Where in this "lady in yellow pants" Ben Holmes is talking about?
Burly...@gmail.com
YoHarvey
> She doesn't appear in either the Nix or Zapruder film.
Burly? Only Jesus/Robcap wears yellow pants!!! It's the "hot" look
in the crowd he runs with :-)
justm...@gmail.com
Maybe Holmes is color blind. Why doesn't he post a link showing the
frame where this ficticious woman in yellow pants is standing,
walking, running...whatever? Instead he keeps claiming she's there
with no proof and none of us seem to be able to find her. What a
surprise, Holmes just enjoys calling others liars...even though he
knows he is the one doing all the lying.
aeffects
wrote:
get of your lard ass and look around, crone....
Burly...@gmail.com
Mr. Healy, like I said before, you have no dignity, and stupid posts
such as this one prove my point.
I have looked at the film, and I see nothing resembling "yellow
pants" within the area of question. Why don't you be a nice guy for
once, and point it out for us?
aeffects
troll, I doubt you even know how to set up a computer monitor, much
less attain accurate color... sitdown and enjoy the show, when we want
the junior varsity, we'll yank your *neuter* chain. 'kay, Scab?
Capeeeech?
Burly...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can't even tell me where the "lady in yellow pants" is! Sheesh!
aeffects
Scab, for the last time sitdown.... your turn will comes in a few
years..... you need a bit of maturing, we're hoping you can become
like those Nutter's of old, your the great skank hope for the WCR
future.... read about computer monitor gamma, then get back to me....
Take care, SCAB..
your's in research
Aeffects
Burly...@gmail.com
For the second time, Mr. Healy...
Even *you* can't tell me where the "lady in yellow pants" is.
Sheesh!
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Burly that's because Healy hasn't a freaking clue what anyone is
talking about. Look at his responses...they sound like a response from
a 10 year old trying to play the big bully. Healy is the biggest idiot
on this news group. He's vile and a pig....we'll see how his daughter
likes reading about her daddy dearest shortly.
Healys just upset because his hero Holmes has been proven a liar
again. Just keep in mind Burly it's people like us that tolerate
skanky idiots like Healy
Burly...@gmail.com
No matter how dignified one is with him, Mr. Healy simply will not
answer a question that is put to him in a dignified manner.
I am in earnest, and he is talking to me like I have committed the
crime of the century by asking for him--or someone-- to point out to
me the lady "in yellow pants". By his own responses, he has shown
that even he cannot answer my question.
Mr. Healy. I ask you again, sir...If you can't--or won't point her
out, then, that cinches it; you don't know where she is any more than
I !
aeffects
for the second time Scab,
Scab, and for the LAST time.... your turn will comes in a few
years..... you need a bit of maturing, we're hoping you can become
like those Nutter's of old, your the great skank hope for the WCR
future.... read about computer monitor gamma, then get back to
me....
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy doesn't even know what year it is....try and keep in simple
Burly :-)
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bdc9b38-0f3b-4981...@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
Healy doesn't even know what year it is....try and keep in simple
Burly :-)
"keep IN simple"????
Isn't this the Asshole who points out other peoples typo's?
He should stick to evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
This isn't difficult at all to see... it's apparently only impossible to answer.
The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?
This is really simple. Even trolls can tell the difference between "2" and "3".
YoHarvey
> "YoHarvey" <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Healy doesn't even know what year it is....try and keep in simple
> Burly :-)
>
> "keep IN simple"????
>
> Isn't this the Asshole who points out other peoples typo's?
>
> He should stick to evidence/testimony>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Isn't this the Asshole who points out other peoples typo's?
We accept typo's from the likes of YOU Rossley because we understand
your lack of education and your intrinsic stupidity. When I typo,
it's an actual mistake. I'll apologize for it as I'm doing right
now. Of course, raisin rapin wheat suckin bug fuckin humpers such as
you, as we know, do it out of sheer stupdity. Attempt AGAIN to come
back with a witticism Rossley. Are you capable of creativity? Yes or
no will suffice.
YoHarvey
> In article <2dd450fe-6c30-4875-aac9-9d0482516...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes? Your demonstrating your lack of knowledge about photography
is right up there on par with your lack of knowledge about 11/22//63.
Thanx for confirming what we all know. You're an idiot on so many
levels :-)
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <2dd450fe-6c30-4875-aac9-9d0482516...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
> >On Mar 7, 7:44 am, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Mar 7, 10:32 am, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 7, 9:49 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > > She doesn't appear in either the Nix or Zapruder film.
>
> >> > Burly? Only Jesus/Robcap wears yellow pants!!! It's the "hot" look
> >> > in the crowd he runs with :-)
>
> >> Maybe Holmes is color blind. Why doesn't he post a link showing the
> >> frame where this ficticious woman in yellow pants is standing,
> >> walking, running...whatever? Instead he keeps claiming she's there
> >> with no proof and none of us seem to be able to find her. What a
> >> surprise, Holmes just enjoys calling others liars...even though he
> >> knows he is the one doing all the lying.
>
> >get of your lard ass and look around, crone....
>
> This isn't difficult at all to see... it's apparently only impossible to answer.
>
> The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
Two (outside of the intersprocket area).
> How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?
Two.
Burly...@gmail.com
Agreed. The 3rd person Mr. Holmes believes should be in the frame(s)
of the Z film, which I presume is the person referred to by some as
"bag lady", is just out of the frame, at the top. All it would take
is for Mr. Holmes to get a the same make and model camera Zapruder
used, go to Dealey Plaza, stand in Z's position, and duplicate the
filming by Mr. Zapruder.
I still have no answer from him as to where this lady in "the yellow
pants" is.
>
>
>
> > This is really simple. Even trolls can tell the difference between "2" and "3".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
... All it would take
> is for Mr. Holmes to get a the same make and model camera Zapruder
> used, go to Dealey Plaza, stand in Z's position, and duplicate the
> filming by Mr. Zapruder.
...
is that a fact? Have you yourself done that, SCAB? Please post a URL
and show us your camerawork...
aeffects
hon, he tenders no time for fools... of course if you had any film/
photographic expertise you'd show us wouldn't you toots-e-roll
> Thanx for confirming what we all know. You're an idiot on so many
> levels :-)
the term *idiot-stick* defines in the most basic terms, the all-round
fool we've come to know and love as, YoHarvey.... the fraudulent
Vietnam Vet, Lone Nutter pitchman that can't get quite beyond softball
aeffects
c'mon troll... surely you can prove your contention.... gird those
loins, do some work, show us your stuff. Your paid to perform, not
take up space...... hop to toots-e-roll...
Burly...@gmail.com
Yes, that is a "fact, oh rude person with no dignity.
And for the record, it is not up to me to provide the information I
suggested, it is up to your buddy who claims that the films are fake
to do the test I suggested.
aeffects
> On Mar 8, 1:18 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 6:05 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > ... All it would take> is for Mr. Holmes to get a the same make and model camera Zapruder
> > > used, go to Dealey Plaza, stand in Z's position, and duplicate the
> > > filming by Mr. Zapruder.
>
> > ...
>
> > is that a fact? Have you yourself done that, SCAB? Please post a URL
> > and show us your camerawork...
>
> Yes, that is a "fact, oh rude person with no dignity.
well then show us fraud , surely you have the courage, don't you?
spouting off at the mouth is a far cry from posting your handywork,
eh, troll?
> And for the record, it is not up to me to provide the information I
> suggested, it is up to your buddy who claims that the films are fake
> to do the test I suggested.
for the record if you challenge anyone findings its time to provide
the info, troll -- otherwise your just blowing smoke out your ass,
better yet up Yohavey's ass evidently there plenty of room in THAT
neighborhood.... now be a good little troll post your findings or go
back to measuring that SCAB on your ass....
justm...@gmail.com
Burly, apparently the yellow pants Holmes found is a picture of Healy
pissing his LOL
Burly...@gmail.com
Thank you for your thoughts, Mr. Healy.
You've really been touchy these past couple of days. I suggest you
seek some professional help.
Burly...@gmail.com
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Actually, it's already been done... and with Zapruder's camera. Sadly, that
film isn't available for anyone to examine. I wonder why?
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Mar 8, 10:40 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 1:18 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 8, 6:05 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> ... All it would take> is for Mr. Holmes to get a the same make and model
>>camera Zapruder
>> > > used, go to Dealey Plaza, stand in Z's position, and duplicate the
>> > > filming by Mr. Zapruder.
>>
>> > ...
>>
>> > is that a fact? Have you yourself done that, SCAB? Please post a URL
>> > and show us your camerawork...
>>
>> Yes, that is a "fact, oh rude person with no dignity.
>
>well then show us fraud , surely you have the courage, don't you?
>spouting off at the mouth is a far cry from posting your handywork,
>eh, troll?
>
>> And for the record, it is not up to me to provide the information I
>> suggested, it is up to your buddy who claims that the films are fake
>> to do the test I suggested.
How silly! The tests have already been done by the FBI - and they won't release
'em. It's not up to me to explain the evidence... I merely present it, and give
you my take on what it demonstrates.
The fact that trolls are *unable* to explain the evidence, or refute my
explanations, are all the facts lurkers need to draw their own judgements.
Ad hominem isn't going to be a winner against the citations of evidence.
Burly...@gmail.com
> In article <9fa79c30-01e0-4d2d-8917-ee62f93e3...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 8, 10:40 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Mar 8, 1:18 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 8, 6:05 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> ... All it would take> is for Mr. Holmes to get a the same make and model
> >>camera Zapruder
> >> > > used, go to Dealey Plaza, stand in Z's position, and duplicate the
> >> > > filming by Mr. Zapruder.
>
> >> > ...
>
> >> > is that a fact? Have you yourself done that, SCAB? Please post a URL
> >> > and show us your camerawork...
>
> >> Yes, that is a "fact, oh rude person with no dignity.
>
> >well then show us fraud , surely you have the courage, don't you?
> >spouting off at the mouth is a far cry from posting your handywork,
> >eh, troll?
>
> >> And for the record, it is not up to me to provide the information I
> >> suggested, it is up to your buddy who claims that the films are fake
> >> to do the test I suggested.
>
> How silly! The tests have already been done by the FBI - and they won't release
> 'em.
Oh? Why is is "silly" for one to suggest that you go to DP and get up
onto Z's pedestal, and position the camera and lens the way he did
when filimg the shooting, when you are the one claiming the film has
been fudged?
It's not up to me to explain the evidence... I merely present it, and
give
> you my take on what it demonstrates.
No, you are in error. You are not "presenting the evidence", sir,
you presenting your interpretation of something.
all I asked when I started this thread was for someone to point me to
the woman you claim is dressed in "yellow pants" . So far, I have not
received a solid answer from you, and only insults, cursing and name
calling from your buddy, David Healy.
>
> The fact that trolls are *unable* to explain the evidence, or refute my
> explanations,
No one can "explain" anything until you quit stalling and
specifically point this "lady in yellow pants" out.
are all the facts lurkers need to draw their own judgements.
>
> Ad hominem isn't going to be a winner against the citations of evidence.
Please, then, tell your buddy, David Healy, to lay off with his
insults, cursing, and swearing everytime someone asks a question!
>
>
> >for the record if you challenge anyone findings its time to provide
> >the info, troll -- otherwise your just blowing smoke out your ass,
> >better yet up Yohavey's ass evidently there plenty of room in THAT
> >neighborhood.... now be a good little troll post your findings or go
> >back to measuring that SCAB on your ass....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix frame
published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
Is that the person who is being discussed?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
justm...@gmail.com
Holmes sends in the lapdog Healy to divert people away from nailing
Holmes to answer their questions. Every single time Holmes is asked a
question he can't answer...in jumps Healy with his nose sniffing
Holmes butt, spewing his usual incoherent bs. Just look at every post
made by Holmes and whos post is right under it.
The womans pants will turn from yellow to blue by the time you get a
direct answer from little "Sadam".
muc...@gmail.com
I suppose you would've counted the lady in yellow pants in the Nix
film? But exactly where in the Zapruder film would you expect to see
her? Hint: Ben's Z-377 suggestion above is ridiculous. It would have
to have been before the lamppost comes into view in Z-365, and she is
a few yards farther away from Zapruder than the couple whose legs you
can see between Z-342 and Z-348, so she is simply out of view.
> > > This is really simple. Even trolls can tell the difference between "2" and "3".
Yet apparently too complicated for you.
muc...@gmail.com
> TOP POST
>
> Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix frame
> published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>
> Is that the person who is being discussed?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Tim,
I don't have my books handy, but it's the person closest to Main St.
in the frames that are reproduced here:
[WC18H83]
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0049a.htm
Some useful on-line tools:
[Nix frames]
http://jfk.fotopic.net/c1178748.html
[Zapruder frames]
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
[Don Roberdeau's DP map]
http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
-Mark
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Mark,
Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from
the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
the *Four Days* book.
I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
crock.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Mar 9, 11:28 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9 Mar., 00:22, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix frame
> > published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>
> > Is that the person who is being discussed?
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> Tim,
>
> I don't have my books handy, but it's the person closest to Main St.
> in the frames that are reproduced here:
>
> [WC18H83]
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol...
aeffects
troll elsewhere hon, this is way over your head....
> > > > This is really simple. Even trolls can tell the difference between "2" and "3".
not this fucking idiot Much-la-dunce....
aeffects
> In article <9fa79c30-01e0-4d2d-8917-ee62f93e3...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
amen, the trolls just can't seem to get out of the starting gates...
evidence does them in EVERY TIME...... there is absolutely no Lone
Nutter on this board to debate, they're idiots in dire need of mental
health
aeffects
> TOP POST
>
> Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix frame
> published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>
> Is that the person who is being discussed?
post the picture stump.... I doubt many have even heard of the book
(certainly no Nutter troll has seen it.) .
btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a grayscale
when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
commentator.....
aeffects
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
> book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from
> the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
> the *Four Days* book.
his name is Scab, asshole.... get your nonsense straight or drag your
simple-minded ass back to .johns
> I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
> what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
> something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
> facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
> bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
> crock.
the Z-film is fraud, moron.... case CLOSED....
Burly...@gmail.com
Whats the matter, Mr. Healy? Can't stand it when someone with dignity
is actually interested in addressing some of the crazy conspiracy
nonsense come here to try to address some of the questions? Make up
your mind.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Burly...@gmail.com
> On Mar 8, 5:02 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Hi Mark,
>
> > Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
> > book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from
> > the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
> > the *Four Days* book.
>
> his name is Scab, asshole.... get your nonsense straight or drag your
> simple-minded ass back to .johns
>
> > I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
> > what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
> > something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
> > facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
> > bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
> > crock.
>
> the Z-film is fraud, moron.... case CLOSED....
Prove it, Mr. Healy.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
hell SCAB, that moron has been hiding out at .johns since Christ was a
kid---- he's a no-nothing scum-bag, gotta be your father, eh?
Burly...@gmail.com
Your constant blasphemy is going to come back to bite you on the rump,
Mr. Healy.
muc...@gmail.com
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
> book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from
> the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
> the *Four Days* book.
>
> I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
> what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
> something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
> facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
> bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
> crock.
It wouldn't surprise me if Ben took something he read in a conspiracy
book on faith, without looking into the matter himself. An independent
thinker he ain't.
Btw, in the posts linked to below, Ben implies that the lady in yellow
pants should have been visible in Z-377...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b900b35211f89d8
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4375be1606567904
...which is, of course, far too late.
-Mark
Burly...@gmail.com
> On 9 Mar., 02:02, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Hi Mark,
>
> > Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
> > book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from
> > the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
> > the *Four Days* book.
>
> > I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
> > what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
> > something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
> > facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
> > bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
> > crock.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if Ben took something he read in a conspiracy
> book on faith, without looking into the matter himself. An independent
> thinker he ain't.
>
> Btw, in the posts linked to below, Ben implies that the lady in yellow
> pants should have been visible in Z-377...
>
>
> ...which is, of course, far too late.
>
> -Mark
Apparently, Mr. Holmes doesn't realize or understand that the woman
is not wearing "yeallow pants" at all. She is dresssed in a black
dress, scarf around her head, carrying a large shopping type bag.
tims...@gmail.com
Oh dear. It looks like Zfilm alterationist believer, David *aeffects*
Healy, can't take the heat.
Say, Heals, I thought you were a noted contributor to the Z
alteratioinst theory down Fetzer way. Is this the best you've got?
The lady in the Nix film in the yellow pants is too far back to appear
in the Z film David.
That's why she doesn't appear in the film. Not because the film is
altered. I thought this was one of the *smoking guns* you wanted
debated, my good Healy.
Jack White's *research* really is DREADFUL stuff, isn't it Heals?
Let's hope you haven't based too much of your alterationist schtick on
that, matey.
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
muc...@gmail.com
Am I missing something here? Please alaborate. According to your
master, this is really simple, yet neither of you seem able to
understand it...
> > > > > This is really simple. Even trolls can tell the difference between "2" and "3".
>
> not this fucking idiot Much-la-dunce....
So emotional... are we perhaps getting too close to the truth for your
liking?
tims...@gmail.com
Huh? *Four Days* is a well known book. Many LNers have read it. Do you
need me to post a picture of the cover to aid you in your <snicker> *Z
film alteration* research David?
There are colour photos printed in *Four Days*, the one in question is
one of them. Sounds like YOU are the one who has never seen or read
the book.
Does research acumen like that go over well at the <snicker>
*Education Forum* where your mate Jack White hangs out, Mr Healy?
Gotta hand it to this not-so-bright Z film alterationist believer,
David *aeffects* Healy. He's completely HOPELESS at JFK research!
LMFAO@ the loser!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
justm...@gmail.com
Because Healys researching John FRANCIS Kennedy not John Fitzgerald
Kennedy ROFLMAO Healy was put to shame on the Education forum too
about his z film being a fake. Hell, Healy doesn't even believe that
Zapruder shot the film....now thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Just,
This is simply CLASSIC Healy. Appears to know nothing about one of the
classic early texts of JFK assassination research, *Four Days*.
Yet he's gonna tell us all about Z film *alteration*. Yeah, right.
This is right up there with his John Francis Kennedy blooper, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Mar 9, 1:46 pm, "justme1...@gmail.com" <justme1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Zapruder shot the film....now thats funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Yes, Z377 is too late for the lady to appear. In fact, she is much too
far back to appear in Zapruder.
The couple behind the Franzen group are only partially visible in
Zapruder. She is standing farther back than them.
Jack White compares Z369 with what appears to be Nix 103 to make his
bogus comparison.
Clint Hill still appears to have one foot on the road in Z369. In N103
he has both feet on the bumper.
It's bogus research, and his conclusions defy logic.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Mar 9, 12:51 pm, much...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9 Mar., 02:02, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Hi Mark,
>
> > Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
> > book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from
> > the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
> > the *Four Days* book.
>
> > I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
> > what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
> > something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
> > facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
> > bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
> > crock.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if Ben took something he read in a conspiracy
> book on faith, without looking into the matter himself. An independent
> thinker he ain't.
>
> Btw, in the posts linked to below, Ben implies that the lady in yellow
> pants should have been visible in Z-377...
>
muc...@gmail.com
> TOP POST
>
> Yes, Z377 is too late for the lady to appear. In fact, she is much too
> far back to appear in Zapruder.
>
> The couple behind the Franzen group are only partially visible in
> Zapruder. She is standing farther back than them.
Exactly.
> Jack White compares Z369 with what appears to be Nix 103 to make his
> bogus comparison.
>
> Clint Hill still appears to have one foot on the road in Z369. In N103
> he has both feet on the bumper.
>
> It's bogus research, and his conclusions defy logic.
The kind preferred by Ben Holmes and his partners in crime.
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> On Mar 9, 12:51 pm, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 9 Mar., 02:02, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > TOP POST
>
> > > Hi Mark,
>
> > > Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
> > > book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from
> > > the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
> > > the *Four Days* book.
>
> > > I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
> > > what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
> > > something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
> > > facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
> > > bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
> > > crock.
>
> > It wouldn't surprise me if Ben took something he read in a conspiracy
> > book on faith, without looking into the matter himself. An independent
> > thinker he ain't.
>
> > Btw, in the posts linked to below, Ben implies that the lady in yellow
> > pants should have been visible in Z-377...
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b900b35211f89d...
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Mar 8, 3:22 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> TOP POST
>>
>> Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix frame
>> published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>>
>> Is that the person who is being discussed?
>
>post the picture stump.... I doubt many have even heard of the book
>(certainly no Nutter troll has seen it.) .
It would be far simpler to simply review the Nix film available widely on the
Internet, rather than a book few have.
>btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a grayscale
>when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21. It is indeed a photo
showing three people where the trolls have been trying to argue that only two
are seen.
But I don't expect any retractions.
>Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
>commentator.....
Tim won't respond to me... I suspect that he knows he's out of my league. (or,
more accurately, that the evidence is)
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Mar 8, 5:02 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> TOP POST
>>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
>> book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from
>> the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
>> the *Four Days* book.
>
>
>his name is Scab, asshole.... get your nonsense straight or drag your
>simple-minded ass back to .johns
>
>
>> I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
>> what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
>> something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
>> facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
>> bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
>> crock.
>
>the Z-film is fraud, moron.... case CLOSED....
Sure would be a hoot if any of these LNT'ers would dare to debate...
Martin ran off, Bob ran off, Tony never got out of the starting blocks, and
no-one else has dared...
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Ben,
On Mar 9, 2:42 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <60a85a36-ce1f-4699-a891-8f3f9d414...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
> >On Mar 8, 3:22 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> TOP POST
>
> >> Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix frame
> >> published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>
> >> Is that the person who is being discussed?
>
> >post the picture stump.... I doubt many have even heard of the book
> >(certainly no Nutter troll has seen it.) .
>
> It would be far simpler to simply review the Nix film available widely on the
> Internet, rather than a book few have.
>
Possibly a good point. Still, I don't know that it would be *a book
few have* if they have an interest in the Kennedy assassination.
People don't read books anymore?
> >btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a grayscale
> >when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
>
> Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21. It is indeed a photo
> showing three people where the trolls have been trying to argue that only two
> are seen.
>
Oh, you DO have a copy! Thank God there are a few of us out there who
still read a good book and *Four Days* is an absolute BEAUT in my
book!
> But I don't expect any retractions.
>
Probably wise. I mean, we are talking David *aeffects* Healy here,
aren't we? He's hardly likely to admit a mistake now, is he, LOL!
> >Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
> >commentator.....
>
> Tim won't respond to me... I suspect that he knows he's out of my league. (or,
> more accurately, that the evidence is)
>
Won't I? Well here I am, responding to you. And, Ben, I would NEVER be
so presumptuous as to claim that you were out of my league, as I'm
sure that you are a very talented fellow!
The evidence? Now perhaps that's another matter... :-)
Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben? Jack White's ridiculous
conclusions about Mrs Franzen perhaps? That book, *Murder in Dealey
Plaza*, REALLY is a stinker, isn't it?
muc...@gmail.com
Ben has killfiled all the LN'ers, and is now turning (as predicted by
yours truly) on that carpet pissing rat-dog of his! Beautiful.
According to Ben's rules, anyone who doesn't retract an erroneous
statement (like Healy's above) within a certain amount of time
(determined by Ben) is a liar (and probably also a coward).
> > >Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
> > >commentator.....
>
> > Tim won't respond to me... I suspect that he knows he's out of my league. (or,
> > more accurately, that the evidence is)
>
> Won't I? Well here I am, responding to you. And, Ben, I would NEVER be
> so presumptuous as to claim that you were out of my league, as I'm
> sure that you are a very talented fellow!
>
> The evidence? Now perhaps that's another matter... :-)
>
> Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben? Jack White's ridiculous
> conclusions about Mrs Franzen perhaps? That book, *Murder in Dealey
> Plaza*, REALLY is a stinker, isn't it?
Ben hasn't been up to much, discussion-wise, since the Bob Harris
fiasco. Perhaps, being such a highly strung fellow, something snapped
inside, when he was publicly humiliated by Todd (on Chaney) a few
nights ago. Ben just might be comfortable discussing the colour of the
sky with you, but don't expect him to engage in anything more
complicated than that. At least until the old wounds have been
properly licked.
-Mark
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <77e8ba16-0e7b-446a-bac2-e7d3c1456...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
> >On Mar 8, 5:02 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> TOP POST
>
> >> Hi Mark,
>
> >> Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
> >> book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from
> >> the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
> >> the *Four Days* book.
>
> >his name is Scab, asshole.... get your nonsense straight or drag your
> >simple-minded ass back to .johns
>
> >> I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
> >> what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
> >> something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
> >> facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
> >> bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
> >> crock.
>
> >the Z-film is fraud, moron.... case CLOSED....
>
> Sure would be a hoot if any of these LNT'ers would dare to debate...
>
> Martin ran off, Bob ran off, Tony never got out of the starting blocks, and
> no-one else has dared...
Are you kidding? In this thread alone, at least three people have been
addressing your contention that the lady in yellow pants (in Nix)
should have appeared in Zapruder (in Z-377 or thereabout).
Bob Harris did exactly the same thing. Remember the "discussion" you
had with him a few days ago?
[From "Comparing the Zfilm and Nix (Bob can't do it! Caught in a Bald-
Faced Lie!)" --- 5 March 2008]
HARRIS. The two people behind that group (in Nix) are taller than the
four near the road, because they were well back from the road and out
of Zapruder's view.
HOLMES. ROTFLMAO!!! You're a bald-faced LIAR Bob... Do you want to
defend this lie, Bob? Tell us, Bob... what part of the grass was *NOT*
visible in Z-369 (moving straight *BACK* from the group of four?)
HARRIS. Take an accurate copy of the surveyor's diagram and draw cones
from Zapruder and Nix and you will see that those people were exactly
where they should have been at the times they appeared in the two
films. The lady in the dark dress btw, might have moved a tad to her
left before she appeared in the Nix film, which happened a second or
so after she appeared in Zapruder.
HOLMES. These are *videos* Bob... not photographs. Simply point to her
movement...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b5976e29beaa3b3b
Bob was clearly talking about the same lady, yet you had this to say
two days later:
[From "Z-369 and Proof that Zapruder & Nix Have Been Altered. (Robert
Harris Caught Lying About It!! And Now Bob is Running Away!)" --- 7
March 2008]
HOLMES. Nor, for example, have you *EVER* responded to the point I
made about the lady wearing yellow pants. Too cowardly and too
dishonest... for as we have all been told repeatedly, "There's no
question an honest man will evade," but that's not true, is it Bob?
You're a coward, Bob - you keep top-posting and avoiding questions you
can't answer... so I moved it to the top to watch you squirm. I
predict that you'll simply refuse to answer this entire post...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ed3607b19e5a70d7
What a dishonest critter you are, Ben...
-Mark
muc...@gmail.com
Run, Ben, run...
Ben Holmes
tims...@gmail.com says...
>
>MIDDLE POST
>
>Hi Ben,
>
>On Mar 9, 2:42=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <60a85a36-ce1f-4699-a891-8f3f9d414...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 8, 3:22 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> TOP POST
>>
>> >> Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix frame
>> >> published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>>
>> >> Is that the person who is being discussed?
>>
>> >post the picture stump.... I doubt many have even heard of the book
>> >(certainly no Nutter troll has seen it.) .
>>
>the
>> Internet, rather than a book few have.
>>
>
>Possibly a good point. Still, I don't know that it would be *a book
>few have* if they have an interest in the Kennedy assassination.
>People don't read books anymore?
Tell us about the photo on page 250 of "The Hoax of the Century"
Go ahead and give me your opinion.
>> >btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a grayscale
>> >when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
>>
>> Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21. It is indeed a photo
>> showing three people where the trolls have been trying to argue that only
>> two are seen.
>>
>
>Oh, you DO have a copy! Thank God there are a few of us out there who
>still read a good book and *Four Days* is an absolute BEAUT in my
>book!
>
>> But I don't expect any retractions.
>>
>
>Probably wise. I mean, we are talking David *aeffects* Healy here,
>aren't we? He's hardly likely to admit a mistake now, is he, LOL!
I'm referring to the trolls who claimed that there were only *two* people seen
on the grass there. And it was rather obvious that I *WAS* referring to that
event... so you're either incredibly illiterate, or a liar... which is it?
I would imagine that the hardcover of "Four Days" wasn't the only one put out,
but can you locate and cite a copy of Nix where only two people are shown in the
location that we're speaking of?
>> >Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
>> >commentator.....
>>
>> Tim won't respond to me... I suspect that he knows he's out of my league. =
>(or,
>> more accurately, that the evidence is)
>>
>
>Won't I?
You've never responded in the past, despite *numerous* corrections I've offered
for what you've spouted.
>Well here I am, responding to you. And, Ben, I would NEVER be
>so presumptuous as to claim that you were out of my league, as I'm
>sure that you are a very talented fellow!
And yet, you duck and run from virtually anything I say... why is that, Tim?
>The evidence? Now perhaps that's another matter... :-)
>
>Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben? Jack White's ridiculous
>conclusions about Mrs Franzen perhaps? That book, *Murder in Dealey
>Plaza*, REALLY is a stinker, isn't it?
Actually, I consider it one of the better books in my library.
But since you mentioned "evidence"... why not start with my "45 Questions". I
can't say as I've ever seen you attempt them.
>Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan
>Sydney, Australia
>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
>>
>>
>> >> Regards,
>>
>> >> Tim Brennan
>> >> Sydney, Australia
>> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> >> On Mar 9, 9:40 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > In article
>> >><9fa79c30-01e0-4d2d-8917-ee62f93e3...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> > > >On Mar 8, 10:40 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > > >> On Mar 8, 1:18 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >> > On Mar 8, 6:05 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>> > >>> ... =A0All it would take> is for Mr. Holmes to get a the same ma=
>ke and
>> >>model
>> >> > > >>camera Zapruder
>> >> > > >> > > used, go to Dealey Plaza, stand in Z's position, and duplica=
>te the
>> >> > > >> > > filming by Mr. Zapruder.
>>
>> >> > > >> > ...
>>
>> >>> > >> > =A0is that a fact? Have you yourself done that, SCAB? Please po=
>st a URL
>> >> > > >> > and show us your camerawork...
>>
>> >> > > >> =A0 Yes, that is a "fact, oh rude person with no dignity.
>>
>> >> > > >well then show us fraud , surely you have the courage, don't you?
>> >> > > >spouting off at the mouth is a far cry from posting =A0your handyw=
>ork,
>> >> > > >eh, troll?
>>
>> >> > > >> =A0And for the record, it is not up to me to provide the informa=
>tion I
>> >> > > >> suggested, it is up to your buddy who claims that the films are =
>fake
>> >> > > >> to do the test I suggested.
>>
>> >>> > How silly! =A0The tests have already been done by the FBI - and they=
> won't
>> >>release
>> >> > > 'em.
>>
>> >> > Oh? Why is is "silly" for one to suggest that you go to DP and get up=
>
>> >> > onto Z's pedestal, and position the camera and lens the way he did
>> >> > when filimg the shooting, when you are the one claiming the film has
>> >> > been fudged?
>>
>> >> > =A0It's not up to me to explain the evidence... I merely present it, =
>and
>> >> > give
>>
>> >> > > you my take on what it demonstrates.
>>
>> >> > No, you are =A0in error. =A0You are not "presenting the evidence", si=
>r,
>> >> > you presenting your interpretation of something.
>>
>> >> > =A0all I asked when I started this thread was for someone to point me=
> to
>> >> > the woman you claim is dressed in "yellow pants" . =A0So far, I have =
>not
>> >> > received a solid answer from you, and only insults, cursing and name
>> >> > calling from your buddy, David Healy.
>>
>> >> > > The fact that trolls are *unable* to explain the evidence, or refut=
>e my
>> >> > > explanations,
>>
>> >> > =A0No one can "explain" anything until you quit stalling and
>> >> > specifically point this "lady in yellow pants" out.
>>
>> >> > =A0are all the facts lurkers need to draw their own judgements.
>>
>> >> > > Ad hominem isn't going to be a winner against the citations of evid=
>ence.
>>
>> >> > =A0Please, then, tell your buddy, David Healy, to lay off with his
>> >> > insults, cursing, and swearing everytime someone asks a question!
>>
>> >> > > >for the record if you challenge anyone findings its time to provid=
>e
>> >> > > >the info, troll -- otherwise your just blowing smoke out your ass,=
>
>> >> > > >better yet up Yohavey's ass evidently there plenty of room in THAT=
>
>> >> > > >neighborhood.... now be a good little troll post your findings or =
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <3c94aa4f-0dea-4ba0-a1ec-923593944...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> timst...@gmail.com says...
Just a friendly reminder of how your question was phrased:
(quote) The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
How many people does the Nix film show in the same location? (unquote)
Actually, the two films show the same number of people in the same
location(s). The lady in yellow pants would have appeared in the
Z-350's, had she not been too far away from Zapruder to be in view.
This has been explained to you by several posters.
> I would imagine that the hardcover of "Four Days" wasn't the only one put out,
> but can you locate and cite a copy of Nix where only two people are shown in the
> location that we're speaking of?
The grassy area in view in Z-377 outside the sprocket area? Any copy
of the Nix film will do.
> >> >Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
> >> >commentator.....
>
> >> Tim won't respond to me... I suspect that he knows he's out of my league. =
> >(or,
> >> more accurately, that the evidence is)
>
> >Won't I?
>
> You've never responded in the past, despite *numerous* corrections I've offered
> for what you've spouted.
>
> >Well here I am, responding to you. And, Ben, I would NEVER be
> >so presumptuous as to claim that you were out of my league, as I'm
> >sure that you are a very talented fellow!
At least in the dancing and dodging department.
> And yet, you duck and run from virtually anything I say... why is that, Tim?
He answered your question about the lady in yellow pants. You ignored
his answer. Who's running?
> >The evidence? Now perhaps that's another matter... :-)
>
> >Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben? Jack White's ridiculous
> >conclusions about Mrs Franzen perhaps? That book, *Murder in Dealey
> >Plaza*, REALLY is a stinker, isn't it?
>
> Actually, I consider it one of the better books in my library.
Figures. Above discussion, eh? Who's running?
> But since you mentioned "evidence"... why not start with my "45 Questions". I
> can't say as I've ever seen you attempt them.
Why don't you ask your annoying lapdog? He has been avoiding them like
the plague. The rest of us have given them more attention than they
deserve.
-Mark
Burly...@gmail.com
> In article <3c94aa4f-0dea-4ba0-a1ec-923593944...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> timst...@gmail.com says...
Ah...ah...ah..., Mr. Holmes. Is it not you who is contsantly
calling others a "coward" and "running" from posts?
Seems to me that you are doing everything you can to avoid this
thread, i.e. "running".
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Ben,
On Mar 10, 2:33 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <3c94aa4f-0dea-4ba0-a1ec-923593944...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> timst...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >MIDDLE POST
>
> >Hi Ben,
>
> >On Mar 9, 2:42=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >> In article <60a85a36-ce1f-4699-a891-8f3f9d414...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> aeffects says...
>
> >> >On Mar 8, 3:22 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> TOP POST
>
> >> >> Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix frame
> >> >> published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>
> >> >> Is that the person who is being discussed?
>
> >> >post the picture stump.... I doubt many have even heard of the book
> >> >(certainly no Nutter troll has seen it.) .
>
> >> It would be far simpler to simply review the Nix film available widely on =
> >the
> >> Internet, rather than a book few have.
>
> >Possibly a good point. Still, I don't know that it would be *a book
> >few have* if they have an interest in the Kennedy assassination.
> >People don't read books anymore?
>
> Tell us about the photo on page 250 of "The Hoax of the Century"
>
> Go ahead and give me your opinion.
>
Why don't you post a link to this photo, Ben, if it is so important.
Why have you suddenly gone off on this tangent?
>
>
>
>
> >> >btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a grayscale
> >> >when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
>
> >> Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21. It is indeed a photo
> >> showing three people where the trolls have been trying to argue that only
> >> two are seen.
>
> >Oh, you DO have a copy! Thank God there are a few of us out there who
> >still read a good book and *Four Days* is an absolute BEAUT in my
> >book!
>
> >> But I don't expect any retractions.
>
> >Probably wise. I mean, we are talking David *aeffects* Healy here,
> >aren't we? He's hardly likely to admit a mistake now, is he, LOL!
>
> I'm referring to the trolls who claimed that there were only *two* people seen
> on the grass there. And it was rather obvious that I *WAS* referring to that
> event... so you're either incredibly illiterate, or a liar... which is it?
>
Well, looks to me like you were referring to Healy's blooper too. You
know, where he said that all the photos in *Four Days* were in black
and white. Of course, as we both know, that is complete nonsense.
BTW, by 1968, *Four Days* had sold three and a half million copies,
that is, if Time magazine is to be believed. I wonder if *The Hoax of
the Century* sold that many?
And who are these *trolls* you keep speaking of? Are they people who
don't support your theories of Z film alteration Ben?
> I would imagine that the hardcover of "Four Days" wasn't the only one put out,
> but can you locate and cite a copy of Nix where only two people are shown in the
> location that we're speaking of?
>
Well, we've posted all the frames for you. Looks like you're off on a
tangent here again. BTW, according to some of these people you refer
to as *trolls* that wasn't quite the question you asked in the first
place. Is that true Ben?
> >> >Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
> >> >commentator.....
>
> >> Tim won't respond to me... I suspect that he knows he's out of my league. =
> >(or,
> >> more accurately, that the evidence is)
>
> >Won't I?
>
> You've never responded in the past, despite *numerous* corrections I've offered
> for what you've spouted.
>
Numerous? I'm not sure I recall that. Perhaps I simply missed your
brilliance, Ben. It sounds like important stuff, this Z film
alteration conspiracy. You're pretty sure it's a fact?
> >Well here I am, responding to you. And, Ben, I would NEVER be
> >so presumptuous as to claim that you were out of my league, as I'm
> >sure that you are a very talented fellow!
>
> And yet, you duck and run from virtually anything I say... why is that, Tim?
>
Perhaps you're rather an unpleasant type of *troll* fellow, Ben. No
one wants to waste their day dealing with people like that. :-)
> >The evidence? Now perhaps that's another matter... :-)
>
> >Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben? Jack White's ridiculous
> >conclusions about Mrs Franzen perhaps? That book, *Murder in Dealey
> >Plaza*, REALLY is a stinker, isn't it?
>
> Actually, I consider it one of the better books in my library.
>
Oh dear...
> But since you mentioned "evidence"... why not start with my "45 Questions". I
> can't say as I've ever seen you attempt them.
>
Actually YOU mentioned evidence first, Ben. Anyone who looks at this
thread can see that. You're not trying to change the subject now are
you?
I think we'll finish dealing with *Yellow Legs* in the Nix film and
the Franzens and Jack White's absurd claims in *Murder in Dealey
Plaza*, one of the *better* books in your library, before we do too
much else, eh?
Plenty to go over there, Ben.
Regards,
aeffects
son, mineis black and white... perhaps its a publishers galley proof,
a collectors dream. Who cares, but I, its mine....
> BTW, by 1968, *Four Days* had sold three and a half million copies,
> that is, if Time magazine is to be believed. I wonder if *The Hoax of
> the Century* sold that many?
>
> And who are these *trolls* you keep speaking of? Are they people who
> don't support your theories of Z film alteration Ben?
you, son..... lone nut whacko's
> > I would imagine that the hardcover of "Four Days" wasn't the only one put out,
> > but can you locate and cite a copy of Nix where only two people are shown in the
> > location that we're speaking of?
>
> Well, we've posted all the frames for you. Looks like you're off on a
> tangent here again. BTW, according to some of these people you refer
> to as *trolls* that wasn't quite the question you asked in the first
> place. Is that true Ben?
where, son?
> > >> >Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
> > >> >commentator.....
>
> > >> Tim won't respond to me... I suspect that he knows he's out of my league. =
> > >(or,
> > >> more accurately, that the evidence is)
>
> > >Won't I?
>
> > You've never responded in the past, despite *numerous* corrections I've offered
> > for what you've spouted.
>
> Numerous? I'm not sure I recall that. Perhaps I simply missed your
> brilliance, Ben. It sounds like important stuff, this Z film
> alteration conspiracy. You're pretty sure it's a fact?
of course you don't, had to scurry back to .johns, eh?
> > >Well here I am, responding to you. And, Ben, I would NEVER be
> > >so presumptuous as to claim that you were out of my league, as I'm
> > >sure that you are a very talented fellow!
>
> > And yet, you duck and run from virtually anything I say... why is that, Tim?
>
> Perhaps you're rather an unpleasant type of *troll* fellow, Ben. No
> one wants to waste their day dealing with people like that. :-)
nah, we've seen Nutter's come and go for years.... you trolls hit and
run, then hide....
> > >The evidence? Now perhaps that's another matter... :-)
>
> > >Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben? Jack White's ridiculous
> > >conclusions about Mrs Franzen perhaps? That book, *Murder in Dealey
> > >Plaza*, REALLY is a stinker, isn't it?
>
> > Actually, I consider it one of the better books in my library.
>
> Oh dear...
you disagree, how charming
> > But since you mentioned "evidence"... why not start with my "45 Questions". I
> > can't say as I've ever seen you attempt them.
>
> Actually YOU mentioned evidence first, Ben. Anyone who looks at this
> thread can see that. You're not trying to change the subject now are
> you?
then all you have to do is get down to it.... spouting nonsense only
buys you time
> I think we'll finish dealing with *Yellow Legs* in the Nix film and
> the Franzens and Jack White's absurd claims in *Murder in Dealey
> Plaza*, one of the *better* books in your library, before we do too
> much else, eh?
a dolt who uses a Autralia remailer, terrified of the photographic
record, runs and hides behind another shot at Jack White... LMFAO,
this Lone Nut fruitcake from Aussie mythical land, hardly rates
BHolmes time....
Ben Holmes
tims...@gmail.com says...
>
>MIDDLE POST
>
>Hi Ben,
>
>On Mar 10, 2:33=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <3c94aa4f-0dea-4ba0-a1ec-923593944...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.=>> >On Mar 9, 2:42=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <60a85a36-ce1f-4699-a891-8f3f9d414...@h11g2000prf.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> aeffects says...
>>
>> >> >On Mar 8, 3:22 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> TOP POST
>>
>
>> >> >> published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>>
>> >> >> Is that the person who is being discussed?
>>
>> >> >post the picture stump.... I doubt many have even heard of the book
>> >> >(certainly no Nutter troll has seen it.) .
>>
>> >> It would be far simpler to simply review the Nix film available
>>
>> >Possibly a good point. Still, I don't know that it would be *a book
>> >few have* if they have an interest in the Kennedy assassination.
>> >People don't read books anymore?
>>
>> Tell us about the photo on page 250 of "The Hoax of the Century"
>>
>> Go ahead and give me your opinion.
>
>Why don't you post a link to this photo, Ben, if it is so important.
>Why have you suddenly gone off on this tangent?
Thankyou... you've just illustrated my point. Didn't go "off tangent" at all,
you merely didn't see the point.
*ANYONE* who can read this post can jump to Youtube, or some other website, and
view a cited photo or video.
Few indeed can pull out a book and look at the photo. No matter *HOW*
interested they are in the topic. The book I cited is *INDISPENSABLE* for those
who are interested in Z-film authenticity problems.
Thankyou for making my point for me.
>> >> >btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a grayscale
>> >> >when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
>>
>> >> Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21. It is indeed
>> >> a photo showing three people where the trolls have been trying to
>> >> argue that only two are seen.
>>
>> >Oh, you DO have a copy! Thank God there are a few of us out there who
>> >still read a good book and *Four Days* is an absolute BEAUT in my
>> >book!
>>
>> >> But I don't expect any retractions.
>>
>> >Probably wise. I mean, we are talking David *aeffects* Healy here,
>> >aren't we? He's hardly likely to admit a mistake now, is he, LOL!
>>
>> I'm referring to the trolls who claimed that there were only *two*
>> people seen on the grass there. And it was rather obvious that I *WAS*
>> referring to that event... so you're either incredibly illiterate, or a
>> liar... which is it?
>
>Well, looks to me like you were referring to Healy's blooper too.
Ah! So you're claiming illiteracy. Okay... I'll accept it. Most LNT'ers are
either illiterate or liars anyway... Why not read it again:
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is indeed a photo showing three people where the trolls have been trying to
argue that only two are seen. But I don't expect any retractions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you aware of any of the trolls retracting their statements?
>You know, where he said that all the photos in *Four Days* were in black
>and white. Of course, as we both know, that is complete nonsense.
No, I *don't* know that it's "complete nonsense." Should you be able to assure
me that there was only one printing, and that it was never printed in any other
format, and that David was careful enough to note "UPI", then yes, it would be
nonsense.
But it's *CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY* nonsense with no further information needed to
know that a few trolls around here simply lied about three people on the grass
at the relevant frame.
I've not seen a retraction... have you?
>BTW, by 1968, *Four Days* had sold three and a half million copies,
>that is, if Time magazine is to be believed. I wonder if *The Hoax of
>the Century* sold that many?
Oh, I've already made my point. (with your help) It still stands.
>And who are these *trolls* you keep speaking of? Are they people who
>don't support your theories of Z film alteration Ben?
Do you presume that it makes a difference?
A statement is either true or not true.
Are there three people in your referenced frame standing on the grass, Tim?
Does a person's truthfulness in answering that question depend on whether or not
they agree with anything I assert?
>> I would imagine that the hardcover of "Four Days" wasn't the only one
>> put out, but can you locate and cite a copy of Nix where only two people
>> are shown in the location that we're speaking of?
>>
>
>Well, we've posted all the frames for you. Looks like you're off on a
>tangent here again.
No Tim... the entire topic is that the extant Z-film and the Nix film show
contradictory information - how many people are standing in the grass at a
specified area and time.
You'd like to obfuscate that point... you *CERTAINLY* don't want to try
answering it.
>BTW, according to some of these people you refer
>to as *trolls* that wasn't quite the question you asked in the first
>place. Is that true Ben?
Why bother to lie, Tim? (And yes, I accept it as YOUR lie, not some unnamed
trolls)
The point is how many people were standing on the grass at the relevant frame.
Here, for example, is one quote that will prove you a liar, Tim. You know very
well what question I asked:
****************************
>> The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
>
> Two (outside of the intersprocket area).
>
>> How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?
>
> Two.
****************************
Yet you, Tim - say that the answer to that second question should be three.
Either you're a liar, or the troll being quoted is a liar. Which is it, Tim?
Care to retract your implication that the number of people on the grass during
the relevant frame/film is not what I asked?
Would you care to *DEFEND* those answers given that I quoted above?
>> >> >Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
>> >> >commentator.....
>>
>> >> Tim won't respond to me... I suspect that he knows he's out of my
>> >> league. (or, more accurately, that the evidence is)
>>
>> >Won't I?
>>
>> You've never responded in the past, despite *numerous* corrections I've
>> offered for what you've spouted.
>>
>
>Numerous? I'm not sure I recall that. Perhaps I simply missed your
>brilliance, Ben. It sounds like important stuff, this Z film
>alteration conspiracy.
I've discussed it many times before, Tim.
> You're pretty sure it's a fact?
I'm pretty sure that you'll be unable to refute it, Tim.
>> >Well here I am, responding to you. And, Ben, I would NEVER be
>> >so presumptuous as to claim that you were out of my league, as I'm
>> >sure that you are a very talented fellow!
>>
>> And yet, you duck and run from virtually anything I say... why is that,
>> Tim?
>>
>
>Perhaps you're rather an unpleasant type of *troll* fellow, Ben. No
>one wants to waste their day dealing with people like that. :-)
Sadly, Tim - you refuse to respond to *ANYONE* who cites and quotes the evidence
in this case. Which puts the lie to your implication that only if I weren't
"unpleasant" and a "troll" - that you *WOULD* be easily capable of refuting the
evidence I raise.
Running and ducking is what cowards and liars do... and you'll continue to do so
- since you have no choice in the matter.
>> >The evidence? Now perhaps that's another matter... :-)
>>
>> >Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben? Jack White's ridiculous
>> >conclusions about Mrs Franzen perhaps? That book, *Murder in Dealey
>> >Plaza*, REALLY is a stinker, isn't it?
>>
>> Actually, I consider it one of the better books in my library.
>>
>
>Oh dear...
Ad hominem is the best you can do? Why not cite specific examples of the book
you dislike... let's go through the book, page by page. I'm willing...
>> But since you mentioned "evidence"... why not start with my "45 Questions"
>> I can't say as I've ever seen you attempt them.
>>
>
>Actually YOU mentioned evidence first, Ben.
Yes... I did. But *YOU* implied that you'd be willing to discuss the
evidence... here it is again: "The evidence? Now perhaps that's another
matter... :-) Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben?"
So... are you willing to debate the evidence, Tim? Or are you just a liar?
(My crystal ball is telling me that you're just another liar...)
>Anyone who looks at this thread can see that. You're not trying to
>change the subject now are you?
The topic, whenever I post, is almost virtually *ALWAYS* dealing with the
evidence in this case. As in this topic, the fact that the extant Z-film and
Nix film contradict each other.
The 45 questions as well deal EXPLICITLY with the evidence. You're a gutless
coward, Tim, you *won't* deal with the evidence.
>I think we'll finish dealing with *Yellow Legs* in the Nix film
You've already admitted that only two people can be seen in the extant Z-film,
and yet three people can be seen in Nix.
You're stuck at that point. You have no-where else to go. You certainly have
no answers to offer.
>and
>the Franzens and Jack White's absurd claims in *Murder in Dealey
>Plaza*, one of the *better* books in your library, before we do too
>much else, eh?
You haven't explained the facts *ALREADY* presented, Tim. Nor will you.
>Plenty to go over there, Ben.
Start at the beginning, Tim.
The 45 Questions will wait.
(I even reposted them in case you'd forgotten them. But you'll never make a
serious effort to answer them... you *CAN'T*)
>Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan
>Sydney, Australia
>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
>>
>>
>> >Regards,
>>
>> >Tim Brennan
>> >Sydney, Australia
>> >*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> >> >> Regards,
>>
>> >> >> Tim Brennan
>> >> >> Sydney, Australia
>> >> >> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> >> >> On Mar 9, 9:40 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> > In article
>> >> >><9fa79c30-01e0-4d2d-8917-ee62f93e3...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> > > aeffects says...
>>
>> >> >> > > >On Mar 8, 10:40 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> > > >> On Mar 8, 1:18 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > >> > On Mar 8, 6:05 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> > >>> ... =3DA0All it would take> is for Mr. Holmes to get a the sa=
>me ma=3D
>> >ke and
>> >> >>model
>> >> >> > > >>camera Zapruder
>> >> >> > > >> > > used, go to Dealey Plaza, stand in Z's position, and dupl=
>ica=3D
>> >te the
>> >> >> > > >> > > filming by Mr. Zapruder.
>>
>> >> >> > > >> > ...
>>
>> >> >>> > >> > =3DA0is that a fact? Have you yourself done that, SCAB? Plea=
>se po=3D
>> >st a URL
>> >> >> > > >> > and show us your camerawork...
>>
>> >> >> > > >> =3DA0 Yes, that is a "fact, oh rude person with no dignity.
>>
>> >> >> > > >well then show us fraud , surely you have the courage, don't yo=
>u?
>> >> >> > > >spouting off at the mouth is a far cry from posting =3DA0your h=
>andyw=3D
>> >ork,
>> >> >> > > >eh, troll?
>>
>> >> >> > > >> =3DA0And for the record, it is not up to me to provide the in=
>forma=3D
>> >tion I
>> >> >> > > >> suggested, it is up to your buddy who claims that the films a=
>re =3D
>> >fake
>> >> >> > > >> to do the test I suggested.
>>
>> >> >>> > How silly! =3DA0The tests have already been done by the FBI - and=
> they=3D
>> > won't
>> >> >>release
>> >> >> > > 'em.
>>
>> >> >> > Oh? Why is is "silly" for one to suggest that you go to DP and get=
> up=3D
>>
>> >> >> > onto Z's pedestal, and position the camera and lens the way he did=
>
>> >> >> > when filimg the shooting, when you are the one claiming the film h=
>as
>> >> >> > been fudged?
>>
>> >> >> > =3DA0It's not up to me to explain the evidence... I merely present=
> it, =3D
>> >and
>> >> >> > give
>>
>> >> >> > > you my take on what it demonstrates.
>>
>> >> >> > No, you are =3DA0in error. =3DA0You are not "presenting the eviden=
>ce", si=3D
>> >r,
>> >> >> > you presenting your interpretation of something.
>>
>> >> >> > =3DA0all I asked when I started this thread was for someone to poi=
>nt me=3D
>> > to
>> >> >> > the woman you claim is dressed in "yellow pants" . =3DA0So far, I =
>have =3D
>> >not
>> >> >> > received a solid answer from you, and only insults, cursing and na=
>me
>> >> >> > calling from your buddy, David Healy.
>>
>> >> >> > > The fact that trolls are *unable* to explain the evidence, or re=
>fut=3D
>> >e my
>> >> >> > > explanations,
>>
>> >> >> > =3DA0No one can "explain" anything until you quit stalling and
>> >> >> > specifically point this "lady in yellow pants" out.
>>
>> >> >> > =3DA0are all the facts lurkers need to draw their own judgements.
>>
>> >> >> > > Ad hominem isn't going to be a winner against the citations of e=
>vid=3D
>> >ence.
>>
>> >> >> > =3DA0Please, then, tell your buddy, David Healy, to lay off with h=
>is
>> >> >> > insults, cursing, and swearing everytime someone asks a question!
>>
>> >> >> > > >for the record if you challenge anyone findings its time to pro=
>vid=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> > > >the info, troll -- otherwise your just blowing smoke out your a=
>ss,=3D
>>
>> >> >> > > >better yet up Yohavey's ass evidently there plenty of room in T=
>HAT=3D
>>
>> >> >> > > >neighborhood.... now be a good little troll post your findings =
>or =3D
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Ben,
On Mar 11, 10:32 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <554ebbab-34d9-46dc-827e-810b352b5...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Hmm, but wasn't your point *a book few have*, Ben? The UPI book *Four
Days* had sold millions of copies around the world by 1968. I live in
Australia and I have two copies myself, LOL!
It's rather ridiculous to posit some Harry Livingstone potboiler like
*Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century*, to give it its full
absurdity of a title, is as easily available as *Four Days*, a
standard tome in the assassination literature.
Why are you even arguing such a pathetic little point, Ben? You're not
a bit worried are you Ben?
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a grayscale
> >> >> >when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
>
> >> >> Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21. It is indeed
> >> >> a photo showing three people where the trolls have been trying to
> >> >> argue that only two are seen.
>
> >> >Oh, you DO have a copy! Thank God there are a few of us out there who
> >> >still read a good book and *Four Days* is an absolute BEAUT in my
> >> >book!
>
> >> >> But I don't expect any retractions.
>
> >> >Probably wise. I mean, we are talking David *aeffects* Healy here,
> >> >aren't we? He's hardly likely to admit a mistake now, is he, LOL!
>
> >> I'm referring to the trolls who claimed that there were only *two*
> >> people seen on the grass there. And it was rather obvious that I *WAS*
> >> referring to that event... so you're either incredibly illiterate, or a
> >> liar... which is it?
>
> >Well, looks to me like you were referring to Healy's blooper too.
>
> Ah! So you're claiming illiteracy. Okay... I'll accept it. Most LNT'ers are
> either illiterate or liars anyway... Why not read it again:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is indeed a photo showing three people where the trolls have been trying to
> argue that only two are seen. But I don't expect any retractions.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Oh, well, now Benny, I think readers could be entitled to believe that
you were also addressing the following exchange:
QUOTE ON:
David Healy: btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a
grayscale
when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
Ben Holmes: Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21.
QUOTE OFF
Did you miss that bit, Ben?
> Are you aware of any of the trolls retracting their statements?
>
Say, is Robert Harris one of these here *trolls* Ben? Don't you quote
Robert Harris in your 45 questions list as some kind of doyen, Ben? Is
he a doyen one minute and then a troll the next, depending on what the
deabte is, is that it Ben?
> >You know, where he said that all the photos in *Four Days* were in black
> >and white. Of course, as we both know, that is complete nonsense.
>
> No, I *don't* know that it's "complete nonsense." Should you be able to assure
> me that there was only one printing, and that it was never printed in any other
> format, and that David was careful enough to note "UPI", then yes, it would be
> nonsense.
>
Well, it's fairly well known that it's a UPI publication, Ben. Even
you must have blundered over that fact by now. Apparently there was a
reprint in the 1980s, but my information is that that has the colour
photos in as well. Healy tried to help you out by making something up,
it came back to bite him and now you are publicly debunking (as Mark
and Burly have pointed out) the ol' Toots-E-Roll fella.
What's up with that?
BTW, Heals is now stuck with some *galley proofs* B/W copy to cover
his lies.
Imagine that! Out of millions and millions of copies sold worldwide,
ol' Toots-E-Roll Healy ends up with a totally black and white *galley
proof* copy.
Thank God he is on your side in this matter, Ben. :-)
> But it's *CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY* nonsense with no further information needed to
> know that a few trolls around here simply lied about three people on the grass
> at the relevant frame.
>
> I've not seen a retraction... have you?
>
Whatever are you *trolling* on about now?
> >BTW, by 1968, *Four Days* had sold three and a half million copies,
> >that is, if Time magazine is to be believed. I wonder if *The Hoax of
> >the Century* sold that many?
>
> Oh, I've already made my point. (with your help) It still stands.
>
Wow! That was a fantastic point! Pointing out that Harry Livingstone
sold about three copies of his *Hoax of the Century* crap and that JFK
researchers are far more likely to find a copy of Harry's book than
the multiple million selling *Four Days* book really helped your case
Ben! It was a masterstroke, if you don't mind me saying, Ben. :-)
> >And who are these *trolls* you keep speaking of? Are they people who
> >don't support your theories of Z film alteration Ben?
>
> Do you presume that it makes a difference?
>
> A statement is either true or not true.
>
> Are there three people in your referenced frame standing on the grass, Tim?
>
> Does a person's truthfulness in answering that question depend on whether or not
> they agree with anything I assert?
>
Well, if you're talking about the frame I referenced from *Four Days*
why do you even need to ask, Ben?
As for the other stuff, it's simply starting to sound a bit self
pitying, Ben.
I sympathise if the only supporter you can rustle up is ol' Toots-E-
Roll Heals and his cooooolllector's item copy of the UPI book, *Four
Days*. :-)
> >> I would imagine that the hardcover of "Four Days" wasn't the only one
> >> put out, but can you locate and cite a copy of Nix where only two people
> >> are shown in the location that we're speaking of?
>
No, in Nix there are three. We both know that, Ben. But old *Yellow
Legs* is never going to be in the Zapruder film, Ben. She is standing
too far back.
> >Well, we've posted all the frames for you. Looks like you're off on a
> >tangent here again.
>
> No Tim... the entire topic is that the extant Z-film and the Nix film show
> contradictory information - how many people are standing in the grass at a
> specified area and time.
>
Oh, I see. Still, Ben, anyone with even rudimentary detective skills
can fairly easily conclude that old *Yellow Legs* is simply standing
too far back in Nix to appear in Zapruder. That must be why she isn't
in Zapruder!
> You'd like to obfuscate that point... you *CERTAINLY* don't want to try
> answering it.
>
Now Benny...
> >BTW, according to some of these people you refer
> >to as *trolls* that wasn't quite the question you asked in the first
> >place. Is that true Ben?
>
> Why bother to lie, Tim? (And yes, I accept it as YOUR lie, not some unnamed
> trolls)
>
How kind of you, my dear Benny...
> The point is how many people were standing on the grass at the relevant frame.
>
Oh. OK! Keep telling the story Ben.
> Here, for example, is one quote that will prove you a liar, Tim. You know very
> well what question I asked:
>
> ****************************>> The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
>
> > Two (outside of the intersprocket area).
>
> >> How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?
>
> > Two.
>
> ****************************
>
> Yet you, Tim - say that the answer to that second question should be three.
Well, what's your answer, Benny my friend?
> Either you're a liar, or the troll being quoted is a liar. Which is it, Tim?
>
Well I'm sure you'd know all about that Ben, being privy to both
exchanges and all. Tell us how this proves Z film alteration Ben. We
all wanna know! :-)
> Care to retract your implication that the number of people on the grass during
> the relevant frame/film is not what I asked?
>
> Would you care to *DEFEND* those answers given that I quoted above?
>
Say, your (sic) starting to sound a little like that poster tomnln,
Ben. Your (sic) NOTt (sic) going to CHALLENGE people on evidence/
testimony next, are you Ben?
> >> >> >Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
> >> >> >commentator.....
>
> >> >> Tim won't respond to me... I suspect that he knows he's out of my
> >> >> league. (or, more accurately, that the evidence is)
>
> >> >Won't I?
>
> >> You've never responded in the past, despite *numerous* corrections I've
> >> offered for what you've spouted.
>
> >Numerous? I'm not sure I recall that. Perhaps I simply missed your
> >brilliance, Ben. It sounds like important stuff, this Z film
> >alteration conspiracy.
>
> I've discussed it many times before, Tim.
>
Musta missed it! Still, I don't doubt you...
> > You're pretty sure it's a fact?
>
> I'm pretty sure that you'll be unable to refute it, Tim.
>
You don't sound all that confident though, Ben. Is everything OK?
> >> >Well here I am, responding to you. And, Ben, I would NEVER be
> >> >so presumptuous as to claim that you were out of my league, as I'm
> >> >sure that you are a very talented fellow!
>
> >> And yet, you duck and run from virtually anything I say... why is that,
> >> Tim?
>
> >Perhaps you're rather an unpleasant type of *troll* fellow, Ben. No
> >one wants to waste their day dealing with people like that. :-)
>
> Sadly, Tim - you refuse to respond to *ANYONE* who cites and quotes the evidence
Now Benny!
> in this case. Which puts the lie to your implication that only if I weren't
> "unpleasant" and a "troll" - that you *WOULD* be easily capable of refuting the
> evidence I raise.
>
Oh, that's got nothing to do with it Ben. Just because you're
*unpleasant* and a *troll* doesn't mean your useless conclusions re Z
film alteration can't be refuted. Far from it. You, however, simply
wish to disappear behind a lot of non issues and insults, Ben, from
what I can see. Go and hide in your 48 questions, Ben!
If you were really confident of your research, Ben, you'd simply bring
it on, not hide behind all these petty complaints and stupid
diversions like you weren't correcting Healy's mistake, you were
correcting mine. LOL, that is simply crap, mate.
> Running and ducking is what cowards and liars do... and you'll continue to do so
> - since you have no choice in the matter.
>
Well thank God you told me Ben! Now I realise what Benny Holmes is up
to! :-)
> >> >The evidence? Now perhaps that's another matter... :-)
>
> >> >Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben? Jack White's ridiculous
> >> >conclusions about Mrs Franzen perhaps? That book, *Murder in Dealey
> >> >Plaza*, REALLY is a stinker, isn't it?
>
> >> Actually, I consider it one of the better books in my library.
>
> >Oh dear...
>
> Ad hominem is the best you can do? Why not cite specific examples of the book
> you dislike... let's go through the book, page by page. I'm willing...
>
Huh, I just said the book is crap. That is not attacking you
personally. BTW I have previously disputed Gary Aguilar's chapter with
Aguilar himself. Try Googling a thread called *LN Inflation* Ben.
Aggie was forced to admit his MIDP chapter was in error.
> >> But since you mentioned "evidence"... why not start with my "45 Questions"
> >> I can't say as I've ever seen you attempt them.
>
> >Actually YOU mentioned evidence first, Ben.
>
> Yes... I did. But *YOU* implied that you'd be willing to discuss the
Oh dear! Benny's conceded a mistake! Just like Aggie was forced to do,
those many long months ago... :-)
> evidence... here it is again: "The evidence? Now perhaps that's another
> matter... :-) Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben?"
>
> So... are you willing to debate the evidence, Tim? Or are you just a liar?
>
Now my dear Benny! Steady on, dear fellow!
> (My crystal ball is telling me that you're just another liar...)
>
So you use a crystal ball & you believe in Z film alteration, Ben?
Well, if you think that's wise, Ben...
> >Anyone who looks at this thread can see that. You're not trying to
> >change the subject now are you?
>
> The topic, whenever I post, is almost virtually *ALWAYS* dealing with the
> evidence in this case. As in this topic, the fact that the extant Z-film and
> Nix film contradict each other.
>
Yeah?!! No way Benny!!!
Proof, my dear Benjamin fellow?
> The 45 questions as well deal EXPLICITLY with the evidence. You're a gutless
> coward, Tim, you *won't* deal with the evidence.
>
Benny...
> >I think we'll finish dealing with *Yellow Legs* in the Nix film
>
> You've already admitted that only two people can be seen in the extant Z-film,
> and yet three people can be seen in Nix.
>
So? That's your conclusion, too, Ben.
But old *Yellow Legs* is too far back in Nix to be seen in Zapruder,
isn't she Ben?
People like Robert Harris and Mark and Burly and any other convenient
*troll* are simply right and you're wrong. Isn't that the case, Ben?
You've simply got it wrong Benny!
> You're stuck at that point. You have no-where else to go. You certainly have
> no answers to offer.
>
Oh dear. This Benny fellow is simply getting tiresome now, as he cuts
the *high morale ground* of being a *Z film alterationist* in 2008.
And his sidekick is Toots-E-Roll Healy!
Enormous hoots of uncontrollable mirth should accompany Benny's every
blundering step in JFK assassination research hereafter, LOL! :-)
Say, unconTROLLable! I made a funny! :-)
> >and
> >the Franzens and Jack White's absurd claims in *Murder in Dealey
> >Plaza*, one of the *better* books in your library, before we do too
> >much else, eh?
>
> You haven't explained the facts *ALREADY* presented, Tim. Nor will you.
>
Are you using the crystal ball again, Benny?
> >Plenty to go over there, Ben.
>
> Start at the beginning, Tim.
>
Certainly Benny! On the case!
> The 45 Questions will wait.
>
For sure. Let's blow a hole in this stupid Z film alteration theory
first, eh Ben?
> (I even reposted them in case you'd forgotten them. But you'll never make a
> serious effort to answer them... you *CAN'T*)
>
Whatever ya say, Mr *tomnln* Channeller sir! Keep smilin'!!
Kind Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
>
> >Regards,
>
> >Tim Brennan
> >Sydney, Australia
> >*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> >> >Regards,
>
> >> >Tim Brennan
> >> >Sydney,
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <554ebbab-34d9-46dc-827e-810b352b5...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
But we're not talking about Z-film authenticity problems here.
> Thankyou for making my point for me.
How clever of you. However, despite the obstacles you mention, Tim's
question was answered within minutes. Why does it (still) matter to
you what he used for reference?
> >> >> >btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a grayscale
> >> >> >when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
>
> >> >> Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21. It is indeed
> >> >> a photo showing three people where the trolls have been trying to
> >> >> argue that only two are seen.
>
> >> >Oh, you DO have a copy! Thank God there are a few of us out there who
> >> >still read a good book and *Four Days* is an absolute BEAUT in my
> >> >book!
>
> >> >> But I don't expect any retractions.
>
> >> >Probably wise. I mean, we are talking David *aeffects* Healy here,
> >> >aren't we? He's hardly likely to admit a mistake now, is he, LOL!
>
> >> I'm referring to the trolls who claimed that there were only *two*
> >> people seen on the grass there. And it was rather obvious that I *WAS*
> >> referring to that event... so you're either incredibly illiterate, or a
> >> liar... which is it?
>
> >Well, looks to me like you were referring to Healy's blooper too.
>
> Ah! So you're claiming illiteracy. Okay... I'll accept it. Most LNT'ers are
> either illiterate or liars anyway... Why not read it again:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> It is indeed a photo showing three people where the trolls have been trying to
> argue that only two are seen. But I don't expect any retractions.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Are you aware of any of the trolls retracting their statements?
What are these so-called "trolls" supposed to retract? It seems to me
that they are pointing out (correctly) that the same number of people
appear IN THE SAME LOCATIONS in the two films.
Healy, on the other hand, was caught in a mistake, if not an outright
lie, so the obvious inference is that your "retraction" jab was
intended for him.
> >You know, where he said that all the photos in *Four Days* were in black
> >and white. Of course, as we both know, that is complete nonsense.
>
> No, I *don't* know that it's "complete nonsense." Should you be able to assure
> me that there was only one printing, and that it was never printed in any other
> format, and that David was careful enough to note "UPI", then yes, it would be
> nonsense.
Nice try. However, Healy's silence speaks volumes, doesn't it?
> But it's *CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY* nonsense with no further information needed to
> know that a few trolls around here simply lied about three people on the grass
> at the relevant frame.
Not "on the grass". In the same location(s). Do you understand the
difference?
> I've not seen a retraction... have you?
>
> >BTW, by 1968, *Four Days* had sold three and a half million copies,
> >that is, if Time magazine is to be believed. I wonder if *The Hoax of
> >the Century* sold that many?
>
> Oh, I've already made my point. (with your help) It still stands.
Weak. Now, how about discussing your crackpot interpretations of the
films?
> >And who are these *trolls* you keep speaking of? Are they people who
> >don't support your theories of Z film alteration Ben?
>
> Do you presume that it makes a difference?
>
> A statement is either true or not true.
Well, you seem perfectly willing to give your annoying lapdog the
benefit of the doubt (although his claim about "Four Days" was clearly
false).
> Are there three people in your referenced frame standing on the grass, Tim?
On the grass? Of course, but that wasn't the question.
> Does a person's truthfulness in answering that question depend on whether or not
> they agree with anything I assert?
According to you? Yes. Objectively? No (although an empirically
detectable correlation between disagreeing with you and being truthful
cannot be ruled out).
> >> I would imagine that the hardcover of "Four Days" wasn't the only one
> >> put out, but can you locate and cite a copy of Nix where only two people
> >> are shown in the location that we're speaking of?
>
> >Well, we've posted all the frames for you. Looks like you're off on a
> >tangent here again.
>
> No Tim... the entire topic is that the extant Z-film and the Nix film show
> contradictory information - how many people are standing in the grass at a
> specified area and time.
>
> You'd like to obfuscate that point... you *CERTAINLY* don't want to try
> answering it.
Here is your question again:
(quote) The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
How many people does the Nix film show in the same location? (unquote)
In the same location, not "in the grass". Who is obfuscating here,
Ben?
> >BTW, according to some of these people you refer
> >to as *trolls* that wasn't quite the question you asked in the first
> >place. Is that true Ben?
>
> Why bother to lie, Tim? (And yes, I accept it as YOUR lie, not some unnamed
> trolls)
>
> The point is how many people were standing on the grass at the relevant frame.
In the same location.
> Here, for example, is one quote that will prove you a liar, Tim. You know very
> well what question I asked:
>
> ****************************>> The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
>
> > Two (outside of the intersprocket area).
>
> >> How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?
>
> > Two.
>
> ****************************
>
> Yet you, Tim - say that the answer to that second question should be three.
> Either you're a liar, or the troll being quoted is a liar. Which is it, Tim?
There are three people "in the grass" in those Nix frames, but only
two of them in the area covered by Z-377 (outside the sprocket area).
> Care to retract your implication that the number of people on the grass during
> the relevant frame/film is not what I asked?
>
> Would you care to *DEFEND* those answers given that I quoted above?
Can you explain approximately where in Z-377 the lady in yellow pants
was supposed to appear?
Can you defend your position (for example by pointing out the
locations of the relevant persons on a map of Dealy Plaza)?
You're still running from my response to question #1, aren't you, Ben?
> >Regards,
>
> >Tim Brennan
> >Sydney, Australia
> >*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
-Mark
(snip)
Ben Holmes
tims...@gmail.com says...
>
>MIDDLE POST
>
>Hi Ben,
>
>On Mar 11, 10:32=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> In article <554ebbab-34d9-46dc-827e-810b352b5...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.c=>> >On Mar 10, 2:33=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <3c94aa4f-0dea-4ba0-a1ec-923593944...@e10g2000prf.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D>> >> >On Mar 9, 2:42=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <60a85a36-ce1f-4699-a891-8f3f9d414...@h11g2000prf.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> aeffects says...
>>
>> >> >> >On Mar 8, 3:22 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> TOP POST
>>
>ame=3D
>>
>> >> >> >> published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>>
>> >> >> >> Is that the person who is being discussed?
>>
>
>> >> >> >(certainly no Nutter troll has seen it.) .
>>
>> >> >> It would be far simpler to simply review the Nix film available
>> >> >> widely on the Internet, rather than a book few have.
>>
>> >> >Possibly a good point. Still, I don't know that it would be *a book
>> >> >few have* if they have an interest in the Kennedy assassination.
>> >> >People don't read books anymore?
>>
>> >> Tell us about the photo on page 250 of "The Hoax of the Century"
>>
>> >> Go ahead and give me your opinion.
>>
>> >Why don't you post a link to this photo, Ben, if it is so important.
>> >Why have you suddenly gone off on this tangent?
>>
>> Thankyou... you've just illustrated my point. Didn't go "off tangent" at
>> all, you merely didn't see the point.
>>
>> *ANYONE* who can read this post can jump to Youtube, or some other
>> website, and view a cited photo or video.
>>
>> Few indeed can pull out a book and look at the photo. No matter *HOW*
>> interested they are in the topic. The book I cited is *INDISPENSABLE*
>> for those who are interested in Z-film authenticity problems.
>>
>> Thankyou for making my point for me.
>>
>
>Hmm, but wasn't your point *a book few have*, Ben? The UPI book *Four
>Days* had sold millions of copies around the world by 1968. I live in
>Australia and I have two copies myself, LOL!
Sorry Tim... that dog won't hunt.
I named a book that's completely well suited to this EXACT topic, and you don't
have it.
Which means that your attempted point that those interested would *have* this
book simply isn't true.
As you yourself illustrate.
>It's rather ridiculous to posit some Harry Livingstone potboiler like
>*Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century*, to give it its full
>absurdity of a title, is as easily available as *Four Days*, a
>standard tome in the assassination literature.
You see???
You don't even know the correct title!! LOL!!
It's "The Hoax of the Century - Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film"
And yes, *both* Livingstone books are still in print, and easily available... so
you lied about their availability, didn't you?
>Why are you even arguing such a pathetic little point, Ben? You're not
>a bit worried are you Ben?
You proved my point for me, Tim. Does that embarrass you?
When you refer to a book that few have, rather than a citation easily made to an
Internet resource that EVERYONE can check - you demonstrate that you're trying
to restrict the number of people that can check what you say.
But you've already admitted that the Nix film shows something that the extant
Zapruder film does *NOT*.
Good of you to admit it... since most of the trolls refused to.
But you *still* haven't explained it.
Entire books have been written on the evidence for Z-film alteration - and you
can't answer a *single* point. That speaks volumes for the LNT'er position.
>> >> >> >btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a grayscale=
>
>> >> >> >when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
>>
>> >> >> Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21. It is indeed
>> >> >> a photo showing three people where the trolls have been trying to
>> >> >> argue that only two are seen.
>>
>> >> >Oh, you DO have a copy! Thank God there are a few of us out there who
>> >> >still read a good book and *Four Days* is an absolute BEAUT in my
>> >> >book!
>>
>> >> >> But I don't expect any retractions.
>>
>> >> >Probably wise. I mean, we are talking David *aeffects* Healy here,
>> >> >aren't we? He's hardly likely to admit a mistake now, is he, LOL!
>>
>> >> I'm referring to the trolls who claimed that there were only *two*
>> >> people seen on the grass there. And it was rather obvious that I *WAS*
>> >> referring to that event... so you're either incredibly illiterate, or a=
>
>> >> liar... which is it?
>>
>> >Well, looks to me like you were referring to Healy's blooper too.
>>
>> Ah! So you're claiming illiteracy. Okay... I'll accept it. Most LNT'ers are
>> either illiterate or liars anyway... Why not read it again:
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> It is indeed a photo showing three people where the trolls have been
>> trying to argue that only two are seen. But I don't expect any retractions.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>Oh, well, now Benny,
Well, that didn't take very long, Timmy...
When the evidence is being discussed, LNT'ers simply can't avoid ad hominem.
How long before you're killfiled, Timmy? Not long at the rate you're going...
so chose your words carefully...
>I think readers could be entitled to believe that
>you were also addressing the following exchange:
I quoted the immediately relevant phrase...
Lurkers aren't stupid, Timmy.
You STILL can't admit that trolls lied in response to my question, can you?
>QUOTE ON:
>
>David Healy: btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's depend on a
>grayscale when looking for the color yellow? LMFAO!
>
>Ben Holmes: Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21.
>
>QUOTE OFF
>
>Did you miss that bit, Ben?
Not at all, Timmy... now you're doing a bit of out and out lying.
Embarrassing, isn't it? CT'ers are honest, and demonstrate it; and LNT'ers &
trolls are dishonest, and prove it.
You're *STILL* running from addressing the evidence in this post, aren't you?
>> Are you aware of any of the trolls retracting their statements?
>>
>
>Say, is Robert Harris one of these here *trolls* Ben?
Can't answer a simple question, can you Timmy?
It's embarrassing to you to correct your fellow LNT'ers and Trolls?
>Don't you quote
>Robert Harris in your 45 questions list as some kind of doyen, Ben? Is
>he a doyen one minute and then a troll the next, depending on what the
>deabte is, is that it Ben?
If you can refute my statements, Timmy... by all means, go ahead and do so.
Robert Harris is listing evidence you can't refute about a shot at Z-285 - but
he's simply lied about close eyewitnesses ("roughly adjacent") "NEVER" asserting
a limo stop.
You can't refute either statement. You can't even refute the fact that the
extant Z-film and Nix film show incompatible scenes - as I've described in THIS
post.
Running from topic to topic, Timmy; isn't going to hide the fact that the 45
Questions, and the evidence in *THIS* post - simply scare you to death.
>> >You know, where he said that all the photos in *Four Days* were in black
>> >and white. Of course, as we both know, that is complete nonsense.
>>
>> No, I *don't* know that it's "complete nonsense." Should you be able to
>> assure me that there was only one printing, and that it was never printed
>> in any other format, and that David was careful enough to note "UPI", then
>> yes, it would be nonsense.
>>
>
>Well, it's fairly well known that it's a UPI publication, Ben.
There are other JFK books called "Four Days".
Just as *YOU* ignorantly referred to the wrong book...
>Even you must have blundered over that fact by now. Apparently there was a
>reprint in the 1980s, but my information is that that has the colour
>photos in as well. Healy tried to help you out by making something up,
>it came back to bite him and now you are publicly debunking (as Mark
>and Burly have pointed out) the ol' Toots-E-Roll fella.
Sadly, David has demonstrated his honesty before this point, and you've
demonstrated your dishonesty... whom am I to believe?
Honest people will get the benefit of doubt until they prove dishonest.
>What's up with that?
>
>BTW, Heals is now stuck with some *galley proofs* B/W copy to cover
>his lies.
>
>Imagine that! Out of millions and millions of copies sold worldwide,
>ol' Toots-E-Roll Healy ends up with a totally black and white *galley
>proof* copy.
I own similar books, Timmy... pre-publication versions...
>Thank God he is on your side in this matter, Ben. :-)
Tell us about the trolls who denied that there were three people shown on the
grass in Nix, Timmy...
>> But it's *CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY* nonsense with no further information
>> needed to know that a few trolls around here simply lied about three
>> people on the grass at the relevant frame.
>>
>> I've not seen a retraction... have you?
>>
>
>Whatever are you *trolling* on about now?
Willing to lie, aren't you, Timmy?
You know very well what I'm speaking of, and it's embarrassing, isn't it?
>> >BTW, by 1968, *Four Days* had sold three and a half million copies,
>> >that is, if Time magazine is to be believed. I wonder if *The Hoax of
>> >the Century* sold that many?
>>
>> Oh, I've already made my point. (with your help) =A0It still stands.
>>
>
>Wow! That was a fantastic point! Pointing out that Harry Livingstone
>sold about three copies of his *Hoax of the Century* crap and that JFK
>researchers are far more likely to find a copy of Harry's book than
>the multiple million selling *Four Days* book really helped your case
>Ben! It was a masterstroke, if you don't mind me saying, Ben. :-)
You claim to be a "JFK researcher", and yet *YOU* don't own the mentioned book.
Point made.
>> >And who are these *trolls* you keep speaking of? Are they people who
>> >don't support your theories of Z film alteration Ben?
>>
>> Do you presume that it makes a difference?
>>
>> A statement is either true or not true.
>>
>> Are there three people in your referenced frame standing on the grass,
>> Tim?
>>
>> Does a person's truthfulness in answering that question depend on whether
>> or not they agree with anything I assert?
>>
>
>Well, if you're talking about the frame I referenced from *Four Days*
>why do you even need to ask, Ben?
Because the answer is one you won't provide. The truth frightens you, doesn't
it?
>As for the other stuff, it's simply starting to sound a bit self
>pitying, Ben.
>
>I sympathise if the only supporter you can rustle up is ol' Toots-E-
>Roll Heals and his cooooolllector's item copy of the UPI book, *Four
>Days*. :-)
>
>> >> I would imagine that the hardcover of "Four Days" wasn't the only one
>> >> put out, but can you locate and cite a copy of Nix where only two peopl=
>e
>> >> are shown in the location that we're speaking of?
>>
>
>No, in Nix there are three. We both know that, Ben.
Your fellow trolls don't know that. They've asserted otherwise.
And you refuse to chastise them for it.
>But old *Yellow Legs* is never going to be in the Zapruder film, Ben. She
>is standing too far back.
What part of the grass is "too far back?"
>> >Well, we've posted all the frames for you. Looks like you're off on a
>> >tangent here again.
>>
>> No Tim... the entire topic is that the extant Z-film and the Nix film show
>> contradictory information - how many people are standing in the grass at a
>> specified area and time.
>
>Oh, I see. Still, Ben, anyone with even rudimentary detective skills
>can fairly easily conclude that old *Yellow Legs* is simply standing
>too far back in Nix to appear in Zapruder. That must be why she isn't
>in Zapruder!
What part of the grass is not visible?
>> You'd like to obfuscate that point... you *CERTAINLY* don't want to try
>> answering it.
>>
>
>Now Benny...
Now Timmy... getting embarrassed about the evidence?
>> >BTW, according to some of these people you refer
>> >to as *trolls* that wasn't quite the question you asked in the first
>> >place. Is that true Ben?
>>
>> Why bother to lie, Tim? (And yes, I accept it as YOUR lie, not some unnamed
>> trolls)
>>
>
>How kind of you, my dear Benny...
Provable, too. (as I do below...)
>> The point is how many people were standing on the grass at the relevant
>> frame.
>>
>
>Oh. OK! Keep telling the story Ben.
No Timmy... I QUOTE myself doing so. No need to lie about it, you're only going
to get called on it.
>> Here, for example, is one quote that will prove you a liar, Tim.
>> You know very well what question I asked:
>>
>> ****************************
>> The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
>>
>> > Two (outside of the intersprocket area).
>>
>> >> How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?
>>
>> > Two.
>>
>> ****************************
>>
>> Yet you, Tim - say that the answer to that second question should be three.
>
>Well, what's your answer, Benny my friend?
Same answer that I've always had Timmy.
Does it make you feel good to drop into ad hominem when the evidence is brought
up?
Does it make you feel better to call names when you can't refute the evidence I
quote, cite, or bring up?
>> Either you're a liar, or the troll being quoted is a liar. Which is it, Tim?
>>
>
>Well I'm sure you'd know all about that Ben, being privy to both
>exchanges and all. Tell us how this proves Z film alteration Ben.
No Timmy... I just proved that you lied about the question I asked, and the
answer the trolls gave.
The fact that you can't retract that lie demonstrates your character. You're
dishonest, aren't you Timmy?
You tried to assert that I'd asked a question *OTHER* than how many people were
standing on the grass, yet I quote myself asking *PRECISELY* that question.
Why do you have to lie to 'support the truth', Timmy? Why does the truth need
lies to support it?
>We all wanna know! :-)
Yes Timmy... we *DO* all "wanna know"... why can't you answer?
>> Care to retract your implication that the number of people on the grass
>> during the relevant frame/film is not what I asked?
>>
>> Would you care to *DEFEND* those answers given that I quoted above?
>>
>
>Say, your (sic) starting to sound a little like that poster tomnln,
>Ben. Your (sic) NOTt (sic) going to CHALLENGE people on evidence/
>testimony next, are you Ben?
Caught in an outright lie, Timmy...
Embarrassing, isn't it? Looks like this'll be the last post, and you'll head to
the killfile.
My time is better served elsewhere than to point out the lies of dishonest
people who refuse to debate the evidence.
>> >> >> >Gotta hand it to this not-so-brilliant Aussie newsgroup
>> >> >> >commentator.....
>>
>> >> >> Tim won't respond to me... I suspect that he knows he's out of my
>> >> >> league. (or, more accurately, that the evidence is)
>>
>> >> >Won't I?
>>
>> >> You've never responded in the past, despite *numerous* corrections I've=
>
>> >> offered for what you've spouted.
>>
>> >Numerous? I'm not sure I recall that. Perhaps I simply missed your
>> >brilliance, Ben. It sounds like important stuff, this Z film
>> >alteration conspiracy.
>>
>> I've discussed it many times before, Tim.
>>
>
>Musta missed it! Still, I don't doubt you...
Don't rely on my word, Timmy... simply do a Google search on Z-film alteration
problems, you'll run into many posts... Both Martin and Tony have tried in the
past to debate me, and both ended up running away.
Just as you're doing.
>> > You're pretty sure it's a fact?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that you'll be unable to refute it, Tim.
>>
>
>You don't sound all that confident though, Ben. Is everything OK?
Thankyou for proving my point, yet again...
You're a coward, Timmy... and unfortunately, you have no other option if you
want to uphold your faith in the WCR.
>> >> >Well here I am, responding to you. And, Ben, I would NEVER be
>> >> >so presumptuous as to claim that you were out of my league, as I'm
>> >> >sure that you are a very talented fellow!
>>
>> >> And yet, you duck and run from virtually anything I say... why is that,=
>
>> >> Tim?
>>
>> >Perhaps you're rather an unpleasant type of *troll* fellow, Ben. No
>> >one wants to waste their day dealing with people like that. :-)
>>
>> Sadly, Tim - you refuse to respond to *ANYONE* who cites and quotes
>> the evidence
>
>Now Benny!
Truth hurt, Timmy?
>> in this case. Which puts the lie to your implication that only if I
>> weren't "unpleasant" and a "troll" - that you *WOULD* be easily capable
>> of refuting the evidence I raise.
>>
>
>Oh, that's got nothing to do with it Ben. Just because you're
>*unpleasant* and a *troll* doesn't mean your useless conclusions re Z
>film alteration can't be refuted. Far from it. You, however, simply
>wish to disappear behind a lot of non issues and insults, Ben, from
>what I can see. Go and hide in your 48 questions, Ben!
>
>If you were really confident of your research, Ben, you'd simply bring
>it on, not hide behind all these petty complaints and stupid
>diversions like you weren't correcting Healy's mistake, you were
>correcting mine. LOL, that is simply crap, mate.
You've tried to imply that the reason you refuse to debate the evidence with me
is that I'm "unpleasant" and a "troll"...
Yet *EVERYONE* must fit into that category - as you cannot point to *ANY* debate
you've ever had on evidential matters.
Nor are you able to refute my points in this thread. Clearly, the question was
asked, and neither you nor the other trolls have been honest and able to answer.
Indeed, you immediately demonstrate the weakness of your position with all this
ad hominem.
You aren't worth my time...
>> Running and ducking is what cowards and liars do... and you'll continue
>> to do so - since you have no choice in the matter.
>>
>
>Well thank God you told me Ben! Now I realise what Benny Holmes is up
>to! :-)
Your posts illustrate what I say, Timmy...
>> >> >The evidence? Now perhaps that's another matter... :-)
>>
>> >> >Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben? Jack White's ridiculous
>> >> >conclusions about Mrs Franzen perhaps? That book, *Murder in Dealey
>> >> >Plaza*, REALLY is a stinker, isn't it?
>>
>> >> Actually, I consider it one of the better books in my library.
>>
>> >Oh dear...
>>
>> Ad hominem is the best you can do? Why not cite specific examples of the
>> book you dislike... let's go through the book, page by page. I'm willing...
>>
>
>Huh, I just said the book is crap.
Yeah, I didn't think you had any honesty... You can't do it. Specifics
frighten LNT'ers... they simply can't go there.
>That is not attacking you
>personally.
Unlike you're inability to remember my name, right Timmy?
>BTW I have previously disputed Gary Aguilar's chapter with
>Aguilar himself.
Go ahead, Timmy; dispute it with *ME*. You're a gutless coward...
>Try Googling a thread called *LN Inflation* Ben.
What good will it do if you can't respond, Timmy?
>Aggie was forced to admit his MIDP chapter was in error.
Actually, he didn't. His point was the same with or without the "error". I
invite everyone interested to look up Gary's excellent rebuttal.
It's sad when nitpicking details are the best you can do.
>> >> But since you mentioned "evidence"... why not start with my "45
>> >> Questions" I can't say as I've ever seen you attempt them.
>>
>> >Actually YOU mentioned evidence first, Ben.
>>
>> Yes... I did. But *YOU* implied that you'd be willing to discuss the
>
>Oh dear! Benny's conceded a mistake!
Sadly, no. I merely agree with a correct statement. Why bother to constantly
lie, Timmy? Do you really think that it helps your position?
>Just like Aggie was forced to do,
>those many long months ago... :-)
Ad hominem and lies are the best you can do?
>> evidence... here it is again: "The evidence? Now perhaps that's another
>> matter... :-) =A0Now, what did you want to discuss, Ben?"
>>
>> So... are you willing to debate the evidence, Tim? Or are you just a liar?
>>
>
>Now my dear Benny! Steady on, dear fellow!
Looks like you are headed back to the killfile.
>> (My crystal ball is telling me that you're just another liar...)
>>
>
>So you use a crystal ball & you believe in Z film alteration, Ben?
>Well, if you think that's wise, Ben...
My "crystal ball" has yet to fail me, and the EVIDENCE is what demonstrates
Z-film alteration.
When the defenders of the faith constantly have to lie about the evidence, they
make my case.
>> >Anyone who looks at this thread can see that. You're not trying to
>> >change the subject now are you?
>>
>> The topic, whenever I post, is almost virtually *ALWAYS* dealing with the
>> evidence in this case. As in this topic, the fact that the extant Z-film and
>> Nix film contradict each other.
>>
>
>Yeah?!! No way Benny!!!
>
>Proof, my dear Benjamin fellow?
You can count... You can even read what the other trolls lied about.
>> The 45 questions as well deal EXPLICITLY with the evidence. You're a gutless
>> coward, Tim, you *won't* deal with the evidence.
>>
>
>Benny...
Again you prove my point...
>> >I think we'll finish dealing with *Yellow Legs* in the Nix film
>>
>> You've already admitted that only two people can be seen in the extant
>> Z-film, and yet three people can be seen in Nix.
>>
>
>So? That's your conclusion, too, Ben.
>
>But old *Yellow Legs* is too far back in Nix to be seen in Zapruder,
>isn't she Ben?
Nope.
>People like Robert Harris and Mark and Burly and any other convenient
>*troll* are simply right and you're wrong. Isn't that the case, Ben?
When they all have to lie to make a point, all they've proven is that they're
liars.
>You've simply got it wrong Benny!
And yet, you can't refute the points I make... indeed, you need to lie about
them. What question did I ask that the trolls lied about???
>> You're stuck at that point. You have no-where else to go. You certainly have
>> no answers to offer.
>>
>
>Oh dear. This Benny fellow is simply getting tiresome now, as he cuts
>the *high morale ground* of being a *Z film alterationist* in 2008.
>And his sidekick is Toots-E-Roll Healy!
>
>Enormous hoots of uncontrollable mirth should accompany Benny's every
>blundering step in JFK assassination research hereafter, LOL! :-)
>
>Say, unconTROLLable! I made a funny! :-)
And yet, you can't refute the evidence. Embarrassing, isn't it?
>> >and
>> >the Franzens and Jack White's absurd claims in *Murder in Dealey
>> >Plaza*, one of the *better* books in your library, before we do too
>> >much else, eh?
>>
>> You haven't explained the facts *ALREADY* presented, Tim. Nor will you.
>
>>
>
>Are you using the crystal ball again, Benny?
Yep... proven correct, didn't it?
>> >Plenty to go over there, Ben.
>>
>> Start at the beginning, Tim.
>>
>
>Certainly Benny! On the case!
And yet, silence on the evidence is all we get from Timmy.
>> The 45 Questions will wait.
>>
>
>For sure. Let's blow a hole in this stupid Z film alteration theory
>first, eh Ben?
Nah... into the killfilter you go... and I'm sure that someone will let me know
if you actually attempt the 45 Questions.
Or ever even *try* to refute the evidence.
>> (I even reposted them in case you'd forgotten them. But you'll never make a
>> serious effort to answer them... you *CAN'T*)
>>
>
>Whatever ya say, Mr *tomnln* Channeller sir! Keep smilin'!!
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Tim Brennan
>Sydney, Australia
>*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Into the killfilter you go. Ad hominem is a waste of my time. If you don't
have the courage or honesty to correct and retract your lies, or the honesty to
attempt to refute the evidence I supply, then you are nothing but a waste of
time.
justm...@gmail.com
> In article <0e4afe2f-3cb9-4f70-bb04-b5a8b6590...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey Holmes, where's the book by your friend John Welsh Hodges that was
going to rip RH to shreads? Has your ficticious author come up with a
name for it yet? What a joke you are....damn liar!
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <0e4afe2f-3cb9-4f70-bb04-b5a8b6590...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Awwwww... bad Aussie... hurt Benji Baby's feelings :-(
muc...@gmail.com
> something he didn't think anyone could challenge, and this is the end
> result. Killfiltering is the dishonest, post editinging, coward's way
> out. Tuck that tail between your legs and run, Mr. Holmes.
Bad news for Mr. Healy. What happens when rats run out of food? They
turn on their own.
Only a few days ago, Mr. Holmes publicly admonished Mr. Healy for his
blooper concerning one of the most famous book about the Kennedy
assassination. The next time, Mr. Holmes won't be so nice.
Is the CT lovefest coming to an end?
-Mark :-)
tims...@gmail.com
On Mar 12, 3:21 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <0e4afe2f-3cb9-4f70-bb04-b5a8b6590...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Run, Benny run!
Seeya Ben. Looks like maybe YOU were wearing the yellow pants, Ben,
not the lady, eh?
Concerned Regards,
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Heals,
Say, does this look like the book that you've got a really rare B/W
copy of?
http://www.geocities.com/jfkword/revoltbks.html#fourdays
You know, when you said: *son, mineis black and white... perhaps its a
publishers galley proof, a collectors dream. Who cares, but I, its
mine....* whatever that, in fact, is meant to mean.
That review seems to make something of the fact that the Nix and
Muchmore frames are in colour, Heals.
How EXTRAORDINARILY lucky that you have such a collectors item on your
hands, Heals, out of millions of books printed.
And how convenient...
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Looks like Benny couldn't take the heat!
Run, Benny, RUN!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tims...@gmail.com
Oh dear. Let's hope there won't be any future trouble between *Benny &
the Vet*, LOL!
Burly...@gmail.com
Where is "yellow pants lady"??????????????????
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Burly,
The figure here, closest to the camera, is the person in question:
http://jfk.fotopic.net/p37567074.html
This is Nix 120 and appears to be the same frame that was printed in
*Four Days* on page 21.
She first appears at about Nix 103 and remains in view until the end.
She could be wearing yellow slacks, as has been posited, she could be
wearing yellow stockings, she could simply have bare legs that look
yellowish, if not tanned.
The colours in this on line version are not quite as bright as in the
book, where the yellowish colour is more apparent, though so is the
impression it is simply bare flesh.
Anyway, that's *Yellow Legs* or *Yellow Slacks* or whatever anyone
wants to call her. If you go some frames back it becomes apparent that
she was standing far closer to the edge of Main Street than the young
couple who are seen behind the Franzen group and whose feet and legs
are all that is visible in Zapruder.
There was never any way *Yellow Legs* could be in Zapruder, despite
what Ben claimed. She was much too far back and Zapruder's camera
never panned that far back.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Burly...@gmail.com
>
> The figure here, closest to the camera, is the person in question:
>
> http://jfk.fotopic.net/p37567074.html
>
> This is Nix 120 and appears to be the same frame that was printed in
> *Four Days* on page 21.
>
> She first appears at about Nix 103 and remains in view until the end.
> She could be wearing yellow slacks, as has been posited, she could be
> wearing yellow stockings, she could simply have bare legs that look
> yellowish, if not tanned.
>
> The colours in this on line version are not quite as bright as in the
> book, where the yellowish colour is more apparent, though so is the
> impression it is simply bare flesh.
>
> Anyway, that's *Yellow Legs* or *Yellow Slacks* or whatever anyone
> wants to call her. If you go some frames back it becomes apparent that
> she was standing far closer to the edge of Main Street than the young
> couple who are seen behind the Franzen group and whose feet and legs
> are all that is visible in Zapruder.
>
> There was never any way *Yellow Legs* could be in Zapruder, despite
> what Ben claimed. She was much too far back and Zapruder's camera
> never panned that far back.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Thank you, Mr. Brennan, for pointing this out to me.
I looked at some video, from a clearer copy of the Nix film, and it
does appear that she may have slacks on, as Mr. Holmes said. I can't
commit myself to call them "yellow", though, like he claims. Thanks
for this.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Burly,
You're welcome. It's a shame Ben didn't seem to have much interest in
confirming the figure he was referring to. Or David Healy, for that
matter.
But then I guess *Benny & The Vet* don't have much interest in
discussing the specifics of their Z film alteration nonsense. I guess
they both know it is a ridiculous notion, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Mar 13, 1:49 pm, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 12, 9:41 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Hi Burly,
>
> > The figure here, closest to the camera, is the person in question:
>
> >http://jfk.fotopic.net/p37567074.html
>
> > This is Nix 120 and appears to be the same frame that was printed in
> > *Four Days* on page 21.
>
> > She first appears at about Nix 103 and remains in view until the end.
> > She could be wearingyellowslacks, as has been posited, she could be
> > wearingyellowstockings, she could simply have bare legs that look
> > yellowish, if not tanned.
>
> > The colours in this on line version are not quite as bright as in the
> > book, where the yellowish colour is more apparent, though so is the
> > impression it is simply bare flesh.
>
> > Anyway, that's *YellowLegs* or *YellowSlacks* or whatever anyone
> > wants to call her. If you go some frames back it becomes apparent that
> > she was standing far closer to the edge of Main Street than the young
> > couple who are seen behind the Franzen group and whose feet and legs
> > are all that is visible in Zapruder.
>
> > There was never any way *YellowLegs* could be in Zapruder, despite
> > > > > > > > >> >> >> >when looking for the coloryellow? LMFAO!
> > > > > > > > >grayscale when looking for the coloryellow? LMFAO!
>
> > > > > > > > >Ben Holmes: Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg 21.
>
> > > > > > > > >QUOTE OFF
>
> > > > > > > > >Did you miss that bit, Ben?
>
> > > > > > > > Not at all, Timmy... now you're doing a bit of out and out lying.
>
> > > > > > > > Embarrassing, isn't it? CT'ers are honest, and demonstrate it; and LNT'ers &
> > > > > > > > trolls
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> confirming the figure he was referring to. Or David Healy, for that
> matter.
Studley its rather simple (John Costella forgive me) even a dumb
Aussie such as YOU (allegedly claim) should be able to understand the
following....
Give me a intelligent response to the study I posted in 2000, we'll
talk -- till then Studley, continue pulling your pud and remember;
BOTH hands at ALL times on the keyboard.... ya dig?...
btw, Burley is called SCAB, ask him why.... LMFAO!
> ...
>
> read more »
tims...@gmail.com
Oh, it's old Toots-E-Roll, the mate of Benny *Killfilter Coward*
Holmes.
Say, Toots, I'd love to give you a (sic) intelligent response re
you're (sic) 2000 study but I simply have never read it.
Just like, I imagine, you've never read a copy of the book *Four Days*
that has the Nix frames in black and white.
Know what I'm saying to ya, Toots-E-Roll?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Mar 14, 6:18 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> TOP POST
>>
>> Hi Burly,
>>
>> You're welcome. It's a shame Ben didn't seem to have much interest in
>> confirming the figure he was referring to. Or David Healy, for that
>> matter.
>
>Studley its rather simple (John Costella forgive me) even a dumb
>Aussie such as YOU (allegedly claim) should be able to understand the
>following....
>
>Give me a intelligent response to the study I posted in 2000, we'll
>talk -- till then Studley, continue pulling your pud and remember;
>BOTH hands at ALL times on the keyboard.... ya dig?...
>
>btw, Burley is called SCAB, ask him why.... LMFAO!
I see that BurlyGuard is just as dishonest as when he first popped up.
Must be embarrassing to be on the side of an issue that *requires* cowardice and
dishonesty...
>> But then I guess *Benny & The Vet* don't have much interest in
>> discussing the specifics of their Z film alteration nonsense. I guess
>> they both know it is a ridiculous notion, LOL!
The specifics were so specific, that Timmy couldn't address them.
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> On Mar 13, 1:49 pm, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 12, 9:41 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > TOP POST
>>
>> > > Hi Burly,
>>
>> > > The figure here, closest to the camera, is the person in question:
>>
>> > >http://jfk.fotopic.net/p37567074.html
>>
>> > > This is Nix 120 and appears to be the same frame that was printed in
>> > > *Four Days* on page 21.
>>
>> > > She first appears at about Nix 103 and remains in view until the end.
>> > > She could be wearingyellowslacks, as has been posited, she could be
>> > > wearingyellowstockings, she could simply have bare legs that look
>> > > yellowish, if not tanned.
>>
>> > > The colours in this on line version are not quite as bright as in the
>> > > book, where the yellowish colour is more apparent, though so is the
>> > > impression it is simply bare flesh.
>>
>> > > Anyway, that's *YellowLegs* or *YellowSlacks* or whatever anyone
>> > > wants to call her. If you go some frames back it becomes apparent that=
>
>> > > she was standing far closer to the edge of Main Street than the young
>> > > couple who are seen behind the Franzen group and whose feet and legs
>> > > are all that is visible in Zapruder.
>>
>> > > There was never any way *YellowLegs* could be in Zapruder, despite
>> > > what Ben claimed. She was much too far back and Zapruder's camera
>> > > never panned that far back.
>>
>> > > Regards,
>>
>> > > Tim Brennan
>> > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > Thank you, Mr. Brennan, for pointing this out to me.
>>
>> > I looked at some video, from a clearer copy of the Nix film, and it
>> > does appear that she may have slacks on, as Mr. Holmes said. I can't
>> > commit myself to call them "yellow", though, like he claims. Thanks
>> > for this.
>>
>> > > On Mar 13, 7:23 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mar 11, 9:13 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > BOTTOM POST
>>
>> > > > > On Mar 12, 7:58 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On 11 Mar., 21:10, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Mar 11, 3:03 pm, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On 11 Mar., 17:21, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > In article <0e4afe2f-3cb9-4f70-bb04-b5a8b6590...@d21g2000p=
>rf.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > > > > > > > timst...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >MIDDLE POST
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >Hi Ben,
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >On Mar 11, 10:32=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> w=
>rote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> In article <554ebbab-34d9-46dc-827e-810b352b5...@e6g200=
>0prf.googlegroups.c=3D
>> > > > > > > > > >om>,
>> > > > > > > > > >> timst...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >MIDDLE POST
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >Hi Ben,
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >On Mar 10, 2:33=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.co=
>m> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> In article <3c94aa4f-0dea-4ba0-a1ec-923593944...@e10=
>g2000prf.googlegrou=3D
>> > > > > > > > > >ps.=3D3D
>> > > > > > > > > >> >com>,
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> timst...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >MIDDLE POST
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >Hi Ben,
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >On Mar 9, 2:42=3D3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaj=
>i.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> In article <60a85a36-ce1f-4699-a891-8f3f9d414...@=
>h11g2000prf.googleg=3D
>> > > > > > > > > >rou=3D3D
>> > > > > > > > > >> >ps.=3D3D3D
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >com>,
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> aeffects says...
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >On Mar 8, 3:22 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> TOP POST
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Is the lady in question the lady who appears i=
>n the bottom Nix fr=3D
>> > > > > > > > > >ame=3D3D
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Day=
>s*?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >> Is that the person who is being discussed?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >post the picture stump.... I doubt many have eve=
>n heard of the book=3D
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >(certainly no Nutter troll has seen it.) .
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> It would be far simpler to simply review the Nix =
>film available
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> widely on the Internet, rather than a book few ha=
>ve.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >Possibly a good point. Still, I don't know that it =
>would be *a book
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >few have* if they have an interest in the Kennedy a=
>ssassination.
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >People don't read books anymore?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> Tell us about the photo on page 250 of "The Hoax of =
>the Century"
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> Go ahead and give me your opinion.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >Why don't you post a link to this photo, Ben, if it is=
> so important.
>> > > > > > > > > >> >Why have you suddenly gone off on this tangent?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> Thankyou... you've just illustrated my point. Didn't go=
> "off tangent" at
>> > > > > > > > > >> all, you merely didn't see the point.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> *ANYONE* who can read this post can jump to Youtube, or=
> some other
>> > > > > > > > > >> website, and view a cited photo or video.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> Few indeed can pull out a book and look at the photo. N=
>o matter *HOW*
>> > > > > > > > > >> interested they are in the topic. The book I cited is *=
>INDISPENSABLE*
>> > > > > > > > > >> for those who are interested in Z-film authenticity pro=
>blems.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> Thankyou for making my point for me.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >Hmm, but wasn't your point *a book few have*, Ben? The UP=
>I book *Four
>> > > > > > > > > >Days* had sold millions of copies around the world by 196=
>8. I live in
>> > > > > > > > > >Australia and I have two copies myself, LOL!
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Sorry Tim... that dog won't hunt.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > I named a book that's completely well suited to this EXACT=
> topic, and you don't
>> > > > > > > > > have it.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Which means that your attempted point that those intereste=
>d would *have* this
>> > > > > > > > > book simply isn't true.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > As you yourself illustrate.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >It's rather ridiculous to posit some Harry Livingstone po=
>tboiler like
>> > > > > > > > > >*Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century*, to give it=
> its full
>> > > > > > > > > >absurdity of a title, is as easily available as *Four Day=
>s*, a
>> > > > > > > > > >standard tome in the assassination literature.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > You see???
>>
>> > > > > > > > > You don't even know the correct title!! LOL!!
>>
>> > > > > > > > > It's "The Hoax of the Century - Decoding the Forgery of th=
>e Zapruder Film"
>>
>> > > > > > > > > And yes, *both* Livingstone books are still in print, and =
>easily available... so
>> > > > > > > > > you lied about their availability, didn't you?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >Why are you even arguing such a pathetic little point, Be=
>n? You're not
>> > > > > > > > > >a bit worried are you Ben?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > You proved my point for me, Tim. Does that embarrass you?=
>
>>
>> > > > > > > > > When you refer to a book that few have, rather than a cita=
>tion easily made to an
>> > > > > > > > > Internet resource that EVERYONE can check - you demonstrat=
>e that you're trying
>> > > > > > > > > to restrict the number of people that can check what you s=
>ay.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > But you've already admitted that the Nix film shows someth=
>ing that the extant
>> > > > > > > > > Zapruder film does *NOT*.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Good of you to admit it... since most of the trolls refuse=
>d to.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > But you *still* haven't explained it.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Entire books have been written on the evidence for Z-film =
>alteration - and you
>> > > > > > > > > can't answer a *single* point. That speaks volumes for th=
>e LNT'er position.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >btw, Four Days is in B&W, Nutters these day's de=
>pend on a grayscale=3D
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >when looking for the coloryellow? LMFAO!
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> Actually, my copy *does* have a color photo on pg=
> 21. It is indeed
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> a photo showing three people where the trolls hav=
>e been trying to
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> argue that only two are seen.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >Oh, you DO have a copy! Thank God there are a few o=
>f us out there who
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >still read a good book and *Four Days* is an absolu=
>te BEAUT in my
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >book!
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> But I don't expect any retractions.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >Probably wise. I mean, we are talking David *aeffec=
>ts* Healy here,
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> >aren't we? He's hardly likely to admit a mistake no=
>w, is he, LOL!
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> I'm referring to the trolls who claimed that there w=
>ere only *two*
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> people seen on the grass there. And it was rather ob=
>vious that I *WAS*
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> referring to that event... so you're either incredib=
>ly illiterate, or a=3D
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >> liar... which is it?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> >Well, looks to me like you were referring to Healy's b=
>looper too.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> Ah! So you're claiming illiteracy. Okay... I'll accept =
>it. Most LNT'ers are
>> > > > > > > > > >> either illiterate or liars anyway... Why not read it ag=
>ain:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >> -------------------------------------------------------=
>-----------
>> > > > > > > > > >> It is indeed a photo showing three people where the tro=
>lls have been
>> > > > > > > > > >> trying to argue that only two are seen. But I don't exp=
>ect any retractions.
>> > > > > > > > > >> -------------------------------------------------------=
>------------
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >Oh, well, now Benny,
>>
>> > > > > > > > > Well, that didn't take very long, Timmy...
>>
>> > > > > > > > > When the evidence is being discussed, LNT'ers simply can't=
> avoid ad hominem.
>> > > > > > > > > How long before you're killfiled, Timmy? Not long at the =
>rate you're going...
>> > > > > > > > > so chose your words carefully...
>>
>> > > > > > > > > >I think readers could be entitled to believe that
>> > > > > > > > > >you were also
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB
>
Burly...@gmail.com
> In article <4f4cf89d-755d-4299-a435-8acea157f...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 14, 6:18 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> TOP POST
>
> >> Hi Burly,
>
> >> You're welcome. It's a shame Ben didn't seem to have much interest in
> >> confirming the figure he was referring to. Or David Healy, for that
> >> matter.
>
> >Studley its rather simple (John Costella forgive me) even a dumb
> >Aussie such as YOU (allegedly claim) should be able to understand the
> >following....
>
> >Give me a intelligent response to the study I posted in 2000, we'll
> >talk -- till then Studley, continue pulling your pud and remember;
> >BOTH hands at ALL times on the keyboard.... ya dig?...
>
> >btw, Burley is called SCAB, ask him why.... LMFAO!
>
> I see that BurlyGuard is just as dishonest as when he first popped up.
What you "see" and what are the true facts, are two different
things, Mr. Holmes.
The one who is dishonest is yourself. You were caught red-handed
being dishonest when you changed the words in my post, then tried to
wiggle your way out of it.
You define the words "Coward" "liar" and "dishonest", not I.
>
> Must be embarrassing to be on the side of an issue that *requires* cowardice and
> dishonesty...
You should know. It's where you live, sir.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d833c242-d955-4a83...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Oh, it's old Toots-E-Roll, the mate of Benny *Killfilter Coward*
Holmes.
Say, Toots, I'd love to give you a (sic) intelligent response re
you're (sic) 2000 study but I simply have never read it.
Just like, I imagine, you've never read a copy of the book *Four Days*
that has the Nix frames in black and white.
Know what I'm saying to ya, Toots-E-Roll?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Is Tim trying to convince Ben that Oswald was>>>>
5 ft. 3 inches tall?
Blond Haired?
weighed 119 pounds?
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <4f4cf89d-755d-4299-a435-8acea157f...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
>
> >On Mar 14, 6:18 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> TOP POST
>
> >> Hi Burly,
>
> >> You're welcome. It's a shame Ben didn't seem to have much interest in
> >> confirming the figure he was referring to. Or David Healy, for that
> >> matter.
>
> >Studley its rather simple (John Costella forgive me) even a dumb
> >Aussie such as YOU (allegedly claim) should be able to understand the
> >following....
>
> >Give me a intelligent response to the study I posted in 2000, we'll
> >talk -- till then Studley, continue pulling your pud and remember;
> >BOTH hands at ALL times on the keyboard.... ya dig?...
>
> >btw, Burley is called SCAB, ask him why.... LMFAO!
>
> I see that BurlyGuard is just as dishonest as when he first popped up.
>
> Must be embarrassing to be on the side of an issue that *requires* cowardice and
> dishonesty...
>
> >> But then I guess *Benny & The Vet* don't have much interest in
> >> discussing the specifics of their Z film alteration nonsense. I guess
> >> they both know it is a ridiculous notion, LOL!
>
> The specifics were so specific, that Timmy couldn't address them.
Actually, Tim did address them - then you killfiled him and declared
yourself winner. I guess you realized (a bit late) that you were
making a fool of yourself. By pretending otherwise, you merely show
what a dishonest coward you are. Have you noticed that your only
support comes from a retarded asshole like Healy? That ought to tell
you a thing or two...
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Burly & Co,
This Benny Holmes is an interesting fellow.
He starts off cordial enough, but by the second post he is often
implying that a poster is illiterate or a liar, by the third post he
has usually progressed to terms like *dishonest*, *coward*, *gutless
coward* etc etc and if things still aren't going well for his
argument, he resorts to taking offence over some triviality (like your
having called him *Benny* or your criticising of the books in his
library) and responds by putting you in his *killfilter*.
He thereafter piggy backs on the suitably moronic responses of his
incoherent, probably drug addled sidekick, David *aeffects* Healy, if
he wants to continue the debate.
All of this is transparently designed to divert attention from his
failure to address the problems with his arguments, in this case Z
film alteration, because if he's killfiled you he can't see your
response.
The reason his Z film alteration theory fails is because it is
rubbish, he didn't do enough work on it and he can't defend it, so he
throws up a smokescreen, hoping no one will notice.
All people see is a guy who is ALL of the things he accuses others of
being.
He has no more interest in examining the deficiencies in his Z film
alteration theory than he has in looking in the noon day sun.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
aeffects
>
> This Benny Holmes is an interesting fellow.
>
> He starts off cordial enough, but by the second post he is often
> implying that a poster is illiterate or a liar, by the third post he
> has usually progressed to terms like *dishonest*, *coward*, *gutless
> coward* etc etc and if things still aren't going well for his
> argument, he resorts to taking offence over some triviality (like your
> having called him *Benny* or your criticising of the books in his
> library) and responds by putting you in his *killfilter*.
>
> He thereafter piggy backs on the suitably moronic responses of his
> incoherent, probably drug addled sidekick, David *aeffects* Healy, if
> he wants to continue the debate.
>
> All of this is transparently designed to divert attention from his
> failure to address the problems with his arguments, in this case Z
> film alteration, because if he's killfiled you he can't see your
> response.
>
> The reason his Z film alteration theory fails is because it is
> rubbish, he didn't do enough work on it and he can't defend it, so he
> throws up a smokescreen, hoping no one will notice.
>
> All people see is a guy who is ALL of the things he accuses others of
> being.
>
> He has no more interest in examining the deficiencies in his Z film
> alteration theory than he has in looking in the noon day sun.
Brennan, should we give a shit what you Lone Nut perv's have to say? I
mean, after all, none of you Nutter creeps has shown the least bit
ability to debate any of the evidence.... ball-less when it comes to
the 45 questions and absolute cowards when it comes to the 16 smoking
guns -- so tell us Mr.*newsgroup(s) commentator (LMFAO) why should we
CT's should bother with the sorry assed likes of you?
Fill us in, hell, fill the lurkers in -- plenty of them here.....
> ...
>
> read more »
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Toots-E-Roll,
Say, toots, when are you going to come clean and admit that you lied
about having some B/W galley proof copy of the book Four Days?
Remember, you had to lie in order to support your friend Ben Holmes,
the guy who is continually going around calling other people liars?
BTW, drug addled Fresno Freak and all round posting clown, Z film
alteration IS one of the sixteen smoking guns, ain't it Toots-E-Roll?
How come you and Benny never figured out that Zapruder's film was
NEVER going to show *Yellow Legs* because she was standing way too far
back, Dave?
It's pretty easy to do. Count how many lamp posts are on Main St in
the Dealey Plaza section and then work out which one is in the
foreground of the Nix film, Toots-E-Roll.
I suggest you go and do a little research, toots, instead of wasting
your time reading low circulation Z film alteration junk theories by
Jack White and Harry Livingstone.
K Toots?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
Yah. An infusion of reason and critical thinking is a necessary
contrast to the kook babble. You can`t just have kook babble, it
would be like a car alarm that never shuts off, or a baby who never
stops crying.
> I
> mean, after all, none of you Nutter creeps has shown the least bit
> ability to debate any of the evidence....
Who do you suggest we hold these debates with? You? Peek-a-Boo
Benny?
>ball-less when it comes to
> the 45 questions and absolute cowards when it comes to the 16 smoking
> guns --
We directly address all kook babble. That doesn`t mean we can stop
the kooks from babbling.
> so tell us Mr.*newsgroup(s) commentator (LMFAO) why should we
> CT's should bother with the sorry assed likes of you?
Killfilter us then, crackpipe. Ali didn`t become the greatest by
fighting little girls anyway, he fought worthy opponests to earn that
moniker. Who is the CT`s gladiator these days? Ben hides in the
dugout. Harris is off moping again somehwere (Those fools! Why can`t
they see?"). Who is the kook champion, clueless Walt? Gil "I put the
"L" in loser" Jesus? Tomnln? (by the way, Tom, if you didn`t find a
body, Ellen isn`t dead, she just left your sorry ass). Or you, Healy,
a chattering monkey with a monkey on your back?
> Fill us in, hell, fill the lurkers in -- plenty of them here.....
Can you support that baseless claim?
> > read more �
David Von Pein
>>> "Killfilter us then, crackpipe." <<<
hehe.
Remember Healy's declaration a few weeks back, when he claimed he
would thereafter be pretty much ignoring all posts written by us "Lone
Neuters" (always love that one; although the "crackpipe" doesn't use
it as much as he used to; too bad)?
I think Healy's "ignore the Neuters" police lasted -- what? -- 6
hours? (Or was it just 5?)
"Crackpipe" fits nicely (indeed).
>>> "Ben hides in the dugout. Harris is off moping again somehwere (Those fools! Why can`t they see?"). Who is the kook champion, clueless Walt? Gil "I put the "L" in loser" Jesus? Tomnln? (by the way, Tom, if you didn`t find a body, Ellen isn`t dead, she just left your sorry ass)." <<<
Oh, man! Please, Bud! No more!
You KNOW about my weak bladder, don't you? I've told everybody within
earshot about it. But you seem bent on putting it through the ringer.
A bladder can only take so much, for God sake!
justm...@gmail.com
ROFLMAO Bud...that's the best description of the Stooges I've heard
yet! Looks like Healys going to be spending a few days licking Bennies
wounds as opposed to licking the other parts hes accustomed too LOL.
Nice work guys...little "Sadam Holmes" will stay in his cave for a few
days until Healy does the dirty work with his incoherent ramblings. So
predictable...the Dipshit duo never disappoint.
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09ceebca-069e-480f...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi Burly & Co,
Regards,
********************************
Coming from a guy who thinks Oswald was 5 ft. 3 inches tall
Coming from a guy who thinks Oswald had Blond Hair
Coming from a guy who thinks Oswald weighed 119 pounds.
curtjester1
wrote:
>
> > Is that the person who is being discussed?
>
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
>
> > > On Mar 8, 4:42 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <9fa79c30-01e0-4d2d-8917-ee62f93e3...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > aeffects says...
>
> > > > >On Mar 8, 10:40 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >> On Mar 8, 1:18 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > On Mar 8, 6:05 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > >>camera Zapruder
> > > > >> > > used, go to Dealey Plaza, stand in Z's position, and duplicate the
> > > > >> > > filming by Mr. Zapruder.
>
> > > > >> > ...
>
> > > > >> > and show us your camerawork...
>
>
> > > > >well then show us fraud , surely you have the courage, don't you?
> > > > >eh, troll?
>
> > > > >> And for the record, it is not up to me to provide the information I
> > > > >> suggested, it is up to your buddy who claims that the films are fake
> > > > >> to do the test I suggested.
>
> > > > 'em.
>
> > > Oh? Why is is "silly" for one to suggest that you go to DP and get up
> > > when filimg the shooting, when you are the one claiming the film has
> > > been fudged?
>
> > > give
>
> > > > you my take on what it demonstrates.
>
> > > you presenting your interpretation of something.
>
> > > the woman you claim is dressed in "yellow pants" . So far, I have not
> > > received a solid answer from you, and only insults, cursing and name
> > > calling from your buddy, David Healy.
>
> > > > explanations,
>
> > > No one can "explain" anything until you quit stalling and
> > > specifically point this "lady in yellow pants" out.
>
>
>
> > > Please, then, tell your buddy, David Healy, to lay off with his
> > > insults, cursing, and swearing everytime someone asks a question!
>
> > > > >the info, troll -- otherwise your just blowing smoke out your ass,
> > > > >back to measuring that SCAB on your ass....- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Holmes to answer their questions. Every single time Holmes is asked a
> question he can't answer...in jumps Healy with his nose sniffing
> Holmes butt, spewing his usual incoherent bs. Just look at every post
> made by Holmes and whos post is right under it.
> The womans pants will turn from yellow to blue by the time you get a
> direct answer from little "Sadam".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Didn't Billy Joel write a song about the Soap Opera State of Mind?
CJ
curtjester1
> On Mar 8, 8:51 pm, much...@gmail.com wrote:> > > Hi Mark,
>
> > > Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
> > > book, the left most figure in the page of Nix frames you provided from
> > > the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
> > > the *Four Days* book.
>
> > > I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
> > > what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
> > > something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
> > > facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
> > > bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
> > > crock.
>
> > It wouldn't surprise me if Ben took something he read in a conspiracy
> > book on faith, without looking into the matter himself. An independent
> > thinker he ain't.
>
> > Btw, in the posts linked to below, Ben implies that the lady in yellow
> > pants should have been visible in Z-377...
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b900b35211f89d...
>
> > ...which is, of course, far too late.
>
> > -Mark
>
> Apparently, Mr. Holmes doesn't realize or understand that the woman
> is not wearing "yeallow pants" at all. She is dresssed in a black
> dress, scarf around her head, carrying a large shopping type bag.
>
>
She looks more like she can be a shooter than one who can be
dismissed.
CJ
>
>
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Tim Brennan
> > > Sydney, Australia
> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > > On Mar 9, 11:28 am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 9 Mar., 00:22, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > TOP POST
>
> > > > > Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix frame
> > > > > published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>
> > > > > Is that the person who is being discussed?
>
> > > > > Regards,
>
> > > > > Tim Brennan
> > > > > Sydney, Australia
> > > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>
> > > > Tim,
>
> > > > I don't have my books handy, but it's the person closest to Main St.
> > > > in the frames that are reproduced here:
>
> > > > [WC18H83]
>
> > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol...
>
> > > > Some useful on-line tools:
>
> > > > [Nix frames]
>
> > > >http://jfk.fotopic.net/c1178748.html
>
> > > > [Zapruder frames]
>
> > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
>
> > > > [Don Roberdeau's DP map]
>
> > > >http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
>
> > > > -Mark
muc...@gmail.com
That's right, Curt. Thank God they edited out the frames showing her
from the front, carrying an assault rifle, otherwise no one would have
believed that Oswald acted all by his lonesome self.
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...
>
>On Mar 8, 9:54=A0pm, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 8:51=A0pm, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 9 Mar., 02:02, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > TOP POST
>>
>> > > Hi Mark,
>>
>> > > Thanks. That is excellent! Yes, that is the lady in the *Four Days*
>
>> > > the WC. She appears to be wearing yellow slacks under a black coat in
>> > > the *Four Days* book.
>>
>> > > I think that lady is too far back to appear in Zapruder, if that is
>> > > what Ben is claiming. This whole Z369 claim appears to go back to
>> > > something Jack White wrote in the book *Murder in Dealey Plaza*,
>> > > facing page 325. Jack's research is flawed and his conclusions are
>> > > bad. Anyone buying this Z369 as proof of fakery thing is buying a
>> > > crock.
>>
>> > It wouldn't surprise me if Ben took something he read in a conspiracy
>> > book on faith, without looking into the matter himself. An independent
>> > thinker he ain't.
>>
>> > Btw, in the posts linked to below, Ben implies that the lady in yellow
>> > pants should have been visible in Z-377...
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b900b35211f89d...
>>
>> > ...which is, of course, far too late.
>>
>> > -Mark
>>
>> is not wearing "yeallow pants" at all. =A0She is dresssed in a black
>> dress, scarf around her head, carrying a large shopping type bag.
Good to see that even the trolls are now admitting that she's there.
>She looks more like she can be a shooter than one who can be
>dismissed.
>
>CJ
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Regards,
>>
>> > > Tim Brennan
>> > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > > On Mar 9, 11:28=A0am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > On 9 Mar., 00:22, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > TOP POST
>>
>> > > > > Is the lady in question the lady who appears in the bottom Nix fra=
>me
>> > > > > published on page 21 of the UPI book *Four Days*?
>>
>> > > > > Is that the person who is being discussed?
>>
>> > > > > Regards,
>>
>> > > > > Tim Brennan
>> > > > > Sydney, Australia
>> > > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> > > > Tim,
>>
>> > > > I don't have my books handy, but it's the person closest to Main St.=
>
>> > > > in the frames that are reproduced here:
>>
>> > > > [WC18H83]
>>
>> > > >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol=
>...
>>
>> > > > Some useful on-line tools:
>>
>> > > > [Nix frames]
>>
>> > > >http://jfk.fotopic.net/c1178748.html
>>
>> > > > [Zapruder frames]
>>
>> > > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
>>
>> > > > [Don Roberdeau's DP map]
>>
>> > > >http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
>>
>> > > > -Mark
>>
>> > > > > On Mar 9, 9:40=A0am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Mar 8, 4:42=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > In article <9fa79c30-01e0-4d2d-8917-ee62f93e3...@d21g2000prf.g=
>ooglegroups.com>,
>> > > > > > > aeffects says...
>>
>> > > > > > > >On Mar 8, 10:40 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > > > >> On Mar 8, 1:18 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > >> > On Mar 8, 6:05 am, BurlyGu...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > >>> ... =A0All it would take> is for Mr. Holmes to get a the s=
>ame make and model
>> > > > > > > >>camera Zapruder
>> > > > > > > >> > > used, go to Dealey Plaza, stand in Z's position, and du=
>plicate the
>> > > > > > > >> > > filming by Mr. Zapruder.
>>
>> > > > > > > >> > ...
>>
>> > > > > > > >> > =A0is that a fact? Have you yourself done that, SCAB? Ple=
>ase post a URL
>> > > > > > > >> > and show us your camerawork...
>>
>> > > > > > > >> =A0 Yes, that is a "fact, oh rude person with no dignity.
>>
>> > > > > > > >well then show us fraud , surely you have the courage, don't =
>you?
>> > > > > > > >spouting off at the mouth is a far cry from posting =A0your h=
>andywork,
>> > > > > > > >eh, troll?
>>
>> > > > > > > >> =A0And for the record, it is not up to me to provide the in=
>formation I
>> > > > > > > >> suggested, it is up to your buddy who claims that the films=
> are fake
>> > > > > > > >> to do the test I suggested.
>>
>> > > > > > > How silly! =A0The tests have already been done by the FBI - an=
>d they won't release
>> > > > > > > 'em.
>>
>> > > > > > Oh? Why is is "silly" for one to suggest that you go to DP and g=
>et up
>> > > > > > onto Z's pedestal, and position the camera and lens the way he d=
>id
>> > > > > > when filimg the shooting, when you are the one claiming the film=
> has
>> > > > > > been fudged?
>>
>> > > > > > =A0It's not up to me to explain the evidence... I merely present=
> it, and
>> > > > > > give
>>
>> > > > > > > you my take on what it demonstrates.
>>
>> > > > > > No, you are =A0in error. =A0You are not "presenting the evidence=
>", sir,
>> > > > > > you presenting your interpretation of something.
>>
>> > > > > > =A0all I asked when I started this thread was for someone to poi=
>nt me to
>> > > > > > the woman you claim is dressed in "yellow pants" . =A0So far, I =
>have not
>> > > > > > received a solid answer from you, and only insults, cursing and =
>name
>> > > > > > calling from your buddy, David Healy.
>>
>> > > > > > > The fact that trolls are *unable* to explain the evidence, or =
>refute my
>> > > > > > > explanations,
>>
>> > > > > > =A0No one can "explain" anything until you quit stalling and
>> > > > > > specifically point this "lady in yellow pants" out.
>>
>> > > > > > =A0are all the facts lurkers need to draw their own judgements.
>>
>> > > > > > > Ad hominem isn't going to be a winner against the citations of=
> evidence.
>>
>> > > > > > =A0Please, then, tell your buddy, David Healy, to lay off with h=
>is
>> > > > > > insults, cursing, and swearing everytime someone asks a question=
>!
>>
>> > > > > > > >for the record if you challenge anyone findings its time to p=
>rovide
>> > > > > > > >the info, troll -- otherwise your just blowing smoke out your=
> ass,
>> > > > > > > >better yet up Yohavey's ass evidently there plenty of room in=
> THAT
>> > > > > > > >neighborhood.... now be a good little troll post your finding=
>s or go
>> > > > > > > >back to measuring that SCAB on your ass....- Hide quoted text=
aeffects
> In article <66c0a860-661e-4ba4-918e-956df1731...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
they've no choice ... recently David Lifton and Mark Lane delivered
crushing blows to their collective EGO'S
muc...@gmail.com
Would either of these gentlemen kindly step up to the plate and help
Ben defend his silly argument...?
For the umpteenth time: there is nothing sinister about the yellow-
legged woman appearing in one film (Nix) and not the other. She
wouldn't have appeared in Z-377, as Zapruder had panned past her at
that point, or in any other Z-frame, because she was standing too far
back. Further explanations, as well as links to frames and maps, have
been provided in earlier posts.
Healy? Perhaps *you* can help your master. Please explain, as
specifically as you can, when and where in the Zapruder film you would
have expected to see the yellow-legged woman.
Would that be too much trouble for you?
-Mark
tims...@gmail.com
Say, it'll be good when *Benny & the Vet* admit that there is no way
that she can appear in Zapruder because she is standing WAAAAY too far
back on the grass.
The patch of grass on which she stands is not visible in Zapruder,
just as Harris, Mark, Burly and others have pointed out to *Benny &
the Vet*.
Have *Benny & the Vet* checked out the number of Dealey Plaza lamp
posts on Main Street yet, as I suggested, and discovered their (and
Jack White's) obvious mistake?
Best they warble on about Mark Lane, I'd reckon...
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
curtjester1
> TOP POST
>
> Say, it'll be good when *Benny & the Vet* admit that there is no way
> that she can appear in Zapruder because she is standing WAAAAY too far
> back on the grass.
>
CJ