Facts LNT'ers Just HATE! (#14)
Ben Holmes
**********************************************************************
Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
These trolls include (but are not limited to):
Baldoni
Balds...@gmail.com
Bigdog
Bill
Brokedad
Bud
Burlyguard
Cdddraftsman
Chuck Schuyler
David Von Pein
Grizzlie Antagonist
Justme1952
JGL
Marty Baughman
Miss Rita
Muc...@Gmail.com
Osprey
Sam Brown
Steve sahi...@yahoo.com
Tara Lachat
Tims...@Gmail.com
Todd W. Vaughan
YoHarvey
The names change from time to time as they create new aliases, but they can be
recognized by their refusal to address the evidence, and their frequent use of
ad hominem attacks.
Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny
the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run
with insults. These trolls are only good material for the killfiles.
**********************************************************************
I once stated: "For the same reason that the legal system gives precedence to
eyewitness testimony over photographic or written evidence." and was promptly
chastised by a LNT'er that this was inaccurate.
A common refrain from LNT'ers is that physical evidence 'trumps' eyewitness
testimony. Yet the facts are not quite what LNT'ers perceive them to be:
Normal legal procedure here in the U.S. permits photographs and motion
pictures to be used as evidence in courts of law only when a foundation for
their introduction has been established by eyewitness testimony. For example:
"The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into
evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative
drawings, maps and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is
viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes
admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and
accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by
the witness." McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Edition (1984), Section 214.
It's interesting that only in the JFK case is photographic and x-ray evidence
being used routinely to discount the eyewitness testimony... in direct
contradiction to normal judicial process.
But even the government (HSCA) was unable to validate the autopsy photos, to
take one example, as coming from the camera that was used at Bethesda.
The HSCA reported that the autopsy photographs were authenticated, although it
claimed that the "Department of Defense was unable to locate" the camera and
lens that had been used at the autopsy.
HSCA files released in 1997, however, revealed that DOD had indeed identified
the camera and sent it to the Committee, but that the Committee's photographic
experts, rather than raising embarrassing questions of authenticity, chose
instead to conclude that the camera and lens had not been the one used to take
the autopsy photographs existing in 1977.
Or, to put it another way, the HSCA simply lied.
The fact that the HSCA also chose to lie about the medical testimony and the BOH
photo is another troubling issue that LNT'ers simply cannot deal with.
Quoting from the History-Matters website, here's an example:
"At least as troubling is the HSCA's handling of the medical evidence. The HSCA
had a tougher row to hoe, there having been several well-written critiques of
the Warren Commission which required answering. One "problem" that presented
itself was the stark contrast between the statements of physicians who treated
Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who almost uniformly described a large
rear head wound (which would tend to indicate a shot from the front), and the
autopsy report, which asserted a right-side head wound which did not reach the
back of the head. The HSCA met this problem head on, explaining why they sided
with the autopsy doctors: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland
doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who
attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted
in the photographs. None had differing accounts."
This written statement, it turns out, is utterly false. With the release in the
1990s of the HSCA's files, which include transcripts of these unpublished
interviews (complete with drawings made by the witnesses), we now know that
several autopsy witnesses indeed corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations.
See the Medical Coverup topic on this website for the transcripts and audiotapes
of the interviews. More recent medical interviews, conducted in 1996 and 1998 by
the Assassination Records Review Board, contain even starker indications of a
medical coverup to conceal evidence of a frontal shot, and therefore a second
shooter."
http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_2.htm
This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no LNT'er has
undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and
HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case?
(And why do LNT'ers keep running from this question?)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Steve
> **********************************************************************
> Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum who's only
> purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message
> threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks.
>
> These trolls include (but are not limited to):
>
> Baldoni
> Bigdog
> Bill
> Brokedad
> Bud
> Burlyguard
> Cdddraftsman
> Chuck Schuyler
> David Von Pein
> Grizzlie Antagonist
> Justme1952
> JGL
> Marty Baughman
> Miss Rita
> Osprey
> Sam Brown
> Steve sahist...@yahoo.com
> Tara Lachat
> Timst...@Gmail.com
>
> This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no LNT'er has
> undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and
> HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case?
>
> (And why do LNT'ers keep running from this question?)
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
This is nonsense. ANY first week, first semester, first year-law
student knows that the LOWEST and LEAST reliable level of evidence is
ear- or eye-witnesses testimony. It is subject to:
a. poor vision
b. hearing imparments
c. sunlight
d. darkness
e. sunlight reflection
f. distortion due to heat, distance, water, impediments between the
witness and the incident
g. bias
h. public opinion, public pressure
i. faulty memory
j. failure to note details
k. inability to recall details after a period of time
l. pride
m. competing noise
and any of a hundred other factors that brings ear- and eye-witness
testimony into serious question.
In cases where the forensic evidence points one direction and someone
wants to champion the cause of the alternate view, (such as the
Kennedy assassination) then it is fertile ground to harvest all the
contradicting eye and ear witness accounts to bolster their erroneous
position. People make misstatements, they are imprecise in their
descriptions, they fail to include certain details, they confuse right
with left, east with west, north with south. People don't see what
they think they see many times. Time becomes distorted in times of
stress--one minute becomes two minutes and three minutes becomes 90
seconds. Cars that slowed down appeared to stop completely, a five
foot three inch tall man can easily become a 6 foot tall man when
recalled later. Welcome to reality, Ben. This is human nature--NOT
evidence of an elaborate conspiracy. In the conspiracy mind, if a
witnesses mistakenly states "right" when they meant "left" it always
means that the police changed their statement or altered the document
later, when in reality all it really means is that humans confuse
right and left all the time. It was part of being human. If you have
ever received poor driving directions from someone then you should
understand this. If faulty or imprecise directions are given, then to
the conspiracy thinker, it means that some powerful organization got
to that person and intentionally forced them to misdirect you in
giving false directions. Such is the warped world of the conspiracy
thinker.
Therefore....forensic evidence is the silent witness that doesn't
change. Why do you think, you big dummy, the body is considered the
"best evidence." One of your wacky heros David Lifton even titled his
1980 fiction best seller after that term. It is not eye witness
testimony that is the "best evidence" it is things like:
1. bullets
2. rifles
3. skin, blood, hair, saliva, semen, etc...
4. knife
5. the human body complete stomach contents, brain, heart, wound(s)
etc...
6. blankets
7. clothing
8. automobiles
9. tires and tire marks
10. fingerprints
11. rope
12. food
13. body parts and chemicals contained therein
etc...
ANY first semester law student will tell you that the order of
reliability of evidence goes--in descending order--like this:
Forensic (physical) evidence (highest and most reliable)
Expert testimony (still good but subject to debate and bias)
Ear- and eye-witness testimony (LEAST reliable and MOST subject to
confusion and inaccuracy)
In fact ear- or eye-witness testimony is NEVER even considered
reliable UNLESS there is higher-level evidence to support it.
For instance:
If an old woman hears a woman scream, "Stop! Don't! Help! Help!
Help!" coming from a downstairs apartment and police later find a
murdered MAN there and they find no evidence of any woman having been
there or having been harmed in any way they simply write off the old
woman's ear witnesses description as being in error. She heard a man
yell, for whatever reason she mistook it for a woman's voice, and she
was mistaken. End of issue. The police department would not begin a
ten-year manhunt for the injured woman the old lady heard (unless YOU
were the Chief of Police--in which case you would be fired within
weeks for wasting tax payer dollars for being an idiot and not
understanding the old lady was mistaken.) Police do this all the
time. They receive misleading, blatantly false, or inaccurate
descriptions of crimes or alleged crimes that occurred and they then
have to look for RELIABLE evidence (forensic evidence) to support the
eyewitness claims.
Therefore you entire original post is bass-ackwards, just like the
thinking of nearly ALL conspiracy-minded thinkers is bass-ackwards.
At least you are consistent in your faulty thinking Ben. I must give
you that.
Gil Jesus
Here's what the ARRB found......that the BOH witnesses at both
Parkland and Bethesda AGREED on the existance of the large BOH wound
and that the Committee WITHHELD that information from its own Medical
Review Board:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
Watch it and see that the "nonsense" is coming from the liar, "Steve".
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:39ce4b41-ff29-4f88...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Steve's Lies are reminiscent of toad vaughan's Lies !
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>"Steve" posts a lot of OPINION, but not too many facts.
As I comment in the beginning explanation for this series, trolls will refuse to
cite, they'll deny the facts, they'll engage in ad hominem attacks, but what
they *won't* do is refute the facts I lay out.
>Here's what the ARRB found......that the BOH witnesses at both
>Parkland and Bethesda AGREED on the existance of the large BOH wound
>and that the Committee WITHHELD that information from its own Medical
>Review Board:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4PcJLdiZhM
>
>Watch it and see that the "nonsense" is coming from the liar, "Steve".
He's a troll...
Steve
> In article <39ce4b41-ff29-4f88-93f5-eaf50e7cc...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Everyone's a liar aren't they Ben? A little bit paranoid wouldn't you
say?
This is a simple issue. The phrase back of head was a relative term
that must be understood in context. Since Kennedy was NEVEr turned
over at Dallas how could they have seen the back of his head? During
the course of working on Kennedy we know from the doctors involved
that much of the skull broke apart in the hands of the doctors and
large areas came loose due to the fragmented nature of the bone after
Oswald's bullet struck it. So individuals who looked at the head
later as opposed to earlier would have seen more of the material at
the top of the head (back to them since he was lying down and NEVEr
turned over) missing.
Since the x-rays and photographs don't show any back of head wound and
since photographic experts have not found ANY evidence of forgery of
tampering with the photographs of x-rays and since the x-rays don't
reveal ANY metallic fragments in the left rear of the president's
skull (all forensic evidence--the HIGHEST level of evidence available)
then we know that the statements about a back of head wound have to
have another explanation.
Since you WANT there to be a back of head wound you are willing to
fudge on the evidence and accepting testimony over forensic evidence.
THAT is why you are so frantic to elevate eyewitness testimony above
forensic evidence. You lies and deception are obvious Ben. If you
accept reliable forensic evidence your theories are dead in the water,
but if you make the mistake of accepting eyewitness testimony above
the photographs and x-rays then you can float your theories forever.
But you've built your entire house of theories on a sandy foundation
since the forensic evidence including the Zapruder film doesn't agree
with you.
Wait.....let me guess....the Zapruder film has also been altered? Am
I right?
Here is Ben's motto: If the evidence doesn't fit your theory, don't
do the HONEST thing and ammend your theory, do the DISHONEST thing and
claim the evidence has been altered. This makes you a liar. Very
simple.
Thanks for the chance to expose you.
Next?????