Toddy Has Plenty of Time - But Continually Ducks a Post *HE* Requested... wonder why???
Ben Holmes
Toddy is quite busy posting... seems that he has plenty of time - just not any
time to respond to the post that he requested... and made him a liar...
***************************************************************************
Todd - you've apparently missed this. Here's a repost for you to reply to:
***************************************************************************
Todd, just like other LNT'ers, refuse to see what is right before their eyes,
and refuse to attempt to explain it when it becomes clear that they can't refute
it.
Todd didn't like it very much when I asserted:
********************************
Since the FBI, as early as Saturday, was *telling* eyewitnesses that there were
only three shots, coaching eyewitnesses to say what the FBI wanted to hear, it's
amazing that we have as many accounts as we do that there were more.
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear, if you remember?
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe.
And considering the number of people who've come forward to state that their
affidavits and even *testimony* was changed, again, it's simply amazing that as
much evidence as we have is still left in the record.
********************************
But Todd won't actually *respond* to this... so let's add some more accounts to
the fire. That way, Todd can ignore even *more* accounts:
Richard Randolf Carr was a steelworker watching the motorcade from the
Courthouse building. He testified:
Q: Mr. Carr, did you talk to any FBI agents about this incident?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did they tell you to forget about it?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that as hearsay.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Were you threatened in any way --
THE COURT: I sustain the objection. You cannot tell us the words used by someone
who spoke to you because of hearsay; however, you can state that you had
conversations with them and what did you do as a result of the conversation, I
will permit that.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: As the result of the conversations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
what did you do?
A: I done as I was instructed, I shut my mouth.
Q: Were you called to testify before the Warren Commission?
A: No, sir.
Carr told researchers Gary Shaw and Larry Harris: "The FBI came to my
house-there were two of them-and they said they heard I witnessed the
assassination and I said I did. They told me, 'If you didn't see Lee Harvey
Oswald up in the School Book Depository with a rifle, you didn't witness it.'" I
said, 'Well, the man I saw on television that they tell me is Lee Harvey Oswald
was not in the window of the School Book Depository. That's not the man.' And
(one of the agents) said I better keep my mouth shut. He did not ask me what I
saw, he told me what I saw."
But perhaps Todd doesn't find anything strange about reports such as this.
After all, he's questioned eyewitnesses himself, and has the solution to the
case. Yet explaining why eyewitnesses were threatened poses a problem ... one
that he won't address.
Ed Hoffman, the deaf mute who belatedly came forward and claimed to have seen
two men with a rifle behind the pickett fence on the grassy knoll, stated that
he'd been warned by an FBI agent to keep quiet "or you might get killed."
Then we have an attorney, Carroll Jarnagin, who reported being an eyewitness to
a meeting between LHO and Ruby. According to an interview he gave Marrs, FBI
agents, instead of investigating his potentially explosive revelations, tried
accusing him of hallucinating. Jarnagin asserted that their conduct was
"clearly abuse of a witness."
Moving along to more august eyewitnesses, Senator Ralph Yarborough was shocked
at the treatment he received from the Warren Commission staff (admittedly not
the FBI, but related). He stated that they "walked in like they were a couple
of deputy sheriffs and and I was a bank robber." They tried to pressure him to
sign a statement that closed with "This is all I know about the assassination"
and when he refused, they kept pressuring him, saying "you're holding this up,"
and demanded he sign the statement. As Yarborough told Jim Marrs in 1986, "...I
typed one up myself and put basically what I told you about how the cars all
stopped. I put in there, 'I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but for the
protection of future presidents, they should be trained to take off when a shot
is fired."
If a United States Senator can be treated this way, imagine the lack or respect
those "investigating" the assassination accorded the average citizen. David
Powers, as I previously mentioned, was another who asserted that he'd been
"pressured" to lie to the Warren Commission. Interestingly, he must have
resisted quite well, since his deposition is certainly not one that the WC would
have welcomed. Perhaps this is why he was never questioned... or more
accurately - when he *WAS* questioned by Arlen Spector, why his testimony was
never put in the record.
(Now is perhaps a good time to mention that Todd had no response to make when I
mentioned an example of the tremendous coverup going on, that:
"As just one of the simple examples, care to defend the fact that the *closest*
non-limo eyewitness to the murder, *a policeman* at that, was never questioned
by anyone prior to the WCR being released?
Nor can you argue that the WC was unaware of him - Anyone can view the Altgen's
photo, and see him for themselves."
Todd couldn't find the strength to respond to this... but perhaps this isn't
covered in the "Lone Nutter's Handbook".
Moving on... David Lifton reports Tomlinson's account, who history has recorded
as the finder of CE 399, and who was called by the FBI that night - after
midnight, and being told to keep his mouth shut about what he'd found. Tomlinson
noted that "And they have a way to make a believer out of you".
Mark Lane records this statement of Jean Hill: "For two years I have told the
truth, but I have two children to support and I am a public school teacher. My
principal said it would be best not to talk about the assassination, and I just
can't go through it all again. I can't believe the Warren Report. I know it's
all a lie, because I was there when it happened, but I can't talk about it
anymore because I don't want the FBI here constantly and I want to continue to
teach here. I hope you don't think I'm a coward but I cannot talk about the case
anymore." But noooo... we must listen to Todd, he carefully coaches us that
there has not been any FBI intimidation in this case.
In Tip O'Neill's book Man of The House, O'Neill describes a conversation with
O'Donnell, who told him he was sure that two shots had come from the fence
behind the grassy knoll. (As does Powers) O'Neill said to O'Donnell, "That's not
what you told the Warren Commission." O'Donnell responded, "You're right, I told
the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and
that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me
to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."
But nooooo... we must listen to Todd... who will tell you that no such thing
ever happened. (or, more accurately, will simply refuse to respond.)
While I'm sure that this is an incomplete list, when we have a record of
eyewitness intimidation such as this - what explanation does Todd offer?
Why... none at all.
Congratulations, Todd!
Todd W. Vaughan
The files I need to fully reply to your, Ben Holmes, post are in
storage, so you, Ben Holmes, will simply have to wait patiently. I've
told you, Ben Holmes, this before, a few times now, yet you, Ben
Holmes, act as if I have not. How truly disingenuous of you, Ben
Holmes.
Now, while you, Ben Holmes, wait (and you, Ben Holmes, will wait until
I am ready) you, Ben Holmes, can assist me in answering your (Ben
Holmes) post by answering the following, simple (just for you), Ben
Holmes) question: Regarding the Edwards quote below, are you, Ben
Holmes, claiming that Edwards is stating or otherwise implying that he
was coached or threatened by the FBI? You, Ben Holmes, can answer that
question, right?
Todd
tomnln
He Steals time from his boss to service the guys who PAID him to spread his
LIES.
In addition to toad being a LIAR & WHORE, he's a Thief.
They are all a Team of Co-Conspititors to spread Mis-Information.
Headed up by those Porn-Freak Coaches Lowery/Spencer.
That's why they ALL play "Tight End".
AND, STILL Refuses to address Officer Baker's Felonies.
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:ekk90...@drn.newsguy.com...
tomnln
ALL 4 of his reports are on the website.
READY to address them NOW?
Or, are you STILL a Chickenshit Felon Supporter?
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
Tell us which one you Believe?
1?
2?
3?
4?
Any combination thereof?
ALL FOUR?
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164816443.4...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:ekk90...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
Todd W. Vaughan
tomnln wrote:
> Toddy is a WHORE who got PAID to LIE about the Assassination.
Tom,
Bowers said the followng, in his own words, to Mark Lane:
"Now I could see back or the South side [BOWERS is actually speaking
of the north side of the fence] of the wooden fence in the area, so
that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had
anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because
there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."
Tell me, Tom, what do you think the words "there was no one there - um
- at the moment that the shots were fired." mean?
Todd
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>Ben Holmes,
>
>The files I need to fully reply to your, Ben Holmes, post are in
>storage, so you, Ben Holmes, will simply have to wait patiently. I've
>told you, Ben Holmes, this before, a few times now, yet you, Ben
>Holmes, act as if I have not. How truly disingenuous of you, Ben
>Holmes.
Amazing that there are "files" somewhere that will refute what the eyewitnesses
themselves stated about FBI intimidation. Many lurkers might term it
"unbelievable".
Why not simply admit that there *were* eyewitnesses who asserted that the FBI
intimidated them during their statements and/or testimony?
That way, you won't appear to be a coward who keeps ducking the obvious
refutation to your assertions...
>Now, while you, Ben Holmes, wait (and you, Ben Holmes, will wait until
>I am ready) you, Ben Holmes, can assist me in answering your (Ben
>Holmes) post by answering the following, simple (just for you), Ben
>Holmes) question: Regarding the Edwards quote below, are you, Ben
>Holmes, claiming that Edwards is stating or otherwise implying that he
>was coached or threatened by the FBI? You, Ben Holmes, can answer that
>question, right?
No Toddy... I won't. You see, I don't argue strawmen, nor do I answer questions
from those who run, duck, and slither away all the time.
When you respond, (making the tremendous assumption that you really *do* plan to
respond some day in the future...), I'll be happy to answer *EVERY* question you
put concerning the JFK assassination.
SNB
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1164816443.4...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
> >
> >Ben Holmes,
> >
> >The files I need to fully reply to your, Ben Holmes, post are in
> >storage, so you, Ben Holmes, will simply have to wait patiently. I've
> >told you, Ben Holmes, this before, a few times now, yet you, Ben
> >Holmes, act as if I have not. How truly disingenuous of you, Ben
> >Holmes.
>
>
> Amazing that there are "files" somewhere that will refute what the eyewitnesses
> themselves stated about FBI intimidation. Many lurkers might term it
> "unbelievable".
>
> Why not simply admit that there *were* eyewitnesses who asserted that the FBI
> intimidated them during their statements and/or testimony?
Who are they Ben? Do you have a list of them? If so, please, produce
that list.
> That way, you won't appear to be a coward who keeps ducking the obvious
> refutation to your assertions...
>
> >Now, while you, Ben Holmes, wait (and you, Ben Holmes, will wait until
> >I am ready) you, Ben Holmes, can assist me in answering your (Ben
> >Holmes) post by answering the following, simple (just for you), Ben
> >Holmes) question: Regarding the Edwards quote below, are you, Ben
> >Holmes, claiming that Edwards is stating or otherwise implying that he
> >was coached or threatened by the FBI? You, Ben Holmes, can answer that
> >question, right?
>
>
> No Toddy... I won't. You see, I don't argue strawmen, nor do I answer questions
> from those who run, duck, and slither away all the time.
Oh? But you just answered Todd's question and points raised, Ben, by
responding to his question.
Todd W. Vaughan
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1164816443.4...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
> >
> >Ben Holmes,
> >
> >The files I need to fully reply to your, Ben Holmes, post are in
> >storage, so you, Ben Holmes, will simply have to wait patiently. I've
> >told you, Ben Holmes, this before, a few times now, yet you, Ben
> >Holmes, act as if I have not. How truly disingenuous of you, Ben
> >Holmes.
>
>
> Amazing that there are "files" somewhere that will refute what the eyewitnesses
> themselves stated about FBI intimidation. Many lurkers might term it
> "unbelievable".
For example, I have a file on Richard Randolph Carr that has documents
that shows that how Larry Harris, Mary Ferrell, and others who once
believed his story came to believe that Carr was lying.
I also have files on Carroll Jarnagin, Ed Hoffman, etc. They show how
Jarnagin was a drunk and how Hoffman changed his story.
And don't get me started on that lying piece of trash, Jean Hill. To
think, you, Ben Holmes, believes her? The word "gullible" come to mind.
>
> Why not simply admit that there *were* eyewitnesses who asserted that the FBI
> intimidated them during their statements and/or testimony?
There were witnesses who said that. Certainly. I don't think I've said
otherwise (but check for me, Ben Holmes, will you?).
The question I have is were those witnesses
mistaken/embellishing/exaggerating/lying about what the FBI told them.
>
> That way, you won't appear to be a coward who keeps ducking the obvious
> refutation to your assertions...
>
>
> >Now, while you, Ben Holmes, wait (and you, Ben Holmes, will wait until
> >I am ready) you, Ben Holmes, can assist me in answering your (Ben
> >Holmes) post by answering the following, simple (just for you), Ben
> >Holmes) question: Regarding the Edwards quote below, are you, Ben
> >Holmes, claiming that Edwards is stating or otherwise implying that he
> >was coached or threatened by the FBI? You, Ben Holmes, can answer that
> >question, right?
>
>
> No Toddy... I won't. You see, I don't argue strawmen, nor do I answer questions
> from those who run, duck, and slither away all the time.
Coward, aren't you?
>
> When you respond, (making the tremendous assumption that you really *do* plan to
> respond some day in the future...), I'll be happy to answer *EVERY* question you
> put concerning the JFK assassination.
Well, I'll take you, Ben Holmes, up on that. I'll respond to your, Ben
Holmes, FBI intimidation post (in due time) and then I will expect you,
Ben Holmes, to thereafter "answer *EVERY* question" I ask you, Ben
Holmes, "concerning the JFK assassination", every single one. If you,
Ben Holmes, refuse, I'll drag this agreement of yours, Ben Holmes, out
and prove you, ben Holmes, to be a liar.
That'll be fun, yes?
For me.
But not so much for you, Ben Holmes.
Have a great day!
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164897208.8...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
tomnln wrote:
> Tell me about officer Baker FIRST.
I've never made any claims about Officer Baker, so I have no obligation
in that regard.
You, however, have made several claims about Lee Bowers, so you have
the obligation to support your claims.
Now, Bowers said the followng, in his own words, to Mark Lane:
aeffects
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In article <1164816443.4...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> > Vaughan says...
> > >
> > >Ben Holmes,
> > >
> > >The files I need to fully reply to your, Ben Holmes, post are in
> > >storage, so you, Ben Holmes, will simply have to wait patiently. I've
> > >told you, Ben Holmes, this before, a few times now, yet you, Ben
> > >Holmes, act as if I have not. How truly disingenuous of you, Ben
> > >Holmes.
> >
> >
> > Amazing that there are "files" somewhere that will refute what the eyewitnesses
> > themselves stated about FBI intimidation. Many lurkers might term it
> > "unbelievable".
>
>
>
>
> For example, I have a file on Richard Randolph Carr that has documents
> that shows that how Larry Harris, Mary Ferrell, and others who once
> believed his story came to believe that Carr was lying.
>
> I also have files on Carroll Jarnagin, Ed Hoffman, etc. They show how
> Jarnagin was a drunk and how Hoffman changed his story.
> And don't get me started on that lying piece of trash, Jean Hill. To
> think, you, Ben Holmes, believes her? The word "gullible" come to mind.
you have FILES? My, did you also have contacts with their neighbors in
their neighborhoods? You know the type that monitored the aboves every
movement.
"...Lying piece of trash, Jean Hill." That type of behavior doesn't
endear you to lurkers... what's the matter with you? We know you have a
vested interest in the SBT, all the neuter's here do, you unfortunately
or fortunately have been useful to Nutter authors of the past regarding
same. Your names been referred to in various books. Talk about
gullible?
Bings to mind, Richard B. TRASK and his latest [and probably last book
concerning the subject matter] for instance, his opening paragraph in
National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film, you'd think he was describing a
religious experience he had while viewing a 6' piece of film I doubt he
touched.
Who, during this religious experience accompanied him Trask, from
Hollywood?
Hell
Todd W. Vaughan
aeffects wrote:
> Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > In article <1164816443.4...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> > > Vaughan says...
> > > >
> > > >Ben Holmes,
> > > >
> > > >The files I need to fully reply to your, Ben Holmes, post are in
> > > >storage, so you, Ben Holmes, will simply have to wait patiently. I've
> > > >told you, Ben Holmes, this before, a few times now, yet you, Ben
> > > >Holmes, act as if I have not. How truly disingenuous of you, Ben
> > > >Holmes.
> > >
> > >
> > > Amazing that there are "files" somewhere that will refute what the eyewitnesses
> > > themselves stated about FBI intimidation. Many lurkers might term it
> > > "unbelievable".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > For example, I have a file on Richard Randolph Carr that has documents
> > that shows that how Larry Harris, Mary Ferrell, and others who once
> > believed his story came to believe that Carr was lying.
> >
> > I also have files on Carroll Jarnagin, Ed Hoffman, etc. They show how
> > Jarnagin was a drunk and how Hoffman changed his story.
> > And don't get me started on that lying piece of trash, Jean Hill. To
> > think, you, Ben Holmes, believes her? The word "gullible" come to mind.
>
>
>
> you have FILES? My, did you also have contacts with their neighbors in
> their neighborhoods? You know the type that monitored the aboves every
> movement.
Why yes, David, I have files.
Many files.
Hundreds in fact.
Manila files, three cut (meaning there are ones with a left, center and
right tab).
See, files makes storing such things as documents (you know, Warren
Commission Documents, FBI documents, Secret Service documents, CIA
documents, Garrison Investigation documents, HSCA documents, etc),
articles, manuscripts, transcripts, just all kinds of those pesky paper
things, easy.
My files are stored in what are call "file cabinets". I have three 5
drawer filing cabinets that are full. I also have 15 or so banker boxes
filled with more files. You tend to get that many after 31 years of
research in this case.
I also have what is called a "filing system". It organizes the files in
a logical manner and makes retrieving them that much easier. I
patterned my filing system loosely after David Lifton's filing system.
He has files too, lots of them.
People who do what is called "research" often wind up with files.
Does it frighten you that I have files, David?
Does it frighten you that David Lifton has files?
If you're afraid of files, David, may I suggest that you never make a
trip to the National Archives, or the AARC, or the Dallas Municipal
Archives, or the Gerald R. Ford Library, or the JFK Library, or any of
the other places that I've gone to do research, as they have many files
and you might get scared.
Now, rest assured, I DON'T have a file on you. So far I haven't deemed
you worthy. And if this post of yours is any indication, I don't see a
file for you in the near future.
>
> "...Lying piece of trash, Jean Hill." That type of behavior doesn't
> endear you to lurkers...
Well that works out well then, since I'm not trying to be endearing to
lurkers.
>what's the matter with you?<
Not a thing. I'm just exercising my right to speaking my mind.
Allow me to do it again.
Jean Hill is a liar. She embellished and lied about her story over the
years. And she did it for money, as well.
In my mind that makes her a piece of trash.
Offended, David?
Run away from the truth then with your hands over your eyes.
Any lurkers offended?
Tough, it's how I feel.
How do you feel about Jean Hill, David?
>We know you have a
> vested interest in the SBT, all the neuter's here do, you unfortunately
> or fortunately have been useful to Nutter authors of the past regarding
> same. Your names been referred to in various books. Talk about
> gullible?
Hmm, I'm mentioned in some non "neuter's" books as well.
Oh, you didn't know that?
Anyways, what's your point?
>
> Bings to mind, Richard B. TRASK and his latest [and probably last book
> concerning the subject matter] for instance, his opening paragraph in
> National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film, you'd think he was describing a
> religious experience he had while viewing a 6' piece of film I doubt he
> touched.
Again, your point?
And what makes you, of all people in the world, think that will be
Trask's last book on the case?
>
> Who, during this religious experience accompanied him Trask, from
> Hollywood?
Why don't you ask him?
>
> Hell
"Hell" what?
aeffects
Oh-my... you have files upon files upon files? oh-wee -- all these
files add up to NOTHING more than a informed **opinion** at best (of
course with you, that's a stretch). Is that correct? Has any of this
informed opinion "rersearch" advanced the foolish WCR? Probably not, it
does though assist in polishing REAL researchers 'apple', doesn't it?
> People who do what is called "research" often wind up with files.
Then how do you account for the likes of a Ben Holmes kicking your
'research' ass all over the place? I don't see him jacking his jaws
over all the files he has, discussing eye witnesses as "trash" or
drunks... Who do you think you and your informed opinion are? Just
another Lone Neuter voice in the dark, perhaps?
> Does it frighten you that I have files, David?
Hell, Todd who needs files to kick your JFK assassination file ridden
butt all over this board, its been done countless times --
> Does it frighten you that David Lifton has files?
Why should I care if Lifton has files.... I suspect he does, after all
,he's a best selling author, does THAT bother you, Todd?
>
> If you're afraid of files, David, may I suggest that you never make a
> trip to the National Archives, or the AARC, or the Dallas Municipal
> Archives, or the Gerald R. Ford Library, or the JFK Library, or any of
> the other places that I've gone to do research, as they have many files
> and you might get scared.
Why should I go there, Weisberg took care of ALL thats needed, run your
own 'fools' errands.
> Now, rest assured, I DON'T have a file on you. So far I haven't deemed
> you worthy. And if this post of yours is any indication, I don't see a
> file for you in the near future.
give you enough rope and you damn sure walk into a mess, dontch'a guy?
Is it any wonder you Neuter's can't nail the lid shut on CTer's
>
> >
> > "...Lying piece of trash, Jean Hill." That type of behavior doesn't
> > endear you to lurkers...
>
>
>
> Well that works out well then, since I'm not trying to be endearing to
> lurkers.
Not aiding and assisting the neuter cause either, you're a CT PR dream,
champ . Keep 'em coming
>
>
> >what's the matter with you?<
>
>
> Not a thing. I'm just exercising my right to speaking my mind.
nice dance -- it will live forever on the USNET board, you should learn
how to control yourself....
> Allow me to do it again.
>
> Jean Hill is a liar. She embellished and lied about her story over the
> years. And she did it for money, as well.
> In my mind that makes her a piece of trash.
They do it for money, their trash -- Oh, you simple child -- clean up
your side of the street, then maybe you'll gain a ounce of credibility
-- until then. you're a loose cannon -- We like those here....
> Offended, David?
Listen you fella, till you experienced a few autopsies, then you can
offend me, till then your a wannabe...
> Run away from the truth then with your hands over your eyes.
>
> Any lurkers offended?
>
> Tough, it's how I feel.
>
> How do you feel about Jean Hill, David?
>
>
> >We know you have a
> > vested interest in the SBT, all the neuter's here do, you unfortunately
> > or fortunately have been useful to Nutter authors of the past regarding
> > same. Your names been referred to in various books. Talk about
> > gullible?
>
>
> Hmm, I'm mentioned in some non "neuter's" books as well.
read it again, Gloria.... (in any case no CT that I know/read has
mentioned you, why would they)
> Oh, you didn't know that?
>
> Anyways, what's your point?
>
>
>
> >
> > Bings to mind, Richard B. TRASK and his latest [and probably last book
> > concerning the subject matter] for instance, his opening paragraph in
> > National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film, you'd think he was describing a
> > religious experience he had while viewing a 6' piece of film I doubt he
> > touched.
>
>
>
> Again, your point?
give it a shot, explain his religious experience to us
> And what makes you, of all people in the world, think that will be
> Trask's last book on the case?
>
he's done -- he's nothing left, he's bowed down to the 6th floor and
anyone afilliated with same --
>
>
> >
> > Who, during this religious experience accompanied him Trask, from
> > Hollywood?
>
>
>
> Why don't you ask him?
He's done
now.... about that MC shooting experience in Lansing, you know the one
with .John, Myers and the rest of the Nutter clan.... whatever happened
to those pictures on the internet? You got a copy amongst all those
files you have? :)
When you done with the above, why don't you answer Ben's questions --
We'd really like to see you strut your stuff.... what little you have
left!
Todd W. Vaughan
Yes files, upon files.
Have they "advanced the foolish WCR"?. In many areas, yes.
But the real question you should have asked is, have they advanced my
overall knowledge of the case? Absolutely.
How do you advance yours?
>
> > People who do what is called "research" often wind up with files.
>
> Then how do you account for the likes of a Ben Holmes kicking your
> 'research' ass all over the place? I don't see him jacking his jaws
> over all the files he has, discussing eye witnesses as "trash" or
> drunks... Who do you think you and your informed opinion are? Just
> another Lone Neuter voice in the dark, perhaps?
Kicking my ass?]
How?
By implying that the Edwards passage is implying that the FBI coached
or threatened him, when it says nothing of the sort?
By refusing to explain his intention in even using the Edward quote?
By using Jean Hill, a demonstrable liar?
By using Richard Randolph Carr, who, akin to Jean Hill, has at least 4
versions of his story, each one that gets better (i.e. more
conspiratorial) with age like a fine wine?
I could go on...
>
>
> > Does it frighten you that I have files, David?
>
> Hell, Todd who needs files to kick your JFK assassination file ridden
> butt all over this board, its been done countless times --
Hardy. And certainly not by the likes of you.
>
> > Does it frighten you that David Lifton has files?
>
> Why should I care if Lifton has files.... I suspect he does, after all
> ,he's a best selling author, does THAT bother you, Todd?
LOL, no not at all. In fact he's quite a good friend of mine.
Oh, by the way, I haven't seen Fetzer's books on the best seller list.
Does that bother you?
>
> >
> > If you're afraid of files, David, may I suggest that you never make a
> > trip to the National Archives, or the AARC, or the Dallas Municipal
> > Archives, or the Gerald R. Ford Library, or the JFK Library, or any of
> > the other places that I've gone to do research, as they have many files
> > and you might get scared.
>
> Why should I go there, Weisberg took care of ALL thats needed, run your
> own 'fools' errands.
"Weisberg took care of ALL thats needed"?
LMFAO!
Are you serious? Or have you just decided to really show your ignorance
today?
Here's a news alert, Einstein:
In this post-JFK movie/AARB world in which we live there are a hell of
a lot of more documents available (i.e. files) at the Archives than
there were when Weisberg was bugging Marion Johnson for nickel per page
copies all of those years back.
Here's another news alert, Copernicus:
Many of those new documents that Weisberg did not have are the
cornerstones of much of the new research that is going on today,
including research reported in you beloved brother Fetzer's books, of
which you're a contributor.
"Weisberg took care of ALL thats needed."
Sure he did.
And to think, Weisberg was adamantly against the movie JFK (so much so
that he took it upon himself to potentially compromise the movie by
sending a copy of a purloined early draft of the script to the
Washington Post's George Lardner), the very movie that led to the
creation of the AARB, the agency that got more documents released than
Weisberg ever dreamed of.
Ah the irony.
LMFAO!
>
>
> > Now, rest assured, I DON'T have a file on you. So far I haven't deemed
> > you worthy. And if this post of yours is any indication, I don't see a
> > file for you in the near future.
>
> give you enough rope and you damn sure walk into a mess, dontch'a guy?
>
> Is it any wonder you Neuter's can't nail the lid shut on CTer's
>
> >
> > >
> > > "...Lying piece of trash, Jean Hill." That type of behavior doesn't
> > > endear you to lurkers...
> >
> >
> >
> > Well that works out well then, since I'm not trying to be endearing to
> > lurkers.
>
> Not aiding and assisting the neuter cause either, you're a CT PR dream,
> champ . Keep 'em coming
Ah, I see.
That's the difference between you and I.
You have a "cause".
I don't.
I 'm just looking for the truth.
And you also have someone whose expectations need to be met, someone
who you have to in effect answer to, and to pose for - the CT group and
their pre-ordained belief that there was/is a conspiracy.
I don't. I
>
> >
> >
> > >what's the matter with you?<
> >
> >
> > Not a thing. I'm just exercising my right to speaking my mind.
>
> nice dance -- it will live forever on the USNET board, you should learn
> how to control yourself....
Thanks Dad.
I've seen many or your posts.
How's the glass house holding up?
>
>
> > Allow me to do it again.
> >
> > Jean Hill is a liar. She embellished and lied about her story over the
> > years. And she did it for money, as well.
> > In my mind that makes her a piece of trash.
>
> They do it for money, their trash -- Oh, you simple child -- clean up
> your side of the street, then maybe you'll gain a ounce of credibility
> -- until then. you're a loose cannon -- We like those here....
"They do it for money, their trash"
If by way of that rather simplistic and childlike sentence you meant to
say "If they do it for money, they're trash?", then yes David - I think
if they do it ("it" being lying about what they saw during the
assassination) for money, they're trash.
Do you disagree? Do you condone a witness lying about what they saw
during the assassination for profit?
>
> > Offended, David?
>
> Listen you fella, till you experienced a few autopsies, then you can
> offend me, till then your a wannabe...
Odd.
What makes you think I haven't experience a few autopsies?
>
> > Run away from the truth then with your hands over your eyes.
> >
> > Any lurkers offended?
> >
> > Tough, it's how I feel.
> >
> > How do you feel about Jean Hill, David?
> >
> >
> > >We know you have a
> > > vested interest in the SBT, all the neuter's here do, you unfortunately
> > > or fortunately have been useful to Nutter authors of the past regarding
> > > same. Your names been referred to in various books. Talk about
> > > gullible?
> >
> >
> > Hmm, I'm mentioned in some non "neuter's" books as well.
>
> read it again, Gloria.... (in any case no CT that I know/read has
> mentioned you, why would they)
And you "know/read" all of the CT'ers out there who have written books,
yes?
Get up to speed, turtle.
>
> > Oh, you didn't know that?
> >
> > Anyways, what's your point?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Bings to mind, Richard B. TRASK and his latest [and probably last book
> > > concerning the subject matter] for instance, his opening paragraph in
> > > National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film, you'd think he was describing a
> > > religious experience he had while viewing a 6' piece of film I doubt he
> > > touched.
> >
> >
> >
> > Again, your point?
>
> give it a shot, explain his religious experience to us
Why should "I" explain "his" "religious experience"?
Your thinking sure is screwball, David.
>
> > And what makes you, of all people in the world, think that will be
> > Trask's last book on the case?
> >
>
>
> he's done -- he's nothing left, he's bowed down to the 6th floor and
> anyone afilliated with same --
Ah, so I can expect your tomes on the Photographic Evidence and the
Zapruder film to surpass the scholarship of hose of Trasks? And they
will be out, when?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Who, during this religious experience accompanied him Trask, from
> > > Hollywood?
> >
> >
> >
> > Why don't you ask him?
> He's done
>
> now.... about that MC shooting experience in Lansing, you know the one
> with .John, Myers and the rest of the Nutter clan.... whatever happened
> to those pictures on the internet? You got a copy amongst all those
> files you have? :)
It was in Grand Rapids, not Lansing. You really need to get up to
speed, David.
I have no idea about the pics, they weren't mine.
I might have a copy.
So what? Looking for something for Christmas cards?
Clown.
>
> When you done with the above, why don't you answer Ben's questions --
> We'd really like to see you strut your stuff.... what little you have
> left!
In time (as I've said countless times here I see you're as slow on the
uptake as Ben ever was)
I have a lot left for the likes of you, David. I'm just getting warmend
up.
>
> > >
> > > Hell
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Hell" what?
Well, David, "Hell" what?
Ben Holmes
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1164816443.4...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> Vaughan says...
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes,
>> >
>> >The files I need to fully reply to your, Ben Holmes, post are in
>> >storage, so you, Ben Holmes, will simply have to wait patiently. I've
>> >told you, Ben Holmes, this before, a few times now, yet you, Ben
>> >Holmes, act as if I have not. How truly disingenuous of you, Ben
>> >Holmes.
>>
>>
>>Amazing that there are "files" somewhere that will refute what the eyewitnesses
>> themselves stated about FBI intimidation. Many lurkers might term it
>> "unbelievable".
>>
>> Why not simply admit that there *were* eyewitnesses who asserted that the
>> FBI intimidated them during their statements and/or testimony?
>
> Who are they Ben? Do you have a list of them? If so, please, produce
>that list.
Been there, done that, included in this very post.
Are you so careless of any reputation you may have left Stephanie, that you're
willing to lie on such a grand scale?
Or perhaps you can explain why *YOU* refuse to respond to the eyewitness
statements I've quoted directly below???
>> That way, you won't appear to be a coward who keeps ducking the obvious
>> refutation to your assertions...
>>
>> >Now, while you, Ben Holmes, wait (and you, Ben Holmes, will wait until
>> >I am ready) you, Ben Holmes, can assist me in answering your (Ben
>> >Holmes) post by answering the following, simple (just for you), Ben
>> >Holmes) question: Regarding the Edwards quote below, are you, Ben
>> >Holmes, claiming that Edwards is stating or otherwise implying that he
>> >was coached or threatened by the FBI? You, Ben Holmes, can answer that
>> >question, right?
>>
>>
>> No Toddy... I won't. You see, I don't argue strawmen, nor do I answer
>> questions from those who run, duck, and slither away all the time.
>
>Oh? But you just answered Todd's question and points raised, Ben, by
>responding to his question.
Actually, it's a question long since answered. Toddy just likes to keep asking
it.
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
>
>
>Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article <1164816443.4...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> Vaughan says...
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes,
>> >
>> >The files I need to fully reply to your, Ben Holmes, post are in
>> >storage, so you, Ben Holmes, will simply have to wait patiently. I've
>> >told you, Ben Holmes, this before, a few times now, yet you, Ben
>> >Holmes, act as if I have not. How truly disingenuous of you, Ben
>> >Holmes.
>>
>>
>> Amazing that there are "files" somewhere that will refute what the
>> eyewitnesses themselves stated about FBI intimidation. Many lurkers
>> might term it "unbelievable".
>
>
>
>For example, I have a file on Richard Randolph Carr that has documents
>that shows that how Larry Harris, Mary Ferrell, and others who once
>believed his story came to believe that Carr was lying.
>
>I also have files on Carroll Jarnagin, Ed Hoffman, etc. They show how
>Jarnagin was a drunk and how Hoffman changed his story.
>
>And don't get me started on that lying piece of trash, Jean Hill. To
>think, you, Ben Holmes, believes her? The word "gullible" come to mind.
It's funny that you can 'pick and choose', particularly about individuals that I
don't even mention... yet can't go through the ENTIRE post, and respond to it.
It's really simple, Toddy... all you have to do is admit that the FBI did indeed
engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation.
Of course, then you'd be stuck with trying to explain it in terms of your theory
that LHO was the lone assassin...
>> Why not simply admit that there *were* eyewitnesses who asserted that
>> the FBI intimidated them during their statements and/or testimony?
>
>
>There were witnesses who said that.
Yep... and even though I've listed many of them below, you have been
consistently refusing to admit to a pattern of FBI intimidation.
>Certainly. I don't think I've said
>otherwise (but check for me, Ben Holmes, will you?).
It's simple to do, Toddy... all you have to say is "Yes, the evidence shows a
pattern of FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses".
>The question I have is were those witnesses
>mistaken/embellishing/exaggerating/lying about what the FBI told them.
Sorry Toddy... you can't have your cake and eat it too... until you respond to
the post, you have no right to try to make partial arguments...
>> That way, you won't appear to be a coward who keeps ducking the obvious
>> refutation to your assertions...
>>
>>
>> >Now, while you, Ben Holmes, wait (and you, Ben Holmes, will wait until
>> >I am ready) you, Ben Holmes, can assist me in answering your (Ben
>> >Holmes) post by answering the following, simple (just for you), Ben
>> >Holmes) question: Regarding the Edwards quote below, are you, Ben
>> >Holmes, claiming that Edwards is stating or otherwise implying that he
>> >was coached or threatened by the FBI? You, Ben Holmes, can answer that
>> >question, right?
>>
>>
>> No Toddy... I won't. You see, I don't argue strawmen, nor do I answer
>> questions from those who run, duck, and slither away all the time.
>
>
>Coward, aren't you?
Feel free to say it to my face... I'm located at the Encino Judo Club 2-3 nights
a week.
>> When you respond, (making the tremendous assumption that you really *do*
>> plan to respond some day in the future...), I'll be happy to answer
>> *EVERY* question you put concerning the JFK assassination.
>
>
>Well, I'll take you, Ben Holmes, up on that. I'll respond to your, Ben
>Holmes, FBI intimidation post (in due time)
Something you've been claiming that you'll do for quite some time now... how
many times have I reposted this message, Toddy?
>and then I will expect you,
>Ben Holmes, to thereafter
"Thereafter"???
Do you really suppose that you can revert to not responding, and yet expect me
to?
Quid pro quo is an ongoing process, not a one time situation.
In the meantime, it's clear to everyone that it is *YOU*, Toddy, who's the
coward.
aeffects
then with that vast knowledge you have it shouldn't be a problem
finding those files you need to deal with Ben's questions, yes?
> How do you advance yours?
LMAO, hell Todd -- I "know" there was a conspiracy to kill the
President of the United States, you forget what the hell your posting
here for?
Personally, I could care LESS what the hell you know about the case...
> >
> > > People who do what is called "research" often wind up with files.
> >
> > Then how do you account for the likes of a Ben Holmes kicking your
> > 'research' ass all over the place? I don't see him jacking his jaws
> > over all the files he has, discussing eye witnesses as "trash" or
> > drunks... Who do you think you and your informed opinion are? Just
> > another Lone Neuter voice in the dark, perhaps?
>
> Kicking my ass?]
>
> How?
run and hide -- snip and run (your best case scenario)
> By implying that the Edwards passage is implying that the FBI coached
> or threatened him, when it says nothing of the sort?
>
> By refusing to explain his intention in even using the Edward quote?
>
> By using Jean Hill, a demonstrable liar?
>
> By using Richard Randolph Carr, who, akin to Jean Hill, has at least 4
> versions of his story, each one that gets better (i.e. more
> conspiratorial) with age like a fine wine?
>
> I could go on...
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Does it frighten you that I have files, David?
> >
> > Hell, Todd who needs files to kick your JFK assassination file ridden
> > butt all over this board, its been done countless times --
>
>
> Hardy. And certainly not by the likes of you.
why would I waste my time, I'm not fooled by your intentions...
oh-yeah, evidently you forgot the box office receipts concerning the
movie JFK -- roflmfao -- and of course we forgot you input in the
creation of the ARRB -- old Harold along with DavidL helped launched
the movie.... and you Nutter's have been moaning ever since...
>
> >
> >
> > > Now, rest assured, I DON'T have a file on you. So far I haven't deemed
> > > you worthy. And if this post of yours is any indication, I don't see a
> > > file for you in the near future.
> >
> > give you enough rope and you damn sure walk into a mess, dontch'a guy?
> >
> > Is it any wonder you Neuter's can't nail the lid shut on CTer's
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "...Lying piece of trash, Jean Hill." That type of behavior doesn't
> > > > endear you to lurkers...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well that works out well then, since I'm not trying to be endearing to
> > > lurkers.
> >
> > Not aiding and assisting the neuter cause either, you're a CT PR dream,
> > champ . Keep 'em coming
>
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> That's the difference between you and I.
>
> You have a "cause".
>
> I don't.
>
> I 'm just looking for the truth.
>
> And you also have someone whose expectations need to be met, someone
> who you have to in effect answer to, and to pose for - the CT group and
> their pre-ordained belief that there was/is a conspiracy.
pre-ordained? shit.... 10 years ago I could of cared less, 6 years ago
Lone Nutter stumps moaned so loud about the 'possible' alteration
scenarios I couldn't control my laughter, my first reaction was "my,
these Nutter's are a sensative lot..."
> I don't.
that's gionna be a tough sell, champ
well hell, fill us in - should be no prob for a ego such as yours. What
CT books have been blessed by your files?
> Get up to speed, turtle.
>
>
> >
> > > Oh, you didn't know that?
> > >
> > > Anyways, what's your point?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Bings to mind, Richard B. TRASK and his latest [and probably last book
> > > > concerning the subject matter] for instance, his opening paragraph in
> > > > National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film, you'd think he was describing a
> > > > religious experience he had while viewing a 6' piece of film I doubt he
> > > > touched.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, your point?
> >
> > give it a shot, explain his religious experience to us
read it yourself Todd, the JV ALWAYS does their own schlepping...
>
> Why should "I" explain "his" "religious experience"?
>
> Your thinking sure is screwball, David.
>
>
> >
> > > And what makes you, of all people in the world, think that will be
> > > Trask's last book on the case?
> > >
> >
> >
> > he's done -- he's nothing left, he's bowed down to the 6th floor and
> > anyone afilliated with same --
>
>
>
> Ah, so I can expect your tomes on the Photographic Evidence and the
> Zapruder film to surpass the scholarship of hose of Trasks? And they
> will be out, when?
>
you mean a *real* historian actually took on the film/photographic/xray
JFK assassination record? WHO?
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Who, during this religious experience accompanied him Trask, from
> > > > Hollywood?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Why don't you ask him?
> > He's done
> >
> > now.... about that MC shooting experience in Lansing, you know the one
> > with .John, Myers and the rest of the Nutter clan.... whatever happened
> > to those pictures on the internet? You got a copy amongst all those
> > files you have? :)
>
>
> It was in Grand Rapids, not Lansing. You really need to get up to
> speed, David.
perhaps you can tell us if YOU missed that 20 target from 60 yards -
like Oswald did on his first shot
then went on to accomplish hitting a moving target the size football on
shot 2 & 3 :)
> I have no idea about the pics, they weren't mine.
>
> I might have a copy.
of course you do....
> So what? Looking for something for Christmas cards?
>
> Clown.
don't get sensative -- you night want to write a book someday, hell I
would if I had a photographic memory...
> >
> > When you done with the above, why don't you answer Ben's questions --
> > We'd really like to see you strut your stuff.... what little you have
> > left!
>
> In time (as I've said countless times here I see you're as slow on the
> uptake as Ben ever was)
countless times? ROFL-- Your hiding won't get you passsed this one.
FWIW -- your getting older champ, things DO slow down
> I have a lot left for the likes of you, David. I'm just getting warmend
> up.
Getting warmed up? rofl, ROFLMFAO!
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > Hell
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Hell" what?
>
>
>
> Well, David, "Hell" what?
wasn't worth it, as is most dialogue with Neuter's
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165004507.7...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
It won't be a problem, once they're accessable.
>
> > How do you advance yours?
>
> LMAO, hell Todd -- I "know" there was a conspiracy to kill the
> President of the United States, you forget what the hell your posting
> here for?
>
Ah, you "know" it. You "feel" it. It must be true then, like a religous
belief. I see. That's good evidence, Davey.
> Personally, I could care LESS what the hell you know about the case...
>
Oh, I'm not so sure about that.
> > >
> > > > People who do what is called "research" often wind up with files.
> > >
> > > Then how do you account for the likes of a Ben Holmes kicking your
> > > 'research' ass all over the place? I don't see him jacking his jaws
> > > over all the files he has, discussing eye witnesses as "trash" or
> > > drunks... Who do you think you and your informed opinion are? Just
> > > another Lone Neuter voice in the dark, perhaps?
> >
> > Kicking my ass?]
> >
> > How?
>
> run and hide -- snip and run (your best case scenario)
>
> > By implying that the Edwards passage is implying that the FBI coached
> > or threatened him, when it says nothing of the sort?
> >
> > By refusing to explain his intention in even using the Edward quote?
> >
> > By using Jean Hill, a demonstrable liar?
> >
> > By using Richard Randolph Carr, who, akin to Jean Hill, has at least 4
> > versions of his story, each one that gets better (i.e. more
> > conspiratorial) with age like a fine wine?
> >
> > I could go on...
I see you accused me above of "run and hide -- snip and run", yet YOU
YOURSELF ignore my examples and questions challenging your claim above.
Let me re-ask my question, Davey:
How exactly does Ben Holmes kick my ass?
By implying that the Edwards passage is implying that the FBI coached
or threatened him, when it says nothing of the sort?
By refusing to explain his intention in even using the Edward quote?
By using Jean Hill, a demonstrable liar?
By using Richard Randolph Carr, who, akin to Jean Hill, has at least 4
versions of his story, each one that gets better (i.e. more
conspiratorial) with age like a fine wine??
Now, care to address this, THIS TIME?
Or will it be YOU who's best case scenario is running and hiding?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Does it frighten you that I have files, David?
> > >
> > > Hell, Todd who needs files to kick your JFK assassination file ridden
> > > butt all over this board, its been done countless times --
> >
> >
> > Hardy. And certainly not by the likes of you.
>
> why would I waste my time, I'm not fooled by your intentions...
No, only by your own.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Does it frighten you that David Lifton has files?
> > >
> > > Why should I care if Lifton has files.... I suspect he does, after all
> > > ,he's a best selling author, does THAT bother you, Todd?
> >
> >
> > LOL, no not at all. In fact he's quite a good friend of mine.
> >
> > Oh, by the way, I haven't seen Fetzer's books on the best seller list.
> >
> > Does that bother you?
Well, does it?
And the box office receipts have what to do with what we are talking
about, Captain Smokescreen?
You seriously think that "old Harold along with DavidL helped launched
(sic) the movie"
LMFAO.
Quite the opposite, quite the opposite.
LMFAO.
What a laugh you're turning out to be.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Now, rest assured, I DON'T have a file on you. So far I haven't deemed
> > > > you worthy. And if this post of yours is any indication, I don't see a
> > > > file for you in the near future.
> > >
> > > give you enough rope and you damn sure walk into a mess, dontch'a guy?
> > >
> > > Is it any wonder you Neuter's can't nail the lid shut on CTer's
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "...Lying piece of trash, Jean Hill." That type of behavior doesn't
> > > > > endear you to lurkers...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well that works out well then, since I'm not trying to be endearing to
> > > > lurkers.
> > >
> > > Not aiding and assisting the neuter cause either, you're a CT PR dream,
> > > champ . Keep 'em coming
> >
> >
> > Ah, I see.
> >
> > That's the difference between you and I.
> >
> > You have a "cause".
> >
> > I don't.
> >
> > I 'm just looking for the truth.
> >
> > And you also have someone whose expectations need to be met, someone
> > who you have to in effect answer to, and to pose for - the CT group and
> > their pre-ordained belief that there was/is a conspiracy.
>
>
> pre-ordained? shit.... 10 years ago I could of cared less, 6 years ago
> Lone Nutter stumps moaned so loud about the 'possible' alteration
> scenarios I couldn't control my laughter, my first reaction was "my,
> these Nutter's are a sensative lot..."
And....?
>
>
> > I don't.
>
> that's gionna be a tough sell, champ
For someone as "common sense" bankrupt as you? Yes.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >what's the matter with you?<
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not a thing. I'm just exercising my right to speaking my mind.
> > >
> > > nice dance -- it will live forever on the USNET board, you should learn
> > > how to control yourself....
> >
> > Thanks Dad.
> >
> > I've seen many or your posts.
> >
> > How's the glass house holding up?
Well?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Allow me to do it again.
> > > >
> > > > Jean Hill is a liar. She embellished and lied about her story over the
> > > > years. And she did it for money, as well.
> > > > In my mind that makes her a piece of trash.
> > >
> > > They do it for money, their trash -- Oh, you simple child -- clean up
> > > your side of the street, then maybe you'll gain a ounce of credibility
> > > -- until then. you're a loose cannon -- We like those here....
> >
> > "They do it for money, their trash"
> >
> > If by way of that rather simplistic and childlike sentence you meant to
> > say "If they do it for money, they're trash?", then yes David - I think
> > if they do it ("it" being lying about what they saw during the
> > assassination) for money, they're trash.
> >
> > Do you disagree? Do you condone a witness lying about what they saw
> > during the assassination for profit?
Well?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Offended, David?
> > >
> > > Listen you fella, till you experienced a few autopsies, then you can
> > > offend me, till then your a wannabe...
> >
> >
> > Odd.
> >
> > What makes you think I haven't experience a few autopsies?
Well?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Run away from the truth then with your hands over your eyes.
> > > >
> > > > Any lurkers offended?
> > > >
> > > > Tough, it's how I feel.
> > > >
> > > > How do you feel about Jean Hill, David?
Well?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >We know you have a
> > > > > vested interest in the SBT, all the neuter's here do, you unfortunately
> > > > > or fortunately have been useful to Nutter authors of the past regarding
> > > > > same. Your names been referred to in various books. Talk about
> > > > > gullible?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, I'm mentioned in some non "neuter's" books as well.
> > >
> > > read it again, Gloria.... (in any case no CT that I know/read has
> > > mentioned you, why would they)
> >
> >
> > And you "know/read" all of the CT'ers out there who have written books,
> > yes?
>
> well hell, fill us in - should be no prob for a ego such as yours. What
> CT books have been blessed by your files?
You don't know?
Damn! One of them is by one of the earliest Z-film alterationists!
Catch up, turtle!
As for egos, we only have to read a little bit of your piece in
Fetzer's book to gauge yours.
>
> > Get up to speed, turtle.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Oh, you didn't know that?
> > > >
> > > > Anyways, what's your point?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bings to mind, Richard B. TRASK and his latest [and probably last book
> > > > > concerning the subject matter] for instance, his opening paragraph in
> > > > > National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film, you'd think he was describing a
> > > > > religious experience he had while viewing a 6' piece of film I doubt he
> > > > > touched.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, your point?
> > >
> > > give it a shot, explain his religious experience to us
>
> read it yourself Todd, the JV ALWAYS does their own schlepping...
The "give it a shot, explain his religious experience to us" above was
something you posted, Davey.
You've now replied to it, and thus to yourself, with your "read it
yourself Todd, the JV ALWAYS does their own schlepping..."
Real bright.
Try and keep pace next time, Schelprock.
>
> >
> > Why should "I" explain "his" "religious experience"?
> >
> > Your thinking sure is screwball, David.
That was my reply to the above.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > And what makes you, of all people in the world, think that will be
> > > > Trask's last book on the case?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > he's done -- he's nothing left, he's bowed down to the 6th floor and
> > > anyone afilliated with same --
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah, so I can expect your tomes on the Photographic Evidence and the
> > Zapruder film to surpass the scholarship of hose of Trasks? And they
> > will be out, when?
> >
>
> you mean a *real* historian actually took on the film/photographic/xray
> JFK assassination record? WHO?
I'm asking you. Try and keep up.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Who, during this religious experience accompanied him Trask, from
> > > > > Hollywood?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you ask him?
> > > He's done
> > >
> > > now.... about that MC shooting experience in Lansing, you know the one
> > > with .John, Myers and the rest of the Nutter clan.... whatever happened
> > > to those pictures on the internet? You got a copy amongst all those
> > > files you have? :)
> >
> >
> > It was in Grand Rapids, not Lansing. You really need to get up to
> > speed, David.
>
>
> perhaps you can tell us if YOU missed that 20 target from 60 yards -
> like Oswald did on his first shot
> then went on to accomplish hitting a moving target the size football on
> shot 2 & 3 :)
On that day I think did miss 1or 2.
On other much more difficult trys I've done much better.
You ever fired a Carcano, David?
>
> > I have no idea about the pics, they weren't mine.
> >
> > I might have a copy.
>
> of course you do....
I looked, and actually I don't.
Please email one to me at "twvaug...@yahoo.com"
Thanks.
>
> > So what? Looking for something for Christmas cards?
> >
> > Clown.
>
> don't get sensative -- you night want to write a book someday, hell I
> would if I had a photographic memory...
Try anyways.
>
> > >
> > > When you done with the above, why don't you answer Ben's questions --
> > > We'd really like to see you strut your stuff.... what little you have
> > > left!
> >
> > In time (as I've said countless times here I see you're as slow on the
> > uptake as Ben ever was)
>
> countless times? ROFL-- Your hiding won't get you passsed this one.
> FWIW -- your getting older champ, things DO slow down
Yes, countless times.
>
> > I have a lot left for the likes of you, David. I'm just getting warmend
> > up.
>
> Getting warmed up? rofl, ROFLMFAO!
Yes, warmed up.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Hell" what?
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, David, "Hell" what?
>
> wasn't worth it, as is most dialogue with Neuter's
Then why bother, David?