Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Benny - Another HORRIBLE Research Gaffe !!!
6 views
Skip to first unread message
timstter
Oct 20, 2012, 10:38:21 PM10/20/12
to
Hi All,
Some here might have noticed the threads about some fellow called
Puffer who claimed on an Amazon discussion board that the WC never
compiled an index for their work?
Resident know-it-all Ben Holmes chimed in in agreement with the
following gem:
QUOTE ON:
It's long been simply an historical FACT that the WCR didn't contain
an index to it's contents. One of Sylvia Meagher's great
accomplishments was to create one.
QUOTE OFF
If that is an historical FACT, as Holmes claims, then perhaps he could
explain what THIS is:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0452b.htm
Sure looks like an index to the WCR to me.
Of course, the minute that Holmes discovered he'd made a terrible
research gaffe he beetled off the thread in question in disorder and
hasn't been seen there since.
Why is nobody surprised?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Some here might have noticed the threads about some fellow called
Puffer who claimed on an Amazon discussion board that the WC never
compiled an index for their work?
Resident know-it-all Ben Holmes chimed in in agreement with the
following gem:
QUOTE ON:
It's long been simply an historical FACT that the WCR didn't contain
an index to it's contents. One of Sylvia Meagher's great
accomplishments was to create one.
QUOTE OFF
If that is an historical FACT, as Holmes claims, then perhaps he could
explain what THIS is:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0452b.htm
Sure looks like an index to the WCR to me.
Of course, the minute that Holmes discovered he'd made a terrible
research gaffe he beetled off the thread in question in disorder and
hasn't been seen there since.
Why is nobody surprised?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm
X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
Bill Clarke
Oct 20, 2012, 11:20:06 PM10/20/12
to
In article <93f42e18-4124-4ef6...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,
timstter says...
Sounds to me that Benny is acting like a coward. I'm certainly not surprised.
Bill Clarke
timstter says...
Bill Clarke
David Von Pein
Oct 20, 2012, 11:21:03 PM10/20/12
to
DVP's 2 cents (maybe 3).....
------------------------------
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Better look again. The Warren Commission Report and its associated
volumes actually include MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander (the
first one shown below is in the 888-page Warren Report itself, while
the last two are in Volume 15; so, yes, you do need to know where to
look for these indexes, but once you know where they are, then it's a
snap to access them at any time in the future, particularly nowadays
when every page of this material is available on the Internet):
WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0382a.htm
WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS*:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0406a.htm
How many more indexes do you require?
* The "Exhibits" index linked above only goes up to CE1053, and that's
because it's an index that provides information as to what volume
number and page number to go to in order to find out when a particular
exhibit was first introduced into evidence with a witness on the
stand. The other 2,000 "CE" exhibits are not listed in that index, and
that index doesn't actually tell the reader where to go in the volumes
to locate a picture of the exhibit itself. But, of course, even a
second-grader who knows anything about the general structure of the WC
volumes would have no difficulty in locating photos of all the
Commission exhibits themselves -- just go to Volumes 16-26.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
That is a massive number of pages for something of such poor quality.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're obviously buried in conspiracy quicksand, Garry. The fact is,
the Warren Commission Report and volumes are massively comprehensive
(certainly comprehensive enough to determine what needed to be
determined--i.e., Who Shot JFK and did he do it alone?). Naturally,
you totally disagree. Well, what's new there?
The Warren Commission's biggest mistake was not taking a closer look
at the autopsy photos and X-rays. Therefore, we had to rely on
inaccurate drawings made by Mr. Rydberg.
But the conspiracists who think they can use the Rydberg drawings to
discredit the WC's findings are sorely mistaken, and that's because
the NEXT investigation (the HSCA) DID examine the autopsy pictures and
X-rays in detail (and confirmed their authenticity), and the HSCA/FPP
came to the same identical conclusion that the WC came to -- JFK was
shot just twice, with both bullets entering his body FROM BEHIND. And
the Clark Panel in 1968 and the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 came to
the very same identical conclusion as well. Were they ALL liars?
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Any good history book indexes the subjects as well as names.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The Warren Commission Report (WCR) itself is indexed by subject (and
very nicely too)--it's called the "Table Of Contents", and it's quite
detailed, with tons of sub-topics listed. Each sub-topic is then
sourced within each section.
In fact, I've always been very impressed by the WCR's Table of
Contents section. Quite useful indeed. I use it often.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
It is a researcher's nightmare to approach 26 volumes with a topic in
mind only to find out there is no way to find anything. Listing three
indexes that are fairly useless on their own is typical of the way you
argue your points.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're silly. The Warren Commission's indexes are just fine and
provide direct "Volume No." info for every single witness and every
single name that appears in the WCR and volumes. And as I just
mentioned, the WCR's Table of Contents is, essentially, a "subject
index". And a very useful one too. You require way too much from the
Commission in this "index" regard. And the "List of witnesses" is
something that I'll bet a lot of researchers aren't even aware is in
the WCR (Appendix V).
That witness index gives instant info as to what Volume No. (and page
number) to go to to find that witness' testimony and, in many cases,
their affidavits too. It's a very handy Appendix that is just as good
as a "Subject Index" for most researchers, and that's because the
researcher pretty much already knows what "subject" the individual
witness in the "List of Witnesses" is connected to. And for those
newbie researchers who don't know Jim Humes from Ruth Paine, they can
easily find the material on any specific subject by utilizing the
WCR's Table Of Contents, which, as mentioned, is incredibly detailed.
Naturally, all of these things aren't nearly good enough for Mr.
Puffer. But they certainly should be good enough for anyone who isn't
desperate to dismantle the WCR and its work. (But is there a
conspiracy theorist in the world who ISN'T desperate to perform such a
task, no matter how silly and nitpicky their complaints are?)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/reclaiming-history-talk.html
timstter
Oct 21, 2012, 7:45:39 PM10/21/12
to
On Oct 21, 2:20 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <93f42e18-4124-4ef6-b745-2e8f2219b...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
I bet he won't be touching this thread with a bargepole.
> In article <93f42e18-4124-4ef6-b745-2e8f2219b...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>
> Sounds to me that Benny is acting like a coward. I'm certainly not surprised.
>
> Bill Clarke
Bill, as usual Holmes has simply run away.
> >X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>
> Sounds to me that Benny is acting like a coward. I'm certainly not surprised.
>
> Bill Clarke
I bet he won't be touching this thread with a bargepole.
timstter
Oct 21, 2012, 7:50:42 PM10/21/12
to
On Oct 21, 2:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> DVP's 2 cents (maybe 3).....
>
> ------------------------------
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
> volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Better look again. The Warren Commission Report and its associated
> volumes actually include MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander (the
> first one shown below is in the 888-page Warren Report itself, while
> the last two are in Volume 15; so, yes, you do need to know where to
> look for these indexes, but once you know where they are, then it's a
> snap to access them at any time in the future, particularly nowadays
> when every page of this material is available on the Internet):
>
> WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...
> DVP's 2 cents (maybe 3).....
>
> ------------------------------
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
> volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Better look again. The Warren Commission Report and its associated
> volumes actually include MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander (the
> first one shown below is in the 888-page Warren Report itself, while
> the last two are in Volume 15; so, yes, you do need to know where to
> look for these indexes, but once you know where they are, then it's a
> snap to access them at any time in the future, particularly nowadays
> when every page of this material is available on the Internet):
>
> WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
>
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS*:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...
Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that the
WCR and volumes had no index!
He has obviously decided to emulate his hereo, Mark Lane, and lie with
impunity.
David Von Pein
Oct 21, 2012, 8:17:31 PM10/21/12
to
>>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that the WCR and volumes had no index!" <<<
Amazon.com:
"The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by
Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdMsgID=Mx2BO80ZHE5J3BJ&cdMsgNo=10&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3L36ZL9W89MBT&store=books#Mx2BO80ZHE5J3BJ
I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
"no index" comment. He was talking about his desire for some kind of
grandiose index that ties together, at your fingertips, every witness
and every piece of subject matter (and probably every exhibit too).
But as I told Puffer, I think the WC did properly "index" most (if not
all) of the material that is found in the WCR and the 26 volumes. And
I pointed out the very useful "List of Witnesses" in the WCR itself,
plus the two indexes that appear in Volume 15.
Plus, the Table of Contents in the WCR is, essentially, a "Subject
Index":
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0009a.htm
But all of that stuff just isn't nearly good enough for the CTers.
They apparently wanted the WC to index everything to the hilt (and
then they were probably supposed to INDEX the INDEX too; maybe that
would have made the CTers stop griping, but I doubt it).
The CT clowns, as usual, just want to bitch about the WC some more,
and the "index" thing is just one more example of the clowns
nitpicking to death the very good WCR and volumes.
In my posts concerning this matter, since I knew Puffer was mainly
griping about "no index" for the 26 volumes, I didn't even mention the
index of names at the back of the WCR itself, because that's only a
general index of names for the 888-page WCR only. It's not an index
for anything in the 26 volumes.
aeffects
Oct 21, 2012, 8:24:31 PM10/21/12
to
On Oct 21, 5:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that the WCR and volumes had no index!" <<<
>
> Well, Tim, to be fair to Puffer, here's his exact quote to me via
> Amazon.com:
>
> "The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by
> 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index)." -- Garry Puffer;
> Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
>
> http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=...
> >>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that the WCR and volumes had no index!" <<<
>
> Well, Tim, to be fair to Puffer, here's his exact quote to me via
> Amazon.com:
>
> "The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by
> 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index)." -- Garry Puffer;
> Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
>
>
> I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
> "no index" comment. He was talking about his desire for some kind of
> grandiose index that ties together, at your fingertips, every witness
> and every piece of subject matter (and probably every exhibit too).
>
> But as I told Puffer, I think the WC did properly "index" most (if not
> all) of the material that is found in the WCR and the 26 volumes.
you ARE that stupid indeed, how the hell did .john let you into his
> I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
> "no index" comment. He was talking about his desire for some kind of
> grandiose index that ties together, at your fingertips, every witness
> and every piece of subject matter (and probably every exhibit too).
>
> But as I told Puffer, I think the WC did properly "index" most (if not
> all) of the material that is found in the WCR and the 26 volumes.
den (aaj) of iniquity.
And where can one find that oldtime *proper* WCR index?
There's a flood of researchers wanting to know just how in the hell
they missed that.
Sheeeeeet, I bet old Bud the dudster would like to take a peek at
that.
...
aeffects
Oct 21, 2012, 8:27:54 PM10/21/12
to
chrissakes. ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! So take off those kneepads Fatboy, Clarke
is taken...
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Fresno, Botswana
> *Newsgroup(s) Primo Suck-ass*
>
...
David Von Pein
Oct 21, 2012, 8:38:38 PM10/21/12
to
>>> "And where can one find that oldtime *proper* WCR index?" <<<
Healy can't even click a link nowadays.) .....
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0009a.htm
WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:
WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS*:
* The "Exhibits" index linked above only goes up to CE1053, and that's
because it's an index that provides information as to what volume
number and page number to go to in order to find out when a particular
exhibit was first introduced into evidence with a witness on the
stand. The other 2,000 "CE" exhibits are not listed in that index, and
that index doesn't actually tell the reader where to go in the volumes
to locate a picture of the exhibit itself. But, of course, even a
second-grader who knows anything about the general structure of the WC
volumes would have no difficulty in locating photos of all the
Commission exhibits themselves -- just go to Volumes 16-26.
Brennan has linked to a dozen times already:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0452b.htm
Why on Earth would anyone require more indexes than what I've linked
above? Are CTers really THAT lazy and disorganized and clueless?
aeffects
Oct 21, 2012, 9:22:16 PM10/21/12
to
On Oct 21, 5:38 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "And where can one find that oldtime *proper* WCR index?" <<<
>
> I've pointed them out several times already. (Apparently Cokehead
> Healy can't even click a link nowadays.) .....
>
> TABLE OF CONTENTS:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0009a.htm
>
> WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...
> >>> "And where can one find that oldtime *proper* WCR index?" <<<
>
> I've pointed them out several times already. (Apparently Cokehead
> Healy can't even click a link nowadays.) .....
>
> TABLE OF CONTENTS:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0009a.htm
>
> WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
>
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS*:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...
>
> * The "Exhibits" index linked above only goes up to CE1053, and that's
> because it's an index that provides information as to what volume
> number and page number to go to in order to find out when a particular
> exhibit was first introduced into evidence with a witness on the
> stand. The other 2,000 "CE" exhibits are not listed in that index, and
> that index doesn't actually tell the reader where to go in the volumes
> to locate a picture of the exhibit itself. But, of course, even a
> second-grader who knows anything about the general structure of the WC
> volumes would have no difficulty in locating photos of all the
> Commission exhibits themselves -- just go to Volumes 16-26.
>
> Plus, there's also the general index of names in the WCR that Tim
> Brennan has linked to a dozen times already:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0452b.htm
>
> Why on Earth would anyone require more indexes than what I've linked
> above? Are CTers really THAT lazy and disorganized and clueless?
Old Harold W. required more, a LOT more, was he clueless? Mark Lane,
> * The "Exhibits" index linked above only goes up to CE1053, and that's
> because it's an index that provides information as to what volume
> number and page number to go to in order to find out when a particular
> exhibit was first introduced into evidence with a witness on the
> stand. The other 2,000 "CE" exhibits are not listed in that index, and
> that index doesn't actually tell the reader where to go in the volumes
> to locate a picture of the exhibit itself. But, of course, even a
> second-grader who knows anything about the general structure of the WC
> volumes would have no difficulty in locating photos of all the
> Commission exhibits themselves -- just go to Volumes 16-26.
>
> Plus, there's also the general index of names in the WCR that Tim
> Brennan has linked to a dozen times already:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0452b.htm
>
> Why on Earth would anyone require more indexes than what I've linked
> above? Are CTers really THAT lazy and disorganized and clueless?
was he clueless? Perhaps you're 35 websites, 15 blogs and 100,000 JFK
related USENET posts aren't the end-all be-all, wanker!
And you STILL haven't told us why those old-time researchers
complained about the "index(es), cross indexes and lack thereof."
We're about as disorganized as we need to be, that being, running you
lone nut moron's and the other troll dipso asses ragged! One book Von
Pein, Rush to Judgement -- Mark Lane... read it!
timstter
Oct 21, 2012, 9:27:09 PM10/21/12
to
Dave/Ringo:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0012b.htm
Sure seems to make a MOCKERY of what the unsurprisingly absent Holmes
claimed when he wrote:
QUOTE ON:
It's long been simply an historical FACT that the WCR didn't contain
an index to it's [sic] contents. One of Sylvia Meagher's great
QUOTE ON:
It's long been simply an historical FACT that the WCR didn't contain
accomplishments was to create one.
QUOTE OFF
The person who hasn't got shit would appear to be YOU, Dave/Ringo. You
QUOTE OFF
and your lying mate Benny Holmes.
Informative Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
timstter
Oct 21, 2012, 9:29:40 PM10/21/12
to
It's *Rush To Judgment* Dave/Ringo, you illiterate CLOWN!
Informative Regards,
David Von Pein
Oct 21, 2012, 10:07:30 PM10/21/12
to
>>> "Old Harold W. required more, a LOT more, was he clueless?" <<<
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/10/harold-weisberg.html
Ben Holmes
Oct 22, 2012, 10:12:34 AM10/22/12
to
In article <k5vpl...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
For a coward like you, Billy; I'm sure that you'd love to find company.
Can you help Tommy Keske out, and tell us what the description of the original
bullet wound in JFK's throat looked like?
Or will you run away *again*?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Can you help Tommy Keske out, and tell us what the description of the original
bullet wound in JFK's throat looked like?
Or will you run away *again*?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Ben Holmes
Oct 22, 2012, 10:27:03 AM10/22/12
to
In article <e9343e8d-3e43-47d4...@o5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Oct 21, 5:17=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that t=
Only the illiterate and ignorant can fail to understand it's clear meaning.
>> http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=3Dcm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=3D=
state?
It's a *FACT* that the volumes never had an index. THAT'S SIMPLY A FACT. Yet the
kooks will twist and turn and pretend that lies are the truth...
aeffects says...
>
>On Oct 21, 5:17=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that t=
>he WCR and volumes had no index!" <<<
>>
>> Well, Tim, to be fair to Puffer, here's his exact quote to me via
>> Amazon.com:
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 "The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied=
>>
>> Well, Tim, to be fair to Puffer, here's his exact quote to me via
>> Amazon.com:
>>
> by
>> 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index)." -- Garry Puffer;
>> Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
And, that statement is *STILL* perfectly accurate.
>> 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index)." -- Garry Puffer;
>> Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
Only the illiterate and ignorant can fail to understand it's clear meaning.
>> http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=3Dcm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=3D=
>...
>>
>> I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
>> "no index" comment. He was talking about his desire for some kind of
>> grandiose index that ties together, at your fingertips, every witness
>> and every piece of subject matter (and probably every exhibit too).
>>
>> But as I told Puffer, I think the WC did properly "index" most (if not
>> all) of the material that is found in the WCR and the 26 volumes.
>
>
>you ARE that stupid indeed, how the hell did .john let you into his
>den (aaj) of iniquity.
>
>And where can one find that oldtime *proper* WCR index?
>
>There's a flood of researchers wanting to know just how in the hell
>they missed that.
>
>Sheeeeeet, I bet old Bud the dudster would like to take a peek at
>that.
>
>...
Isn't it amusing that the kooks can't admit even the smallest fact that CT'ers
>>
>> I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
>> "no index" comment. He was talking about his desire for some kind of
>> grandiose index that ties together, at your fingertips, every witness
>> and every piece of subject matter (and probably every exhibit too).
>>
>> But as I told Puffer, I think the WC did properly "index" most (if not
>> all) of the material that is found in the WCR and the 26 volumes.
>
>
>you ARE that stupid indeed, how the hell did .john let you into his
>den (aaj) of iniquity.
>
>And where can one find that oldtime *proper* WCR index?
>
>There's a flood of researchers wanting to know just how in the hell
>they missed that.
>
>Sheeeeeet, I bet old Bud the dudster would like to take a peek at
>that.
>
>...
state?
It's a *FACT* that the volumes never had an index. THAT'S SIMPLY A FACT. Yet the
kooks will twist and turn and pretend that lies are the truth...
timstter
Oct 23, 2012, 4:43:33 AM10/23/12
to
On Oct 23, 1:12 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <k5vpl60...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <93f42e18-4124-4ef6-b745-2e8f2219b...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
Holmes.
YOU are the coward and runner, Holmes, not Bill.
That's why they call you Yellow Pants, Holmes.
Informative Regards,
> In article <k5vpl60...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <93f42e18-4124-4ef6-b745-2e8f2219b...@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>
> >Sounds to me that Benny is acting like a coward. I'm certainly not surprised.
>
> >Bill Clarke
>
> For a coward like you, Billy; I'm sure that you'd love to find company.
>
> Can you help Tommy Keske out, and tell us what the description of the original
> bullet wound in JFK's throat looked like?
>
> Or will you run away *again*?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
You're the one skulking behind a killfilter, hiding from open debate,
> >>X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>
> >Sounds to me that Benny is acting like a coward. I'm certainly not surprised.
>
> >Bill Clarke
>
> For a coward like you, Billy; I'm sure that you'd love to find company.
>
> Can you help Tommy Keske out, and tell us what the description of the original
> bullet wound in JFK's throat looked like?
>
> Or will you run away *again*?
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
Holmes.
YOU are the coward and runner, Holmes, not Bill.
That's why they call you Yellow Pants, Holmes.
Informative Regards,
timstter
Oct 25, 2012, 5:33:49 AM10/25/12
to
On Oct 23, 1:27 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <e9343e8d-3e43-47d4-a26a-9fe59affb...@o5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
QUOTE ON:
It's long been simply an historical FACT that the WCR didn't contain
an index to it's contents. One of Sylvia Meagher's great
accomplishments was to create one.
QUOTE OFF
YOU made that statement, Holmes.
Are YOU standing by it?
Especially when confronted by THIS?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0452b.htm
It's amusing that the kooks (ie Ben Holmes & Dave/Ringo Healy) can't
admit even the smallest fact that LNers state, isn't it, Benny?
You are quite simply a BLATANT liar just like your hero, Mark Lane,
Benny.
Informative Regards,
> In article <e9343e8d-3e43-47d4-a26a-9fe59affb...@o5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Oct 21, 5:17=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that t=
> >he WCR and volumes had no index!" <<<
>
> >> Well, Tim, to be fair to Puffer, here's his exact quote to me via
> >> Amazon.com:
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 "The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied=
> > by
> >> 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index)." -- Garry Puffer;
> >> Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
>
> And, that statement is *STILL* perfectly accurate.
>
> Only the illiterate and ignorant can fail to understand it's clear meaning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=3Dcm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?i...
>
>
>
> >On Oct 21, 5:17=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that t=
> >he WCR and volumes had no index!" <<<
>
> >> Well, Tim, to be fair to Puffer, here's his exact quote to me via
> >> Amazon.com:
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 "The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied=
> > by
> >> 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index)." -- Garry Puffer;
> >> Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
>
> And, that statement is *STILL* perfectly accurate.
>
> Only the illiterate and ignorant can fail to understand it's clear meaning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >...
>
> >> I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
> >> "no index" comment. He was talking about his desire for some kind of
> >> grandiose index that ties together, at your fingertips, every witness
> >> and every piece of subject matter (and probably every exhibit too).
>
> >> But as I told Puffer, I think the WC did properly "index" most (if not
> >> all) of the material that is found in the WCR and the 26 volumes.
>
> >you ARE that stupid indeed, how the hell did .john let you into his
> >den (aaj) of iniquity.
>
> >And where can one find that oldtime *proper* WCR index?
>
> >There's a flood of researchers wanting to know just how in the hell
> >they missed that.
>
> >Sheeeeeet, I bet old Bud the dudster would like to take a peek at
> >that.
>
> >...
>
> Isn't it amusing that the kooks can't admit even the smallest fact that CT'ers
> state?
>
> It's a *FACT* that the volumes never had an index. THAT'S SIMPLY A FACT. Yet the
> kooks will twist and turn and pretend that lies are the truth...
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
But is THIS statement *STILL* perfectly accurate, Benny?:
>
> >> I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
> >> "no index" comment. He was talking about his desire for some kind of
> >> grandiose index that ties together, at your fingertips, every witness
> >> and every piece of subject matter (and probably every exhibit too).
>
> >> But as I told Puffer, I think the WC did properly "index" most (if not
> >> all) of the material that is found in the WCR and the 26 volumes.
>
> >you ARE that stupid indeed, how the hell did .john let you into his
> >den (aaj) of iniquity.
>
> >And where can one find that oldtime *proper* WCR index?
>
> >There's a flood of researchers wanting to know just how in the hell
> >they missed that.
>
> >Sheeeeeet, I bet old Bud the dudster would like to take a peek at
> >that.
>
> >...
>
> Isn't it amusing that the kooks can't admit even the smallest fact that CT'ers
> state?
>
> It's a *FACT* that the volumes never had an index. THAT'S SIMPLY A FACT. Yet the
> kooks will twist and turn and pretend that lies are the truth...
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
QUOTE ON:
It's long been simply an historical FACT that the WCR didn't contain
an index to it's contents. One of Sylvia Meagher's great
accomplishments was to create one.
QUOTE OFF
Are YOU standing by it?
Especially when confronted by THIS?:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0452b.htm
It's amusing that the kooks (ie Ben Holmes & Dave/Ringo Healy) can't
admit even the smallest fact that LNers state, isn't it, Benny?
You are quite simply a BLATANT liar just like your hero, Mark Lane,
Benny.
Informative Regards,
timstter
Oct 25, 2012, 3:12:57 PM10/25/12
to
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
BUMP! YOO HOO! BENNY!
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
TB
aeffects
Oct 26, 2012, 1:22:54 PM10/26/12
to
On Oct 22, 7:27 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <e9343e8d-3e43-47d4-a26a-9fe59affb...@o5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> In article <e9343e8d-3e43-47d4-a26a-9fe59affb...@o5g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Oct 21, 5:17=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that t=
> >he WCR and volumes had no index!" <<<
>
> >> Well, Tim, to be fair to Puffer, here's his exact quote to me via
> >> Amazon.com:
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 "The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied=
> > by
> >> 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index)." -- Garry Puffer;
> >> Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
>
> And, that statement is *STILL* perfectly accurate.
>
> Only the illiterate and ignorant can fail to understand it's clear meaning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=3Dcm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?i...
>
>
>
> >On Oct 21, 5:17=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that t=
> >he WCR and volumes had no index!" <<<
>
> >> Well, Tim, to be fair to Puffer, here's his exact quote to me via
> >> Amazon.com:
>
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 "The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied=
> > by
> >> 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index)." -- Garry Puffer;
> >> Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
>
> And, that statement is *STILL* perfectly accurate.
>
> Only the illiterate and ignorant can fail to understand it's clear meaning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >...
>
> >> I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
> >> "no index" comment. He was talking about his desire for some kind of
> >> grandiose index that ties together, at your fingertips, every witness
> >> and every piece of subject matter (and probably every exhibit too).
>
> >> But as I told Puffer, I think the WC did properly "index" most (if not
> >> all) of the material that is found in the WCR and the 26 volumes.
>
> >you ARE that stupid indeed, how the hell did .john let you into his
> >den (aaj) of iniquity.
>
> >And where can one find that oldtime *proper* WCR index?
>
> >There's a flood of researchers wanting to know just how in the hell
> >they missed that.
>
> >Sheeeeeet, I bet old Bud the dudster would like to take a peek at
> >that.
>
> >...
>
> Isn't it amusing that the kooks can't admit even the smallest fact that CT'ers
> state?
>
> It's a *FACT* that the volumes never had an index. THAT'S SIMPLY A FACT. Yet the
> kooks will twist and turn and pretend that lies are the truth...
what's also a fact: case facts escape .john lone nut trolls.
>
> >> I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
> >> "no index" comment. He was talking about his desire for some kind of
> >> grandiose index that ties together, at your fingertips, every witness
> >> and every piece of subject matter (and probably every exhibit too).
>
> >> But as I told Puffer, I think the WC did properly "index" most (if not
> >> all) of the material that is found in the WCR and the 26 volumes.
>
> >you ARE that stupid indeed, how the hell did .john let you into his
> >den (aaj) of iniquity.
>
> >And where can one find that oldtime *proper* WCR index?
>
> >There's a flood of researchers wanting to know just how in the hell
> >they missed that.
>
> >Sheeeeeet, I bet old Bud the dudster would like to take a peek at
> >that.
>
> >...
>
> Isn't it amusing that the kooks can't admit even the smallest fact that CT'ers
> state?
>
> It's a *FACT* that the volumes never had an index. THAT'S SIMPLY A FACT. Yet the
> kooks will twist and turn and pretend that lies are the truth...
Robert Caprio
Oct 26, 2012, 2:57:38 PM10/26/12
to
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
The truth of the matter is the 26 volumes was NOT indexed and Meagher
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
did do this for us.
I am NO fan of "Ben's", but he simply made a mistake. We all do that
from time to time, some of us more often, right Tim?
Robert Caprio
Oct 26, 2012, 3:11:40 PM10/26/12
to
Top Post: There was NO subject index for the 26 volumes.
On Oct 20, 11:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> DVP's 2 cents (maybe 3).....
>
> ------------------------------
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
> volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Better look again. The Warren Commission Report and its associated
> volumes actually include MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander (the
> first one shown below is in the 888-page Warren Report itself, while
> the last two are in Volume 15; so, yes, you do need to know where to
> look for these indexes, but once you know where they are, then it's a
> snap to access them at any time in the future, particularly nowadays
> when every page of this material is available on the Internet):
>
> WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...
>
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS*:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...
On Oct 20, 11:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> DVP's 2 cents (maybe 3).....
>
> ------------------------------
>
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
>
> The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
> volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Better look again. The Warren Commission Report and its associated
> volumes actually include MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander (the
> first one shown below is in the 888-page Warren Report itself, while
> the last two are in Volume 15; so, yes, you do need to know where to
> look for these indexes, but once you know where they are, then it's a
> snap to access them at any time in the future, particularly nowadays
> when every page of this material is available on the Internet):
>
> WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
>
>
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS*:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0...
Robert Caprio
Oct 26, 2012, 3:13:34 PM10/26/12
to
On Oct 21, 8:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that the WCR and volumes had no index!" <<<
>
> Well, Tim, to be fair to Puffer, here's his exact quote to me via
> Amazon.com:
>
> "The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by
> 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index)." -- Garry Puffer;
> Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
>
> http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=...
> >>> "Holmes is now claiming that Puffer didn't lie when he claimed that the WCR and volumes had no index!" <<<
>
> Well, Tim, to be fair to Puffer, here's his exact quote to me via
> Amazon.com:
>
> "The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by
> 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index)." -- Garry Puffer;
> Oct. 7, 2012 [orig. post below]
>
>
> I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
> "no index" comment. ***He was talking about his desire for some kind of
> I knew exactly what Puffer was talking about when he made the above
> grandiose index that ties together, at your fingertips, every witness
> and every piece of subject matter (and probably every exhibit too).***
What is grandiose about a subject index? Don't most books, certainly
multiple volume books (save the government ones like this and for
9/11), have one, don't they?
timstter
Oct 26, 2012, 4:46:00 PM10/26/12
to
timstter
Oct 26, 2012, 4:49:32 PM10/26/12
to
What's also a fact is Benny makes a mistake and then Benny RUNS!
Informative Regards,
timstter
Oct 27, 2012, 3:32:17 PM10/27/12
to
As for Holmes, it's about time that he manned up and admitted that he
made a mistake, if that's what it was.
All he has done since is try and duck the issue, hiding behind
Puffer's words and his own killfilter.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.
And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
0 new messages