Hard Scientific Evidence Believers Run From...

[Ben Holmes]

HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...

The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
X-ray...

The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
wound in the throat...

The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
prosectors for examination.

The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.

The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
grass.

The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
'expert shopping' to find Nicol...

The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
never identified.

The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
Commission. (and lied about to this very day)

The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.

The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
film a fake.

The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us
about the ballistic path of that bullet.

Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
case... to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:52:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
>
> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
> X-ray...

What about it?

> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
> wound in the throat...

What about it?

> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
> prosectors for examination.

Refused by who?

> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.

How can it be hard evidence if you can`t produce it?

> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
> grass.

You are simply lying.

> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...

Whatever that means.

> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
> never identified.

What about it?

> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)

Show it was concealed.

> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.

If you don`t like the testing, ignore it.

> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
> film a fake.

Show this "first frame flash" in the other stops and starts in the z-film.

> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched.

What about it?

> Tell us
> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
>
> Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
> case...

What do you mean by "address"?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:52:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
>>
>> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
>> X-ray...
>
> What about it?

What do *you* think?

>> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
>> wound in the throat...
>
> What about it?

Tell us about it...

>> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
>> prosectors for examination.
>
> Refused by who?

Who do you think refused permission?

>> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
>
> How can it be hard evidence if you can`t produce it?

Why do you think it's relevant?

>> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
>> grass.
>
> You are simply lying.

You are simply lying.

>> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
>> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
>
> Whatever that means.

You don't know?

>> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
>> never identified.
>
> What about it?

You tell us...

>> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
>> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
>
> Show it was concealed.

Produce it.

>> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
>> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
>> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
>
> If you don`t like the testing, ignore it.

If you don' tlike the dishonesty, swish away with Chrissy...

>> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
>> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
>> film a fake.
>
> Show this "first frame flash" in the other stops and starts in the z-film.

Shifting the burden. It's clear that Chickenshit doesn't believe the
science.

>> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched.
>
> What about it?

You tell us.

>> Tell us
>> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
>>
>> Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
>> case...
>
> What do you mean by "address"?

What do you mean when asking me "what do you mean..."

>>to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...

Chickenshit is giving Chrissy lessons in how to run...

[Bud]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 2:32:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:52:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
> >>
> >> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
> >> X-ray...
> >
> > What about it?
> What do *you* think?

You brought it up.

> >> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
> >> wound in the throat...
> >
> > What about it?
> Tell us about it...

You brought it up.

> >> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
> >> prosectors for examination.
> >
> > Refused by who?
> Who do you think refused permission?

You brought it up.

> >> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
> >
> > How can it be hard evidence if you can`t produce it?
> Why do you think it's relevant?

Why do you think it is hard evidence?

> >> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
> >> grass.
> >
> > You are simply lying.
>
> You are simply lying.

Not me, I know you can show a photo of bullet being recovered in the grass.

> >> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
> >> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
> >
> > Whatever that means.
> You don't know?

Nope.

> >> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
> >> never identified.
> >
> > What about it?
> You tell us...

You brought it up.

> >> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
> >> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
> >
> > Show it was concealed.
> Produce it.

Non sequitur.

> >> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
> >> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
> >> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
> >
> > If you don`t like the testing, ignore it.
> If you don' tlike the dishonesty,

Since it is your dishonesty it should be your concern.

>swish away with Chrissy...
> >> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
> >> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
> >> film a fake.
> >
> > Show this "first frame flash" in the other stops and starts in the z-film.
> Shifting the burden. It's clear that Chickenshit doesn't believe the
> science.
> >> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched.
> >
> > What about it?
> You tell us.

You brought it up.

> >> Tell us
> >> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
> >>
> >> Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
> >> case...
> >
> > What do you mean by "address"?
> What do you mean when asking me "what do you mean..."

I meant what I said.

> >>to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
> Chickenshit is giving Chrissy lessons in how to run...

You are the one striking out with all this supposed "hard evidence".

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 11 May 2022 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 2:32:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:52:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
>>>>
>>>> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
>>>> X-ray...
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> What do *you* think?
>
> You brought it up.

But it would be quite stupid of me to feel any obligation to convince
you of anythiing.

>>>> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
>>>> wound in the throat...
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> Tell us about it...
>
> You brought it up.

Ditto.

>>>> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
>>>> prosectors for examination.
>>>
>>> Refused by who?
>>
>> Who do you think refused permission?
>
> You brought it up.

Ditto.

>>>> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
>>>
>>> How can it be hard evidence if you can`t produce it?
>>
>> Why do you think it's relevant?
>
> Why do you think it is hard evidence?

Not an answer.

>>>> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
>>>> grass.
>>>
>>> You are simply lying.
>>
>> You are simply lying.
>

> Not me...

Yes you.

> I know you can show a photo of bullet being recovered in the grass.

Ah! So you ADMIT you lied.

>>>> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
>>>> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
>>>
>>> Whatever that means.
>>
>> You don't know?
>
> Nope.

Too bad. Your parents failed you.

>>>> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
>>>> never identified.
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> You tell us...
>
> You brought it up.

Yep. I did.

>>>> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
>>>> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
>>>
>>> Show it was concealed.
>>
>> Produce it.
>
> Non sequitur.

You do this frequently.

>>>> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
>>>> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
>>>> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
>>>
>>> If you don`t like the testing, ignore it.
>>

>> If you don' t like the dishonesty, swish away with Chrissy...

>>
>>>> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
>>>> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
>>>> film a fake.
>>>
>>> Show this "first frame flash" in the other stops and starts in the z-film.
>>
>> Shifting the burden. It's clear that Chickenshit doesn't believe the
>> science.
>>
>>>> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched.
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> You tell us.
>
> You brought it up.

Yep.

>>>> Tell us
>>>> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
>>>>
>>>> Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
>>>> case...
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "address"?
>>
>> What do you mean when asking me "what do you mean..."
>
> I meant what I said.

I meant what I said.

>>>>to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
>>
>> Chickenshit is giving Chrissy lessons in how to run...
>

> You ...

Me.

[Bud]

On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 2:32:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:52:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
> >>>>
> >>>> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
> >>>> X-ray...
> >>>
> >>> What about it?
> >>
> >> What do *you* think?
> >
> > You brought it up.
> But it would be quite stupid of me to feel any obligation to convince
> you of anythiing.

Try making compelling arguments.

Or just name random things, I`m sure that is just as good.

> >>>> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
> >>>> wound in the throat...
> >>>
> >>> What about it?
> >>
> >> Tell us about it...
> >
> > You brought it up.
> Ditto.
> >>>> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
> >>>> prosectors for examination.
> >>>
> >>> Refused by who?
> >>
> >> Who do you think refused permission?
> >
> > You brought it up.
> Ditto.
> >>>> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
> >>>
> >>> How can it be hard evidence if you can`t produce it?
> >>
> >> Why do you think it's relevant?
> >
> > Why do you think it is hard evidence?
> Not an answer.

The default is not that it is whatever you say it is.

> >>>> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
> >>>> grass.
> >>>
> >>> You are simply lying.
> >>
> >> You are simply lying.
> >
> > Not me...
>
> Yes you.

Show a bullet, then.

> > I know you can show a photo of bullet being recovered in the grass.
> Ah! So you ADMIT you lied.

Wrong.

> >>>> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
> >>>> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
> >>>
> >>> Whatever that means.
> >>
> >> You don't know?
> >
> > Nope.
> Too bad. Your parents failed you.

You blame me for your inability to make your case.

> >>>> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
> >>>> never identified.
> >>>
> >>> What about it?
> >>
> >> You tell us...
> >
> > You brought it up.
> Yep. I did.

What about it?

> >>>> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
> >>>> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
> >>>
> >>> Show it was concealed.
> >>
> >> Produce it.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
> You do this frequently.

You don`t address what I say frequently.

> >>>> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
> >>>> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
> >>>> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
> >>>
> >>> If you don`t like the testing, ignore it.
> >>
> >> If you don' t like the dishonesty, swish away with Chrissy...
> >>
> >>>> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
> >>>> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
> >>>> film a fake.
> >>>
> >>> Show this "first frame flash" in the other stops and starts in the z-film.
> >>
> >> Shifting the burden. It's clear that Chickenshit doesn't believe the
> >> science.
> >>
> >>>> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched.
> >>>
> >>> What about it?
> >>
> >> You tell us.
> >
> > You brought it up.
> Yep.

What about it?

> >>>> Tell us

> >>>> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
> >>>> case...
> >>>
> >>> What do you mean by "address"?
> >>
> >> What do you mean when asking me "what do you mean..."
> >
> > I meant what I said.
>
> I meant what I said.

You mention some things, I ask what about them and you have nothing.

> >>>>to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
> >>
> >> Chickenshit is giving Chrissy lessons in how to run...
> >
> > You ...
>
> Me.

You`ve seem to gone nowhere with all your claims about "hard evidence". Why is that?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 May 2022 14:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 2:32:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:52:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
>>>>>> X-ray...
>>>>>
>>>>> What about it?
>>>>
>>>> What do *you* think?
>>>
>>> You brought it up.
>>
>> But it would be quite stupid of me to feel any obligation to convince

>> you of anything.
>
> Try making compelling arguments.

Just did.

Extremely compelling to me, or anyone who knows you.

>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
>>>>>> wound in the throat...
>>>>>
>>>>> What about it?
>>>>
>>>> Tell us about it...
>>>
>>> You brought it up.
>> Ditto.
>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
>>>>>> prosectors for examination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Refused by who?
>>>>
>>>> Who do you think refused permission?
>>>
>>> You brought it up.
>> Ditto.
>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can it be hard evidence if you can`t produce it?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it's relevant?
>>>
>>> Why do you think it is hard evidence?
>> Not an answer.
>
> The default is not that it is whatever you say it is.

Actually, quite untrue.

When someone who's quite dishonest attempts debate with an honest man,
the default *DOES* go to the honest man.

>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
>>>>>> grass.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are simply lying.
>>>>
>>>> You are simply lying.
>>>
>>> Not me...
>>
>> Yes you.
>
> Show a bullet, then.

Logical fallacy.

>>> I know you can show a photo of bullet being recovered in the grass.
>>
>> Ah! So you ADMIT you lied.
>
> Wrong.

Provably correct.

>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
>>>>>> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever that means.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Too bad. Your parents failed you.
>

> You blame me ...

No stupid, I just got through blaming your parents. What part didn't
you understand?

>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
>>>>>> never identified.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about it?
>>>>
>>>> You tell us...
>>>
>>> You brought it up.
>>
>> Yep. I did.
>
> What about it?

To who?

>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
>>>>>> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
>>>>>
>>>>> Show it was concealed.
>>>>
>>>> Produce it.
>>>
>>> Non sequitur.
>>
>> You do this frequently.
>

> You don`t...

I do...

>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
>>>>>> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
>>>>>> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don`t like the testing, ignore it.
>>>>
>>>> If you don' t like the dishonesty, swish away with Chrissy...
>>>>
>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
>>>>>> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
>>>>>> film a fake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show this "first frame flash" in the other stops and starts in the z-film.
>>>>
>>>> Shifting the burden. It's clear that Chickenshit doesn't believe the
>>>> science.
>>>>
>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about it?
>>>>
>>>> You tell us.
>>>
>>> You brought it up.
>>
>> Yep.
>
> What about it?

To who?

>>>>>> Tell us
>>>>>> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
>>>>>> case...
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean by "address"?
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean when asking me "what do you mean..."
>>>
>>> I meant what I said.
>>
>> I meant what I said.
>

> You mention...

I did.

>>>>>>to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
>>>>
>>>> Chickenshit is giving Chrissy lessons in how to run...
>>>
>>> You ...
>>
>> Me.
>

> You...

Me.

[Bud]

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2022 14:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Wed, 11 May 2022 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 2:32:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:52:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>>>>> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
> >>>>>> X-ray...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about it?
> >>>>
> >>>> What do *you* think?
> >>>
> >>> You brought it up.
> >>
> >> But it would be quite stupid of me to feel any obligation to convince
> >> you of anything.
> >
> > Try making compelling arguments.
>
> Just did.

I didn`t see any argument made, compelling or otherwise.

> Extremely compelling to me, or anyone who knows you.
> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
> >>>>>> wound in the throat...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell us about it...
> >>>
> >>> You brought it up.
> >> Ditto.
> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
> >>>>>> prosectors for examination.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Refused by who?
> >>>>
> >>>> Who do you think refused permission?
> >>>
> >>> You brought it up.
> >> Ditto.
> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How can it be hard evidence if you can`t produce it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do you think it's relevant?
> >>>
> >>> Why do you think it is hard evidence?
> >> Not an answer.
> >
> > The default is not that it is whatever you say it is.
> Actually, quite untrue.
>
> When someone who's quite dishonest attempts debate with an honest man,
> the default *DOES* go to the honest man.

That doesn`t help you any.

And how does evidence you can`t produce gain the status of hard evidence?

> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
> >>>>>> grass.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are simply lying.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are simply lying.
> >>>
> >>> Not me...
> >>
> >> Yes you.
> >
> > Show a bullet, then.
> Logical fallacy.

It is begged to say the photo shows a bullet being removed.

> >>> I know you can show a photo of bullet being recovered in the grass.
> >>
> >> Ah! So you ADMIT you lied.
> >
> > Wrong.
> Provably correct.

Wrong.

> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
> >>>>>> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whatever that means.
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't know?
> >>>
> >>> Nope.
> >>
> >> Too bad. Your parents failed you.
> >
> > You blame me ...
>
> No stupid, I just got through blaming your parents. What part didn't
> you understand?

They didn`t prevent you from making honest arguments, your upbringing did that.

> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
> >>>>>> never identified.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about it?
> >>>>
> >>>> You tell us...
> >>>
> >>> You brought it up.
> >>
> >> Yep. I did.
> >
> > What about it?
> To who?

Whoever.

> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
> >>>>>> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Show it was concealed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Produce it.
> >>>
> >>> Non sequitur.
> >>
> >> You do this frequently.
> >
> > You don`t...
>
> I do...

You bring up things and when asked for the simplest support you have nothing.

You should just say "Here is a list of things I can`t support, I can`t take anywhere and mean nothing" and stop bothering other people.

> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
> >>>>>> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
> >>>>>> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you don`t like the testing, ignore it.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you don' t like the dishonesty, swish away with Chrissy...
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
> >>>>>> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
> >>>>>> film a fake.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Show this "first frame flash" in the other stops and starts in the z-film.
> >>>>
> >>>> Shifting the burden. It's clear that Chickenshit doesn't believe the
> >>>> science.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about it?
> >>>>
> >>>> You tell us.
> >>>
> >>> You brought it up.
> >>
> >> Yep.
> >
> > What about it?
> To who?

If you can`t take it anywhere just say so.

All this supposed "hard evidence" and you can`t seem to take a single step off any of it.

> >>>>>> Tell us
> >>>>>> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
> >>>>>> case...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you mean by "address"?
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you mean when asking me "what do you mean..."
> >>>
> >>> I meant what I said.
> >>
> >> I meant what I said.
> >
> > You mention...
>
> I did.

Since you can`t bring yourself to say what you mean by "addressed" how do we know it hasn`t been?

> >>>>>>to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
> >>>>
> >>>> Chickenshit is giving Chrissy lessons in how to run...
> >>>
> >>> You ...
> >>
> >> Me.
> >
> > You...
>
> Me.

Another go-nowhere CTers list.

[Christopher Strimbu]

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:52:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
>
> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
> X-ray...
>

It does not matter what this "6.5mm" object seen in the X-ray is. The HSCA determined the autopsy photos and X-rays were unaltered.

> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
> wound in the throat...
>

Which was determined by the Warren Commission, Clark Panel, and HSCA to be a throat of exit, not entrance. Plus, you have Dr. Carrico and Perry saying it could've been either.

> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
> prosectors for examination.
>

Clothing doesn't tell you where the bullet wound is. The body does.

> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
>

But the ones we do have disprove dozens of theories. Are you suggesting that there is something in those photos that overrides the current autopsy photos and X-rays we do have?

> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
> grass.
>

Of course, that photo shows no such thing, and lurkers can see for themselves here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K1QWVrMsnvM/VTHtLAB39GI/AAAAAAABFqg/6XB_1-ybUbI/s2000/Dealey-Pics-11-22-63.jpg

> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
>

Frazier linked the 3 bullet shells, CE 399, the two bullet fragments, and the 4 revolver shells found at the Tippit and Kennedy crime scenes to weapons owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.

> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
> never identified.
>

Ben ignores the dozens of prints found at the sniper's nest that were identified to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
>

Which tested positive on Oswald's cheek, per Gallagher's testimony.

> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
>

And they still beat Oswald. You're also ignoring the tests done by CBS in 1967 that did do what you suggest and the shooters there also bat Oswald's time.

> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
> film a fake.
>

"... the solution to the alleged mystery of first frame over-exposure is quite simple. Most often, it is caused by the inertia of the camera as it starts up. This leads to the first frame in a sequence picking up more light than later frames. In cases where the camera mechanism has been idle for some time, the first frame over-exposure is quite obvious. In cases, where the mechanism has been idle for only a few seconds, the over-exposure is minimal."

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html

> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us
> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
>

Oswald's third shot hit Kennedy in the head. That bullet fragmented. One of the fragments strikes and deflects off the curb and hits Tague in the cheek.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 16:26:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:53:07 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 May 2022 14:01:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 1:52:42 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 14:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 2:32:25 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2022 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:52:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>>> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
>>>>>>>> X-ray...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do *you* think?
>>>>>
>>>>> You brought it up.
>>>>
>>>> But it would be quite stupid of me to feel any obligation to convince
>>>> you of anything.
>>>
>>> Try making compelling arguments.
>>
>> Just did.
>
> I didn`t see any argument made, compelling or otherwise.

Your inability to see or reason has nothing to do with me.

>> Extremely compelling to me, or anyone who knows you.
>>
>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
>>>>>>>> wound in the throat...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell us about it...
>>>>>
>>>>> You brought it up.
>>>> Ditto.
>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
>>>>>>>> prosectors for examination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Refused by who?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who do you think refused permission?
>>>>>
>>>>> You brought it up.
>>>> Ditto.
>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can it be hard evidence if you can`t produce it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think it's relevant?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think it is hard evidence?
>>>> Not an answer.
>>>
>>> The default is not that it is whatever you say it is.
>>
>> Actually, quite untrue.
>>
>> When someone who's quite dishonest attempts debate with an honest man,
>> the default *DOES* go to the honest man.
>>

>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
>>>>>>>> grass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are simply lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are simply lying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not me...
>>>>
>>>> Yes you.
>>>
>>> Show a bullet, then.
>>
>> Logical fallacy.
>

> It is begged ...

I did indeed point out that it's a logical fallacy. Good of you to
agree.

>>>>> I know you can show a photo of bullet being recovered in the grass.
>>>>
>>>> Ah! So you ADMIT you lied.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> Provably correct.
>
> Wrong.

Nope.

>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
>>>>>>>> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever that means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't know?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad. Your parents failed you.
>>>
>>> You blame me ...
>>
>> No stupid, I just got through blaming your parents. What part didn't
>> you understand?
>

> They ...

Good! Second time through, you realize who I was talking about!

>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
>>>>>>>> never identified.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tell us...
>>>>>
>>>>> You brought it up.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. I did.
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> To who?
>
> Whoever.

Already posted for intelligent lurkers.

>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
>>>>>>>> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show it was concealed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Produce it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non sequitur.
>>>>
>>>> You do this frequently.
>>>
>>> You don`t...
>>
>> I do...
>

> You ...

No. We're examining *YOUR* faults.

>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
>>>>>>>> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
>>>>>>>> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you don`t like the testing, ignore it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don' t like the dishonesty, swish away with Chrissy...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
>>>>>>>> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
>>>>>>>> film a fake.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Show this "first frame flash" in the other stops and starts in the z-film.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shifting the burden. It's clear that Chickenshit doesn't believe the
>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You tell us.
>>>>>
>>>>> You brought it up.
>>>>
>>>> Yep.
>>>
>>> What about it?
>>
>> To who?
>

> If you ...

If you can't answer the question, just say so...

>>>>>>>> Tell us
>>>>>>>> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
>>>>>>>> case...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean by "address"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean when asking me "what do you mean..."
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant what I said.
>>>>
>>>> I meant what I said.
>>>
>>> You mention...
>>
>> I did.
>

> Since...

When?

>>>>>>>>to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chickenshit is giving Chrissy lessons in how to run...
>>>>>
>>>>> You ...
>>>>
>>>> Me.
>>>
>>> You...
>>
>> Me.
>
> Another go-nowhere CTers list.

Another go-nowhere Believer's list...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 19:10:58 -0700 (PDT), Christopher Strimbu
<christoph...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 11:52:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
>>
>> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
>> X-ray...
>>
>
> It does not matter what this "6.5mm" object seen in the X-ray is.
> The HSCA determined the autopsy photos and X-rays were unaltered.

Logical fallacy.

Cowardice too!

>> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
>> wound in the throat...
>>
>
> Which was determined by the Warren Commission, Clark Panel, and HSCA
> to be a throat of exit, not entrance.

Based on what???

> Plus, you have Dr. Carrico and Perry saying it could've been either.

Logical fallacy.

Coward, aren't you?

>> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
>> prosectors for examination.
>>
>
>Clothing doesn't tell you where the bullet wound is. The body does.

Logical fallacy.

If the clothing is not legitimate and valued evidence for autopsies,
WHY ARE THEY INVARIABLY LOOKED AT AND EXAMINED?

Coward, aren't you?

>> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
>
> But the ones we do have disprove dozens of theories. Are you
> suggesting that there is something in those photos that overrides the
> current autopsy photos and X-rays we do have?

Yet another logical fallacy. Quite the coward, aren't you?

>> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
>> grass.
>>
>
> Of course, that photo shows no such thing, and lurkers can see for
> themselves here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K1QWVrMsnvM/VTHtLAB39GI/AAAAAAABFqg/6XB_1-ybUbI/s2000/Dealey-Pics-11-22-63.jpg

I always get a big kick out of morons proving themselves morons.

If you think you just cited for your beliefs, put it to a poll of your
friends to discover the truth.

>> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
>> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
>>
>
> Frazier linked the 3 bullet shells, CE 399, the two bullet
> fragments, and the 4 revolver shells found at the Tippit and Kennedy
> crime scenes to weapons owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Antother logical fallacy!

>> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
>> never identified.
>
> Ben ignores the dozens of prints found at the sniper's nest that
> were identified to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

There are two distinct lies contained here, and this child molester
will never cite for either of them.

And, of course, Chrissy simply ran from the issue I raised.

>> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
>> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
>
>Which tested positive on Oswald's cheek, per Gallagher's testimony.

You're lying again:

Mr. GALLAGHER. I found that there was more barium and antimony on the
inside surface of the cast than you would find on the cheek of an
individual who had recently washed his cheek. However, the
significance of this antimony and barium on the inside of the cheek is
not known.
Mr. REDLICH. Is that because the outside surface acts as a sort of
control on the basis of which you can make a comparison?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of the cheek was run as a control
for this particular specimen.
Mr. REDLICH. And therefore the presence of a lesser amount of barium
and a slightly larger amount of antimony on the inside surface was one
of the reasons why you could not make a determination as to the
significance of the barium and antimony on the inside surface, is that
correct?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. REDLICH. Did the fact that Oswald was believed to have fired a
revolver prior to the time the paraffin casts were made have an effect
on your ability to determine the significance of the barium and
antimony on the inside of the cheek cast ?
Mr. GALLAGHER. The subsequent repeated firing of the revolver
definitely overshadowed the results. That is why it was reported that
no significance could be attached to the residues found on the cast
other than the conclusion than the barium and antimony in these
residues are present in amounts greater than found on the hands of a
normal individual who had not recently fired or handled a fired
weapon.
Mr. REDLICH. In other words, given the known fact, or the assumed
fact, that the suspect had fired a revolver repeatedly, the barium and
antimony could have found their way to the suspect's cheek as a result
of the repeated firing of that revolver, and therefore precluded you
from making any determination as to whether the elements barium and
antimony were placed on the cheek as the result of the firing of the
rifle. Is that a correct statement?
Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, there is no way to eliminate the fact that the
subject may have wiped a contaminated hand across his cheek subsequent
to the firing of the revolver, thus contaminating his cheek with
barium and antimony.

And, moron that you are, the NAA testing that was buried by the WC was
the tests conducted of the cheeks of men who fired a Mannlicher
Carcano to act as a control.

You didn't know that, did you?

>> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
>> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
>> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
>>
>
> And they still beat Oswald.

You're lying again. Moron that you are, you don't realize the
stupidity of your statement.

It's like saying Johnny started the 3 mile race at the 2 mile mark,
and STILL beat the other runners!

This is a perfect analogy for what you just said, and points out just
what a moron you are.

> You're also ignoring the tests done by CBS in 1967 that did do what
> you suggest and the shooters there also bat Oswald's time.

Logical fallacy.

>> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
>> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
>> film a fake.
>>
>
>"... the solution to the alleged mystery of first frame over-exposure is quite simple. Most often, it is caused by the inertia of the camera as it starts up. This leads to the first frame in a sequence picking up more light than later frames. In cases where the camera mechanism has been idle for some time, the first frame over-exposure is quite obvious. In cases, where the mechanism has been idle for only a few seconds, the over-exposure is minimal."
>
>https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bedrock_Evidence_in_the_Kennedy_Assassination.html

If you really understood this, you'd know what a crock it is.

Ask Huckster to explain physics to you.

Another logical fallacy!

>> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us
>> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
>
> Oswald's third shot hit Kennedy in the head. That bullet fragmented.
> One of the fragments strikes and deflects off the curb and hits Tague
> in the cheek.

Logical fallacy.

>> Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
>> case... to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...

Notice all the logical fallacies employed by Chrissy!