at that point.
>

Humes says it was a blood clot. Are you calling him a liar.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <jbt8e9dcubma81lbo...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

So, citing the *ONLY KNOWN DOCUMENT* that describes the prohibition
against examining the clothing and reasons thereof is "irrelevant".

What *would* be relevant to this issue, John?

>Which is a common strategy of buffs.

It's so nice of you to make statements that I cannot respond to if I don't
want the post to be censored.

>>For example, the idea that the clothing was not *available* for
>>examination isn't true, is it John?
>>
>
>It *would* have been available if the people in the autopsy theater
>had been willing to take the time to examine them. But they weren't.

No John, this isn't true. Dr. Finck, in particular, *ASKED* to see them,
he was CERTAINLY willing to take the time.

The reason the clothing wasn't available is because they were *ORDERED*

not to examine the clothing.

Feel free to refute that fact by citing any evidence that contradicts it.

*CITE* the evidence that the doctors simply weren't willing to take the
time to examine the clothing.

But you can't... no such evidence exists.

>>>>>The clothing was not readily at hand, and the autopsists were not
>>>>>allowed to take the time to have it produced and to examine it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are unwilling to examine the evidence to determine where the clothing
>>>>was, yet make the unsupported claim that the clothing wasn't available.
>>>>
>>>>You cannot cite for such a claim. You have this in common with Tony Marsh.
>>>>
>>>>We also know that time wasn't an issue, as the autopsy had not just three
>>>>prosectors, but a number of others helping, any of which could have
>>>>examined the clothing without slowing down the autopsy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Prosectors were in charge. It would not be proper to delegate that to
>>>non-medical people.
>>
>>
>>Col Finck clearly disagrees with your claim, John.
>>
>
>Nonsense. He thinks that the prosectors should have been allowed to
>examine the clothes.

You just argued that "Prosectors were in charge". Finck quite clearly in
both a contemporary memo, and in his Shaw trial testimony, states that
they were following orders from higher authority.

So, as I stated, Col Finck clearly disagrees with your claim that the
"prosectors were in charge"

>>>Also: we have the clothing now, and it shows the wounds consistent
>>>with what the autopsy found.
>>
>>
>>No John, we don't know that. There's a reason prosectors examine the
>>clothing of a victim.
>>
>
>Yes, we know that.

No John... since no comparison of the clothing was made with the body,
it's sheer speculation on your part to imagine that everything would have
matched up.

>Are you actually saying the clothing now in evidence is faked, forged
>or tampered with?

It would be easier John, if you simply responded to what I *do* say,
instead of trying to invent things I've never said.

>If not, we know what it shows.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>An examination of the clothing wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes
>>>>at best... or would you like to dispute that?
>>>>
>>>
>>>They were being rushed. It wasn't thought worth the time. That was a
>>>mistake, but it wasn't conspiratorial.
>>
>>
>>It had nothing to do with time, John. Can you quote the exact reference to
>>"academic" interest?
>>
>
>See below.
>
>I cited several sources for the fact that the people on the 17th floor
>were regularly calling down to the autopsy theater asking "when will
>this be done."
>
>They wanted to fix up JFK for an open casket viewing.

I rather suspected that you'd refuse to do so, John.

Here's the exact quote you pretend not to know: "I was denied the
opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer who outranked
me told me that my request was only of academic interest"

Now tell us John, are you truly unfamiliar with this statement? Is that
why you refused to provide it?

You'll find the citation to this statement later in this same post.

>>>>But we *ALSO* know that it wasn't "time" that was the critical element.
>>>>Finck makes it quite clear in his contemporaneous memo just why they
>>>>weren't allowed to view the clothing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>They were told not to.
>>>
>>>But that was because of "the family." That's what Finck said in his
>>>Shaw trial testimony.
>>
>>
>>No John, that's *NOT* what Finck wrote in his memo.
>>
>
>It *is* what he said that the Clay Shaw trial.

No John, that's *NOT* what he said about the clothing issue... Here is
what he said ABOUT THIS EXACT ISSUE: "I was denied the opportunity to
examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer who outranked me told me that
my request was only of academic interest"

Now tell me John... was Col. Finck lying?


Or perhaps he was mistaken?

>>>Also, Manchester makes it clear that the folks on the 17th floor were
>>>rushing matters by continually calling down to the autopsy theater
>>>asking "when will it be done."
>>>
>>>The HSCA also found that the autopsy was rushed.
>>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
>>
>>
>>Tell us John, can you QUOTE the relevant evidence concerning the order
>>that they not be allowed to view the clothing?
>>
>
>Wasn't that in the Finck memo you posted?

Yes... it was. Which makes it a mystery why you refuse to utilize it, even
though I've cited it.

>The issue is not that they were ordered not to examine the clothing.

Yes John, that's the PRECISE issue. I asked the question, *I* know what
the issue was.

>The issue is whether that was conspiratorial.
>
>I cited three sources above showing that the people in the autopsy
>were being rushed.

You cited *NOTHING* on the refusal to allow the prosectors to view the
clothing... indeed, you even claimed that they'd have been allowed to *IF
THEY WANTED TO*...

Of course, you can't cite anything that supports such a claim.

The truth is, I've cited the *ONLY* reference that deals DIRECTLY with
this issue... and it contradicts several of the assertions you've made.

>The military men were hurrying things up because the people on the
>17th floor wanted it hurried up.

Here it is again: "I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of
Kennedy. One officer who outranked me told me that my request was only of
academic interest."


Nothing about a lack of time mentioned at all.

>>It gives the exact reasoning, dare you quote it?
>>
>
>You are just flat out ignoring what I'm saying.

Yep... you couldn't quote it. So here it is again: "I was denied the
opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer who outranked
me told me that my request was only of academic interest."

I'm not "ignoring" your claims about the requirements coming from the
family for speed, I'm merely pointing out that you cannot continue to use
that excuse when you know the REAL reason, as given in Finck's memo.

>>>>And coming from the academic world, you should remember why they weren't
>>>>allowed to view the clothing.
>>>>
>>>>If this is an 'ass kicking', it sure doesn't hurt very much! :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe you have been ingesting something that protects you from feeling
>>>pain.
>>
>>
>>Oh, I'm not feeling any pain at all John... I have the evidence on my
>>side...
>>
>
>I'm sure, at least, that you aren't feeling any pain.

Tell us, John, what does the phrase "... was only of academic interest"
imply?

Surely, coming from an academic background, you can shed light on the
ACTUAL REASON GIVEN for refusing to allow the prosectors to examine the
clothing, AS THEY HAD ASKED TO DO.

>>>>>>But it will be interesting to see if *ANYONE* in this forum will answer
>>>>>>and tell us just who retained possession of JFK's clothing, and where he
>>>>>>was during the autopsy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Still no answer...
>>
>>
>>Tell us John, does Greer strike a bell?
>>
>
>So what?

Thankyou John... you've just made my point.

Change of topic noted.


Tell us John, what did the memo THAT SPOKE ABOUT THE REFUSAL TO ALLOW THE
PROSECTORS TO EXAMINE THE CLOTHING say?

Here, I'll help you out... it said: "I was denied the opportunity to
examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer who outranked me told me that
my request was only of academic interest."

>>>>It also gives the reason - that doesn't support your claimed reasons, for
>>>>why they weren't allowed to view the clothing.
>>>>
>>>>What is it about this document that supports anything you've stated thus
>>>>far?
>>>>
>>>
>>>The autopsists were being pressured to do it quickly.
>>
>>
>>Where does that say that in the document I referenced describing the
>>prohibition from examining the clothing, John?
>>
>
>All kinds of other evidence shows that.

*NO* other evidence refers to the prohibition against the prosectors
examining the clothing.

You can't cite *ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL* that specifically addresses this
exact issue.

You can *speculate* ... but you can't cite.

>Let me repeat the citations I gave above:
>
>>>But that was because of "the family." That's what Finck said in his
>>>Shaw trial testimony.
>>
>>
>>>Also, Manchester makes it clear that the folks on the 17th floor were
>>>rushing matters by continually calling down to the autopsy theater
>>>asking "when will it be done."
>>>
>>>The HSCA also found that the autopsy was rushed.
>>>
>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt
>
>But of course, you ignored all this.

Simply show there where the prohibition of the examination of the clothing
is mentioned.

*MY* citation speaks *DIRECTLY* to this issue...

Can you produce one that does?

>>>>>BTW, are you aware that the FBI did?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh? And what medical training did they have? Where they able to compare it
>>>>with the body at the autopsy as is normal in a forensic autopsy?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Their training did allow them to make forensic determinations, right.
>>>
>>>We are talking about top experts like Robert Frazier.
>>
>>
>>It's a sad day when you have to argue that the FBI agents are doing a
>>prosector's job.
>>
>
>But Frazier was an expert, and the clothing exists today.

Frazier is just as incapable of matching it to the body as anyone else
living today.

>And it shows defects perfectly consistent with the torso wounds as
>described in the autopsy.

You cannot even accurately *locate* the wounds... how can you imagine that
the clothing would match?

>>>>>Thus, the clothing eventually made it into the body of evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you claiming some sinister reason they did not see the clothing?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you claiming that there isn't?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>Do you think the clothing now if evidence is faked or forged?
>>>
>>>I'll expect an honest "yes" or "no."
>>
>>
>>Nope... I see no reason that the clothing has been altered (speaking of
>>JFK's, not the proven change of Connally's)
>>
>>Tell us, what was the reason given for the prohibition from doing their
>>job?
>>
>
>I've answered this already.

No John, you've NEVER answered it. There's only *ONE DOCUMENT IN HISTORY*
that mentions the reason.

I'd quote it again, but you're probably tired of seeing it.

>>>>What's your credible explanation for why prosectors in the course of their
>>>>normal duties were forbidden from doing what is ordinary and normal?
>>>>
>>>
>>>They were rushed.
>>
>>
>>How long did the autopsy take in relation to other autopsies?
>>
>
>It was much quicker.

Cite.

>>And why doesn't your explanation square with the reason given by Finck in
>>his contemporaneous memo?
>>
>
>It does.
>
>You don't understand that the "military ordered it" explanation is
>perfectly consistent with the "people on the 17th floor were hurrying
>things up" explanation.

The citation I provide also states the REASON ... which is not consistent
with your explanation.

>>>>>Then tell us what that way?
>>>>>
>>>>>Otherwise, this proves nothing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, it *does* prove that there are questions you cannot answer in a
>>>>credible manner.
>>>>
>>>>The prosectors were stopped from doing their *ordinary* job, and the
>>>>reason you give cannot be supported by the evidence... which you aren't
>>>>interested in viewing.
>>>>
>>>>But since you've demonstrated your lack of interest, I invite everyone to
>>>>read Greer's testimony, and tell me where JFK's clothing was.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So what?
>>
>>
>>This contradicts the claim made that the clothing was not IMMEDIATELY
>>available, doesn't it?
>>
>>
>>(Don't you just *hate* the evidence?)
>>
>
>You are the one who only looks at buff evidence.

So you believe that Col. Finck's testimony, and Bill Greer's testimony is
"buff evidence"?

Can you support such a claim?


And if testimony is "buff evidence" - what is left that you use?

>>>>>>>However, your question is incomplete as it stands. Humes did eventually
>>>>>>>examine them prior to his WC testimony and testified that he thought they
>>>>>>>supported the wounds documented at autopsy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Meaningless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not at all. Had Humes examined the clothing on that night of the
>>>>>autopsy, he would have come to the same conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Speculation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, we know what the clothing showed.
>>
>>
>>No John, we don't.
>>
>>It has *NEVER* been matched up with the wounds on the body.
>>
>
>Huh? You think the prosectors put the clothing back on to see if it
>"matches" the wounds?

How silly!!!

>They just look at it, just as Frazier did.

Oh? Frazier had the body in front of him!!!???


Don't you realize, John, that there's a perfectly good reason that the
victim's clothing is examined by prosectors?

>>>>>Actually, had he seen the exit defect in the collar of the shirt, he
>>>>>would have figured it out much more quickly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>More speculation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Pretty solid inference.
>>>
>>>The fibers on the shirt were displaced outward. That showed an
>>>exiting bullet.
>>
>>
>>Presuming that the fibers hadn't been pushed in that direction... Frazier
>>was quite careful to include those qualifiers.
>>
>>Had the clothing been examined by the prosectors in conjunction with the
>>body, we might have a much better set of facts to work with.
>>
>>But you're stuck with speculations.
>>
>
>You are stuck with the wacky theory that the rushed autopsy was
>conspiratorial.

Nope... I don't accept that it was a "rushed" autopsy. I know it's a common
claim on both sides.

You see, I can read.

And in that ability to read, I can read what the man who had his request
REJECTED tells everyone what *he* understood was the reason for the
rejection.

No need to speculate, as you're doing, I CAN READ THE EXACT REASON GIVEN.

>>>>>>At that time, the body was not in front of him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tell us John, why do *YOU* think that a victim's clothing is normally
>>>>examined by a prosector?
>>
>>
>>Dead silence...
>>
>
>What's your point?
>
>We all know the prosectors *should* have looked at the clothing.

Good of you to state that. Now, tell us about "academic interest".

>>>>>>>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>>>>>>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>>>>>>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>>>>>>been.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tell us where the adrenal glands are located in relation to the alleged
>>>>>>path of the bullet through JFK's back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Far below.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then what possible excuse can this be?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You think it's sinister that the adrenals were not described in the
>>>autopsy?
>>>
>>>That was at the behest of Adm. Burkley, who asked Humes not to mention
>>>them.
>>
>>
>>No John, I find it "sinister" that Warren Commission believers are still
>>passing off this factoid about why they ordered the prosectors not to
>>dissect the throat.
>>
>
>Do you think you can take *any* statement by any non-conspiracist and
>claim that "Warren Commission believers" think such and so?

You didn't blink an eye at BT George's repetition of this, indeed, you
jumped in the thread to DEFEND the statement.

Only later, when I'd walked you through why the adrenals had nothing to do
with any prohibition of dissection, did you suddenly realize and proclaim
that you don't believe that.

I'm quite of the opinion that *MOST* believers think that the Adrenals
were the excuse needed for why the military ordered the prosectors not to
dissect the track of the bullet.

But, by all means, if you have evidence that this is *NOT* a common
belief, then perhaps you can explain why you missed it yourself, as you
jumped into BT George's post?

>>Surely you've followed this reasoning well enough to understand my point.
>>
>
>Your point is that you will grab onto anything to us to bitch.

Have I stated anything that I don't cite evidence for, John?

>>>>>>Give us your best estimate of how many inches or feet it is from the
>>>>>>adrenals to the back wound and throat wound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But you won't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are asking an absurdly silly question.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is your point?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've just made it.
>>>>
>>>>But, in case anyone missed it, I'll get more specific:
>>>>
>>>>You apparently believe that the historical fact that the prosectors were
>>>>forbidden from dissecting the back and throat wounds had to do with the
>>>>Adrenal glands, about a foot or two away...
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, those were entirely different issues.
>>
>>Here it is again, John:
>>
>>>>>>>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>>>>>>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>>>>>>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>>>>>>been.)
>>
>>From this very post, unsnipped by you...
>>
>
>But posted by BT.

You jumped into this post, and started *DEFENDING* his statements against
my refutations, John.

It was only after I led you to the truth by getting you to examine the
evidence that you suddenly decided that this wasn't your issue.

I haven't snipped anything, John...

>>Why did *YOU* think I was asking where the adrenals were located?
>>
>>
>>>>Yet the doctors were *NOT* forbidden from removing organs in the body
>>>>cavity, and examining and weighing them. The kidneys are SPECIFICALLY
>>>>MENTIONED in the autopsy supplemental report, but I'm willing to predict
>>>>that you *KNEW* that the adrenals are right on top of the kidneys.
>>>>
>>>>So the claim that dissection of *WOUNDS* wasn't allowed because they might
>>>>see the adrenal glands is just one of the many Warren Commission
>>>>believer's factoids that keeps getting passed along... despite the actual
>>>>evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I never made that claim. We know why the adrenals were not mentioned.
>>>It was to conceal a health problem that Kennedy had.
>>
>>
>>You've been *defending* that claim of BT George. *NO-ONE* has discussed
>>why the adrenals were not mentioned... NO-ONE.
>>
>
>I have not "defended" that claim.

Not now you aren't.

But let's take a look at where you first jumped in:

***********************************************************
BT George

>>-Why were the prosectors not allowed to dissect the wounds?
>>
>>See # 2 above, with the speculation by some that Kennedy's atrophied
>>adrenal glands---then a big secret related to his Addison's Disease---was
>>yet another reason this was not done. (Though it clearly should have
>>been.)

Ben Holmes:

>Tell us where the adrenal glands are located in relation to the alleged
>path of the bullet through JFK's back.

John McAdams:
Far below.

>Give us your best estimate of how many inches or feet it is from the
>adrenals to the back wound and throat wound.
>
>But you won't.

You are asking an absurdly silly question.

What is your point?

***********************************************************

Now tell us John, when you answered the question about where the Adrenals
were located, it didn't strike you at all *WHY* I was asking the question?
You just *missed* the context? Is this your claim?

>>>>Now, you, John, didn't make this claim... but you defended without comment
>>>>BT George's claim.
>>>>
>>>>So tell us John... why didn't you correct BT George?
>>>>
>>>>You *DID* know that his statement was incorrect, didn't you?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't know he made the claim.
>>
>>
>>It's in this post... you've been a party to it all along.
>>
>
>You actually think I read every post in detail?

It's a good idea to at least understand what's taking place before you
comment, wouldn't you agree?

>Or feel obligated to correct every error?

I often correct fellow critics on the evidence, it's not something often
seen among believers.

You can see from the snippet of the post I quoted above that *ANYONE*
would understand that you're trying to defend BT George's assertion.

>>>But why don't you address what *I'm* saying?
>>
>>
>>I am, John. Feel free to QUOTE AGAIN anything you feel I've not addressed.
>>
>
>The fact that the people on the 17th floor were pressuring the people
>in the autopsy theater to hurry up.

The fact is that this is only speculation, an excuse given, but we have
nothing but hearsay for this claim.

On the other hand, we have the statement from the doctor who was forbidden
to examine the clothing, AND HE LISTS THE REASON HE WAS GIVEN.

I can well understand your reluctance to quote that statement, even though
I gave you an opportunity to bring it up, and explain it.

>>>>>>>Now I am *quite* sure neither is the kind of CT answer Ben is looking
for,
>>>>>>>but they are answers nontheless. Which is MORE than he has given me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If this is the best of the answers that can be given, and immediately
>>>>>>refutable by the known evidence... it seems you have a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the "known evidence" that refutes what BT said?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The very evidence that you're unwilling to examine (that Greer had the
>>>>clothing, and was present at the autopsy), and that on the basis of not
>>>>knowing it, can make statements that you cannot support or cite for. (that
>>>>the clothing wasn't available for examination)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ooooh! This 'ass kicking' is really getting to me! :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think you don't understand at all how lame your arguments are.
>>
>>
>>I'm basing everything I say on the evidence, John.
>>
>>You're speculating, and OPENLY STATING that you aren't interested in the
>>evidence here.
>>
>
>I'm not interested in irrelevancies.

If you claim that the clothing wasn't available, Greer's testimony is
hardly irrelevant, IT DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE QUESTION.

If you claim that the prosectors would have been allowed to view the
clothing, if they had only asked, THEN FINCK'S MEMO IS QUITE RELEVANT
INDEED.

>>You apparently believe it's "lame" to point out the common believer
>>factoid about the adrenals being the cause of the order to not dissect the
>>throat, or that the 'rushing' of the autopsy
>
>It's not common.

I've seen this same claim a number of times. I find it odd that you
apparently aren't as familiar with it.

You certainly failed to notice anything out of line when you jumped in to
answer the question of where the adrenals are located.

>>(which, by the way, has
>>*never* been demonstrated) caused the order prohibiting the viewing of the
>>clothing, which were, despite claims to the contrary, right there at
>>Parkland.
>>
>
>The autopsy was not at Parkland.

Ah yes... mental mistake... The clothing was given to Greer *AT* Parkland,
and were transported by him to Bethesda.

>And yes, the hurring of he autopsy was the reason why various things
>were skipped.

Speculation not based on anything other than hearsay.

Indeed, I've provided a quote that shows a DIFFERENT reason why the
prosectors were forbidden from examining the clothing.

>>My only question would be... what meaning do you assign to the word
>>"lame"?
>>
>
>Ignoring evidence.

Such as the memo written by Finck describing *WHY* he wasn't allowed to
view the clothing?

Or the testimony by Greer concerning JFK's clothing and his location?


That sort of evidence?


Or perhaps you mean the evidence that *YOU* provided concerning the
distance from the adrenals to the track of the bullet?

Tell me John, *WHAT EVIDENCE* am I ignoring that I've not provided *MORE
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE* that addresses the exact point?

>Claiming that "all LNs" believe something that all
>LNs don't believe.

You claim that it's not common... it's clearly common enough that you just
missed reading it.

Here's one example from this forum:
*****************************************************
> I agree. From my understanding, it was a circus in that autopsy room.
> The doctos were being interfered with. From my understanding, they
> weren't allowed to look at his neck because family members didn't want
> the fact that he had Addison's disease known. I could be wrong because
> I'm going by memory from years ago, There may be other reasons too, but
> I don't know.
>

You are close. It was the adrenal glands which Burkley wanted them to
ignore.
*******************************************************

Nor is this the first time I've pointed out this particular factoid.

>>>>>>>I am *STILL* waiting for him to provide *ANY* *specific* and *credible*
>>>>>>>frontal trajectories that would explain Kennedy's neck wounding in light
>>>>>>>of his rejection of shots from behind and of the SBT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Huh? Who rejected the SBT and shots from behind?
>>>>>
>>>>>What buffs think is not relevant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This was, of course, a statement made by a Warren Commission believer that
>>>>John is now claiming isn't relevant.
>>>>
>>>>Tell us John, why do you think that what BT George said is not relevant?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>If he doesn't believe the SBT, and doesn't think shots came from
>>>behind, he's wrong.
>>>
>>>But so what?
>>
>>
>>So you won't mind if I go around asserting that John McAdams believes that
>>the Adrenal glands are located in the neck?
>
>No, because nobody would believe you.
>
>And then, you would by lying.

So you understand that by implying that *I* had said what BT George had
said, that *THAT* statement was a lie. It's good that you realized my
analogy.

But when I point it out, you respond "But so what?"

So my question to you is, shall I have the same attitude when I make
statements about what *YOU'VE* said? (or rather, what you've never said?)

[Bud]

He seemed to think that the Kennedy family was behind the restrictions.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Also: we have the clothing now, and it shows the wounds consistent
>
> >with what the autopsy found.
>
>
>
>
>
> No John, we don't know that. There's a reason prosectors examine the
>
> clothing of a victim.

Someone seems to have felt it was unnecessary after they found out what they were trying to determine, the direction of the shots.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>An examination of the clothing wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes
>
> >>at best... or would you like to dispute that?
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >They were being rushed. It wasn't thought worth the time. That was a
>
> >mistake, but it wasn't conspiratorial.
>
>
>
>
>
> It had nothing to do with time, John. Can you quote the exact reference to
>
> "academic" interest?

Finck said that an officer said it would be only of academic interest. I
wonder if the unnamed officer was Humes.

But now you have your answer, it wasn`t for conspiratorial reasons the
clothing wasn`t produced, it was because someone felt it was unnecessary.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>But we *ALSO* know that it wasn't "time" that was the critical element.
>
> >>Finck makes it quite clear in his contemporaneous memo just why they
>
> >>weren't allowed to view the clothing.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >They were told not to.
>
> >
>
> >But that was because of "the family." That's what Finck said in his
>
> >Shaw trial testimony.
>
>
>
>
>
> No John, that's *NOT* what Finck wrote in his memo.

The officer could have been Burkley, who we know was acting as liaison
between the Kennedy family and the autopsy room.