More "Single-Bullet Theory" Talk --- If Anybody Truly Believes That ANY "SBT Alternative Theory" Is More Reasonable-Sounding Than Is The SBT, Then That Person Should Check Themselves Into The Nearest Mental Ward Immediately! And Here's Why......

50 views
Skip to first unread message

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 4:41:09 AM4/13/06
to
A Question No Conspiracy Theorist Has Ever Answered (Via A Believable
And Non-Laughable Scenario) ----

If The "Single-Bullet Theory" Isn't Correct, Then What IS The Accurate
Shooting Scenario To Explain The Virtually-Simultaneous Wounding Of
President Kennedy And Governor Connally On 11/22/63?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On November 22nd, 1963, when President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was hit
in the upper back with a 6.5-millimeter full-metal-jacketed bullet
fired by assassin Lee Harvey Oswald (from Oswald's own bolt-action
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle), it marked the beginning of what many, many
people around the world deem to be an "absolutely-impossible
occurrence" -- for that wound on John Kennedy's back was the first
"link" in what is now known as the "Single-Bullet Theory" (with some
conspiracists referring to it as the "Magic-Bullet Theory").

But, in reality, there is no "magic" to this "theory" at all. The "SBT"
bullet that was fired by Oswald from his sixth-floor Sniper's Perch in
the Texas School Book Depository Building did not have to "zig" and
"zag" all over God's Creation in order to strike both JFK and Texas
Governor John Connally that day in Dallas. That is a provably-wrong "CT
myth". Connally was seated "inboard" of Kennedy and was seated a few
inches lower in his jump seat than was the President on the back seat.

And the bullet in question did not have to "stop in mid-air" for XX
number of seconds, per what many pro-conspiracy people seem to want to
think. The reactions of the two victims in the Presidential limousine
are completely consistent with one bullet having struck both men at the
very same point in time. Just watch this real-time video clip (below)
from Abraham Zapruder's home movie a few times back-to-back. After
doing so, it's nearly impossible (IMO) to totally discount the idea
that the two victims are reacting to being hit by gunfire at precisely
the same time. ......

http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif

Via my own personal common-sense view re. the subject, the long and
short of this decades-long debate over the accuracy of the "SBT" is
simply this -- It doesn't really matter, in the long run, whether
anybody "believes" the SBT is true and/or doable or not.

Why not? -- Because the hard, physical evidence that exists is telling
us beyond much doubt whatsoever that JFK and Governor Connally WERE,
indeed, wounded simultaneously by way of Bullet "CE399".

Moreover, the current LACK of any other evidence existing to suggest
that the SBT is totally wrong only enhances the likelihood that the SBT
is probably right.

That is to say, if the SBT is filled with as many holes as most CTers
claim it is, and if JFK and JBC had been hit by other bullets to
explain their "SBT"-like wounds -- then I have a valid question for
CTers .... Where is the evidence for this? Where are these bullets? Why
were none of these "other bullets" recovered in (or near) EITHER
victim? And THREE disappearing bullets, to boot?!! All going AWOL!
Just...silly.*

* = And some people even go one bullet better than that, theorizing
that Connally was hit twice, rather than just once. So, that theory
would increase the count of "vanishing missiles" to four; which also
boosts such a theory to practically immeasurable levels of
improbability, not to mention "absurdity".

No anti-SBT theorist has come even remotely close to believably
answering those reasonable inquiries I asked above.

As difficult as it is for some people to believe, the sum total of the
evidence (plus just ordinary common sense) is telling us that the
Single-Bullet Conclusion is, indeed, almost certainly the correct
conclusion.

Also -- As hinted previously, by NOT believing the SBT is even vaguely
possible, conspiracy theorists are, by default, believing in an
alternate scenario (ANY alternate scenario; and it doesn't really
matter which "what if?" theory is being postulated) which could ONLY
have been much more bizarre and highly-improbable than that of the SBT.
So much so, in fact, that only a moron could possibly place any faith
in such pro-conspiracy malarkey over and above the logicality of the
Single-Bullet Theory.

Conspiracists do realize that fact...right? (Or do they? I wonder.)

Why do I say such a bold thing about the anti-SBT stance?

Because......

Lacking the SBT, all of this incredible stuff (somehow) must have
occurred in Dallas in '63:

1.) Three different gunmen sprayed Kennedy and Connally with three
bullets in a way to make it seem like the three bullet holes in the two
victims could be (falsely) "connected" in such a perfect fashion so
that these wounds could be "explained away" as being caused by one
bullet. (The word "remarkable", alone, can't do justice to this type of
shooting feat. Terms like "phenomenal", "extraordinary", and
"miraculous" should be added here, too. Not to mention "laughable".)

2.) Two bullets go into JFK and never come out again (despite no hard
substances being hit inside Kennedy's neck or back at all). (All the
X-rays are fakes too...right?)

3.) A separate bullet hit John Connally in his back, even though
Kennedy is situated directly between the shooter and Connally. And,
this "separate", unimpeded bullet somehow starts to tumble while in
flight, having hit nothing during its flight to Mr. Connally's back,
causing an elogated, keyhole-shaped wound on the Governor's back.

4.) Bullet CE399 was "planted" by some unidentified conspirator inside
Parkland Hospital prior to 2:00 PM on 11/22/63....a time which is
simply crazy for the plotters to want to plant any bullets. (Because
they could not possibly have known for certain at that time whether or
not the planted missile would turn out to be superfluous.)

5.) All three "real" bullets (which "fake" a nice "SBT" scenario later
on) magically disappear, never entering the record in the murder case,
and are never seen by anyone (other than "plotters", naturally).

6.) The three gunmen who caused the three wounds (wounds that would
later be turned into the "SBT" by the Warren Commission) all fired
their weapons in perfect synchronization to one another, making it look
beautiful on the Zapruder Film. Because these THREE separate shots ALL
LOOK LIKE JUST ONE HIT on the Z-Film.

A truly amazing job by those three assassins indeed.

And, somehow, per CTers, believing in all of the above nonsense is
supposedly MORE rational, well-thought-out, fact-based, and (above all)
reasonable than sticking with the known-to-exist evidence of the
Single-Bullet Theory??

If anyone really believes that this "SBT Alternative" is a more
"reasonable" conclusion than the SBT, medical treatment should be
sought asap.

Footnote -- BTW, it was, in truth, actually the autopsy doctors who
sowed the first seeds of the "SBT", not Arlen Specter and the Warren
Commission. The first hint of the SBT is right there in JFK's Official
Autopsy Report, which states, unambiguously, that the same bullet that
went into President Kennedy's back exited from the front of his throat.

Therefore, via the autopsy doctors, that bullet is now hanging in
mid-air after coming out of JFK's neck. So -- where could it have gone?
There are only two possible answers to that question:

1.) The bullet went into John B. Connally's body.

-- Or: --

2.) It struck the interior of the automobile without injuring anyone in
the car (which would, of course, have caused obvious damage to the
vehicle interior).

Number 2 did not occur (per Robert Frazier of the FBI, who examined the
limo and found no signs of such bullet damage to the back seats).
Therefore, the ONLY possible answer to the mystery is: the bullet went
into the body of Governor Connally.

How is ANY other scenario possible (without having to use the words
"Everything Was Fixed, Faked, And/Or Fabricated By Unknown
Conspirators")?

~~MARK VII~~

David Von Pein
February 2006

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 5:08:25 AM4/13/06
to
YEP -- HERE'S ANOTHER PRO-SBT ESSAY (YOU CAN NEVER HAVE *TOO MUCH*
COMMON SENSE RE. THIS "SINGLE-BULLET CONCLUSION" SUBJECT MATTER):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President John Kennedy was murdered in 1963 by an assassin's bullets,
and Texas Governor John Connally was also badly wounded in this attack
on the President. In my opinion, one man was responsible for those
tragic events in Dallas, Texas. And that one man was Lee Harvey Oswald,
who fired three shots at the President's motorcade from the Texas
School Book Depository on Elm Street, killing the President and
injuring the Governor of Texas.

The controversial "Single-Bullet Theory" (SBT) has been debated by
historians, researchers, and critics ever since the release of the
official Warren Commission Report in September of 1964.

But when one evaluates the probabilities of any OTHER explanation being
the correct version of events surrounding the simultaneous wounding of
both JFK and Governor Connally (especially when weighed against the
strong evidence favoring the "SBT" version of the event), the
Single-Bullet Theory's "likelihood" level rises considerably.

The Abraham Zapruder film of JFK's assassination has aided researchers
the world over in attempting to re-construct the murder of the
President and the wounding of Governor Connally. And there are many
indications within that amateur movie that show the SBT to be an
accurate scenario.

One such controversial "indication" of the initial bullet strike to
Connally's body is the so-called "lapel flip", when the Governor's suit
jacket bulges or "flips" at Zapruder Frame #224.

However, I haven't totally abandoned the idea (purported by some
conspiracy theorists and possibly some lone-assassin believers as well)
of "the wind" causing the lapel flip/bulge. BUT, I will say, if it WAS
"the wind", it sure was an amazing coincidence that that gust of wind
moved that lapel at the EXACT same 1/18th of a second when a bullet was
probably going through the same general area of Governor Connally's
body. Almost TOO much of a "coincidence" to be believed.

However, to be fair-minded on this topic -- it is true, I suppose, that
CTers could lash back at the above statement of mine with -- "What the
heck are you talkin' about! The lapel flip is the ONLY thing you LNers
are relying on to indicate a definitive 'SBT' bullet strike at Z224! So
without your 'flip', you've got nada!"

OK...fair enough argument. BUT, just AFTER the lapel flip (in the
frames immediately following Z224) there are several things that occur
to Gov. Connally that indicate a bullet had just passed through him --
e.g., Connally's "open-mouthed grimace" at precisely Z225. And JFK's
mouth is "open" at this exact moment as well, which is BEFORE the
President has distinctly moved his arms upward to his throat area.*

* = And, btw, although it can NEVER be "proven", due to that darn
Stemmons Freeway road sign being in the way, it is quite possible that
Z225 might very well be the VERY FIRST moment in time when JFK's mouth
opened too....which, if it could be PROVEN (which it can never be,
unfortunately), would be an absolutely-overwhelming indication that a
single bullet was piercing both men at the exact same time. For, I ask:
What would be the odds of having BOTH President Kennedy and John
Connally having their mouths closed at Z224, but then, at Z225, opening
their mouths in that exact same frame? If that road sign could be
removed from the Z-Film, we'd know a great deal more, via the visual
medium of Mr. Zapruder's film of the event.

Other post-Z224 "reactions" by Connally include a downward movement of
his right shoulder, and the biggie for me -- that "Hat Flip", where his
cowboy hat goes flying upward in a very quick space of a few Z-Film
frames (and remember, it was the RIGHT hand flying upwards there, and
it was the RIGHT wrist which was hit by a bullet that day).

However, the Zapruder Film (as good a piece of SBT-revealing evidence
as it is) is really totally unneeded to prove the viability of the SBT.
Because even without the existence of Mr. Zapruder's 26-second slice of
tragic history in the making, there's so much OTHER evidence that tells
a reasonable person with common sense that the Single-Bullet Theory is
practically the ONLY way the shooting could have occurred back in '63.

Such evidence as:

1.) The Official JFK Autopsy Report (which was signed by all three
autopsy doctors who attended President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda),
which states without reservation that the bullet that entered JFK's
upper back "made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck".

2.) The seated positions in the car of the two shooting victims, one
right in front of the other (with JBC just a little lower and a little
left of JFK, consistent with SBT-dom).

3.) The physical locations of the two victims' wounds, which are
definitely consistent with one bullet having travelled through both JFK
and JBC.

4.) The oblong-shaped entry wound on Governor Connally's back,
perfectly consistent with the SBT....because this wound certainly
indicates that the bullet which entered JBC's back hit something else
prior to striking the Governor's back. And the only physical
"something" that was between John Connally and the rifle which fired
that bullet was the person of John F. Kennedy.

5.) "Stretcher Bullet CE399" being found IN THE HOSPITAL where the
victims were taken.

6.) CE399 being scientifically linked to Lee Oswald's rifle and to
Connally's wrist fragments. (With a good deal of probability, that
bullet traversed John Connally's body that day in Dallas.)

7.) The incredibly-important fact of NO OTHER BULLETS being found
anywhere that can be "connected" with these "SBT"-like wounds on the
two victims (not a bullet in Connally and not a single whole bullet in
Kennedy's back or neck either). This little item here is a KEY to
proving the validity of the SBT, and the CTers need to go out on a very
shaky limb to get around this not-so-insignificant "No Bullets In
Kennedy" item; they'll need either divine intervention to further the
conspiracy "plot", which would include BOTH bullets that went into JFK
just vanishing ON THEIR OWN (somehow); or the conspiracists need an
after-the-fact cover-up, which has plotters digging TWO whole bullets
out of JFK's body without a single non-conspirator getting wise. (Not
to mention the silliness in the first place of having to purport that
TWO bullets just STOPPED DEAD in the soft flesh of the President, both
failing to exit the body. That's nutty unto itself.)

8.) No back-seat limo damage that would indicate a bullet struck those
seats. And no bullets there either (save very small fragments, plus the
two larger fragments in the front seat, which perfectly conform to the
Lone-Assassin head-shot scenario).

And the Zapruder Film isn't required to prove the existence of any of
the above evidence. Therefore, sans the Z-Film, the SBT is still
rock-solid.

Getting back to the lapel flip specifically for a moment more ---

The following motion clip covers Zapruder Frames 222 and 223. Via this
excellent-quality Z-Film clip, it does seem that the jacket lapel of
Mr. Connally might very well have been moving around even prior to
Z224, thus casting some doubt on the idea that the "flip" at Z224 was
being caused exclusively by a bullet........

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4107.gif

-----------------

In the final analysis ..... After all the chips have fallen (and
considering all of the evidence favoring the SBT, while being forced
via common sense and logical thinking to reject the incredible amount
of hocus-pocus and conspiratorial hijinks that would have been required
in order for the SBT to not be true) -- the Single-Bullet Theory, in my
opinion, is by far the most-likely-to-be-correct version to explain the
wounding of President Kennedy and Governor Connally on November 22nd,
1963.

David Von Pein
January 2006

Lt.Bullitt

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 10:25:01 AM4/13/06
to
I thought Mantik disproved the SBT years ago David. That's what the
CT's here seem to think.

gary...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 11:55:21 AM4/13/06
to

I would refer you to Breach of Trust by Gerald McKnight, particularly
his chapter on the Single Bullet Fabrication.

Steve

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 12:02:01 PM4/13/06
to
and we are to accept McKnights chapter as "fact", because?

aeffects

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 12:15:12 PM4/13/06
to

Perhaps you'll provide a citation for that piece of news, yes?

aeffects

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 12:18:14 PM4/13/06
to
Did you have Gretta Vansustern in mind as prosecuting attorney?

Surely daBug is over the hill?

gary...@yahoo.com

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 12:41:38 PM4/13/06
to
I really don't care if you do or not. Read it and make your own
determination.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 1:38:35 PM4/13/06
to
In article <1144917669....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>A Question No Conspiracy Theorist Has Ever Answered (Via A Believable
>And Non-Laughable Scenario) ----
>
>If The "Single-Bullet Theory" Isn't Correct, Then What IS The Accurate
>Shooting Scenario To Explain The Virtually-Simultaneous Wounding Of
>President Kennedy And Governor Connally On 11/22/63?


More than one shooter. It's just that simple. Nothing "unbelievable" about it,
or laughable... (unless you're dedicated in your faith...)

The fact that Davey-boy can't defend the SBT is all the proof intelligent people
need...

Should anyone spend the time rebutting the nonsense below, Davey-boy will snip
and run.


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 6:28:24 PM4/13/06
to
Lt.Bullitt wrote:
> I thought Mantik disproved the SBT years ago David. That's what the
> CT's here seem to think.
>


For the record, Cters here have been disproving the SBT long before
Mantik came onto the scene. And many of us are not impressed by Mantik's
theories.
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 6:54:43 PM4/13/06
to
>>>"The fact that Davey-boy can't defend the SBT is all the proof intelligent people need."<<<

What the FUCK do you think I've BEEN doing with my THREE OR FOUR
separate long-winded essays on the SBT...if not "defending" it???

What YOU cannot do, however, is "defend" the "alternate" pro-CT
scenario(s) that HAD to have existed (somehow) if the SBT is false (and
are CT scenarios which I've discussed at great length in those SBT
posts of mine).

Your simplistic explanation above of.....

"More than one shooter. It's just that simple." ....

I'm afraid just ain't gonna cut it.

But it's fairly obvious WHY you reduced your "CT Alternate SBT
Scenario" to just those 8 words -- it's because you cannot "defend" any
SPECIFIC shot-by-shot CT alternative that HAS to "replace" the SBT if
the SBT is dead-wrong.

The shooting DID occur, my nutty CT pal! Those two men WERE wounded!
They DID have seven wounds between them (sans the head shot to JFK). So
there IS an answer to this shooting that is logical and that follows
some semblance of the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

And that answer is the "Single-Bullet Conclusion" -- without a shadow
of a doubt in my mind.

And what's Ben's next-best scenario? ......

"More than one shooter. It's just that simple."

Pathetic!

A padded cell awaits you.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 6:59:58 PM4/13/06
to
In article <443ec2ed$0$14402$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com>, Anthony Marsh
says...

>
>Lt.Bullitt wrote:
>> I thought Mantik disproved the SBT years ago David. That's what the
>> CT's here seem to think.
>>
>
>
>For the record, Cters here have been disproving the SBT long before
>Mantik came onto the scene. And many of us are not impressed by Mantik's
>theories.


But don't take the word of a LNT'er... many CT'ers *are* impressed with
Mantik... particularly LNT'ers, who can never seem to debunk him.

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 7:40:27 PM4/13/06
to
In article <1144968883.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> The fact that Davey-boy can't defend the SBT is all the proof
>> intelligent people need.
>
>What the FUCK do you think I've BEEN doing with my THREE OR FOUR
>separate long-winded essays on the SBT...if not "defending" it???


Spouting gutless nonsense that you can't defend. You see, you have to actually
*respond* to the points people make, or be able to cite where you have already
dealt with a particular issue.

Don't feel bad - I'll be here to keep pointing out to people that you're a
gutless coward who can only snip and run...

But, as I've pointed out, you're only following in the same 'glorious' trail
that the WC laid down... for they did *exactly* the same thing.

Knowing full well that they couldn't create the coverup they wanted if their
work had to face the cold hard light of adversarial process.

Just as what *you* say can't stand adversarial review.


>What YOU cannot do, however, is "defend" the "alternate" pro-CT
>scenario(s) that HAD to have existed (somehow) if the SBT is false (and
>are CT scenarios which I've discussed at great length in those SBT
>posts of mine).


Of course I can. Multiple shooters. It's what a majority of America believes,
it's what many people there that day believe... and most importantly, it's what
the evidence shows.

Your 'discussions at great length' are meaningless, and to be honest, I've only
glanced at most of them, and not bothered to read more than the first paragraph.
For I know, and YOU know, that you're too gutless to respond if I should take
the time to rip your sillyness to shreds using the evidence, testimony, and
historical fact.

>Your simplistic explanation above of.....
>
>> More than one shooter. It's just that simple.
>

>I'm afraid just ain't gonna cut it.


Afraid, aren't you? The sheer simplicity of my answer...


>But it's fairly obvious WHY you reduced your "CT Alternate SBT
>Scenario" to just those 8 words -- it's because you cannot "defend" any
>SPECIFIC shot-by-shot CT alternative that HAS to "replace" the SBT if
>the SBT is dead-wrong.


I've listed several in the past. It's simply nonsense to assert that no CT'ers
have ever provided alternative scenarios. It's been done several times.

When you can't even provide a reasoned argument to prefer the SBT over multiple
shooters, it goes to show the shallowness of your knowledge, and your basic
cowardice.


>The shooting DID occur, my nutty CT pal!

Yep... and your implication that I've ever stated otherwise is a lie, isn't it?

>Those two men WERE wounded!

Actually, three. Do you have problems with counting?

>They DID have seven wounds between them (sans the head shot to JFK). So
>there IS an answer to this shooting that is logical and that follows
>some semblance of the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.


Yep... multiple shooters ... tis just that simple.


>And that answer is the "Single-Bullet Conclusion" -- without a shadow
>of a doubt in my mind.

"I believe... I believe... I believe..." - Just keep repeating the LNT'er
mantra, Davey-boy, should you ever start to pay attention to the evidence and
testimony.


>And what's Ben's next-best scenario? ......
>
>> More than one shooter. It's just that simple.
>
>Pathetic!

Yep... so "simple" that the only response you have is not intellectual argument,
is not a recitation of evidence and testimony, it's nothing more than an ad
hominem attack.

One single word, "pathetic", is all you can muster to refute my simple answer.

>A padded cell awaits you.

Actually, Occam's Razor should have made it perfectly clear... the fact that it
took months for someone to come up with the SBT should have jarred some sense
into you... but that's okay... just the fact that you can't refute my responses
without snipping and running is all the confirmation I need that I'm doing a
useful and needed job here.

Gutless coward, aren't you?

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 8:35:04 PM4/13/06
to
>>>"When you can't even provide a reasoned argument to prefer the SBT over multiple shooters, it goes to show the shallowness of your knowledge, and your basic cowardice."<<<


Somebody pinch me. I didn't REALLY just read the above crap....did I?

I've never "provided a reasoned argument to prefer the SBT over
multiple shooters"????

Again....somebody pinch me. Please.

Path-et-ic!

>>>"The fact that it took months for someone to come up with the SBT should have jarred some sense into you."<<<


It's not my fault the WC was slow at arriving at the ONLY OBVIOUS
REASONABLE CONCLUSION (i.e., the SBT). No other scenario is even
REMOTELY possible given the totality of the evidence at hand.

My personal guess on that is -- the WC didn't want to have to directly
contradict the original 12/09/63 FBI Report (which was obviously rushed
and incomplete and flat-out wrong with respect to the shooting
scenario).

>>>"I'll be here to keep pointing out to people that you're a gutless coward...."<<<


Promise you'll never leave me Ben. I couldn't live without your
constant attention and the way you effortlessly (and with both feet
firmly in mouth) straighten out my felony-supporting ways time and
again. You promise??

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 9:52:02 PM4/13/06
to
In article <1144974904.8...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> When you can't even provide a reasoned argument to prefer the SBT over
>> multiple shooters, it goes to show the shallowness of your knowledge,
>> and your basic cowardice.
>
>
>Somebody pinch me. I didn't REALLY just read the above crap....did I?


True, isn't it?

>I've never "provided a reasoned argument to prefer the SBT over
>multiple shooters"????


Nope. Not in an adversarial setting. And that's the *ONLY* forum that I'll
accept.


>Again....somebody pinch me. Please.
>
>Path-et-ic!


You're refusal to defend your words? Absolutely.

>> The fact that it took months for someone to come up with the SBT should
>> have jarred some sense into you.
>
>
>It's not my fault the WC was slow at arriving at the ONLY OBVIOUS
>REASONABLE CONCLUSION


It obviously *wasn't* the "only obvious reasonable conclusion" if they had to
spend so many months before coming up with it.

It's *not*, after all, inherent in the evidence.


>(i.e., the SBT). No other scenario is even
>REMOTELY possible given the totality of the evidence at hand.


Of course there is... it's known as a conspiracy.

>My personal guess on that is -- the WC didn't want to have to directly
>contradict the original 12/09/63 FBI Report (which was obviously rushed
>and incomplete and flat-out wrong with respect to the shooting
>scenario).


How sad your life must be... dealing with speculations instead of the actual
testimony and evidence.

>> I'll be here to keep pointing out to people that you're a gutless
>> coward....
>
>
>Promise you'll never leave me Ben. I couldn't live without your
>constant attention and the way you effortlessly (and with both feet
>firmly in mouth) straighten out my felony-supporting ways time and
>again. You promise??

"constant attention?" Unlike you, I have a wide variety of knowledge on this
case at my fingertips - and spend virtually no time at all to correct your
ignorance and lies.

Gutless, aren't you?

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 10:24:13 PM4/13/06
to
>>>"How sad your life must be...dealing with speculations instead of the actual
testimony and evidence."<<<

Somebody take a picture of this BH quote -- we can frame it and use
this as the caption underneath:

"The Pinnacle Of CTer Hypocrisy".

Because that's exactly what it is.

Where did this guy GET those guts/balls?? Remarkable.

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 10:31:57 PM4/13/06
to
>>>"Not in an adversarial setting. And that's the *ONLY* forum that I'll accept."<<<

Meaning, of course, that you'll be totally dismissing Vince Bugliosi's
2,100 pages of CS&L just because you can't keep hitting your CT-skewed
tennis ball back and forth over the net with him. Correct?

Because I have no doubt that Vince is going to be utilizing some of the
very same common-sense pro-LN arguments I've used in my NG posts within
his "Final Verdict" tome.

But he'll be full of shit because his "defense" of the WR is going to
be in book form, instead of an "adversarial" setting. Is that about the
size of your oddball CT stance as she exists as of this moment?

You're a kook. (And a pathetic kook at that.)

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 10:50:16 PM4/13/06
to
>>>"Unlike you, I have a wide variety of knowledge on this case at my fingertips..."<<<


Let me take a wild, off-the-top-of-my-head guess as to what volumes
just might occupy the top shelves of Ben's library and are considered
by BH to be the "Upper Crust" of "JFK Assassination Research"........

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0009PP2I6/qid=1144982362/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140240039/qid=1144982390/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451175735/qid=1144982409/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786705787/qid=1144982437/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786700173/qid=1144982437/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/081269547X/qid=1144982483/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812694228/qid=1144982497/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812693663/qid=1144982497/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574889737/qid=1144982535/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786714417/qid=1144982535/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/141961018X/qid=1144982573/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565540298/qid=1144982535/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786712422/qid=1144982535/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560250488/qid=1144982698/sr=1-26/ref=sr_1_26/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000B66TB2/qid=1144982718/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/078670098X/qid=1144982698/sr=1-30/ref=sr_1_30/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1412040558/qid=1144982860/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581824874/qid=1144982893/sr=1-12/ref=sr_1_12/102-0679552-6293763?s=books&v=glance&n=283155


Oh, and this one is probably #1:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345429184/ref=sr_11_1/102-0679552-6293763?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 10:58:10 PM4/13/06
to

Snip snip... snip snip... snip snip...


In article <1144981453....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...
>
>> How sad your life must be... dealing with speculations instead of the


Gutless as usual, you snipped everything and never respond to the refutation of
your silly rantings...

Coward, aren't you?

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 11:03:42 PM4/13/06
to
In article <1144983016.4...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...

>
>> Unlike you, I have a wide variety of knowledge on this case at my
>> fingertips...
>
>
>Let me take a wild, off-the-top-of-my-head guess as to what volumes
>just might occupy the top shelves of Ben's library and are considered
>by BH to be the "Upper Crust" of "JFK Assassination Research"........

You wouldn't have a clue.

<garbage snipped>

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 11:02:19 PM4/13/06
to

The gutless coward just keeps snipping away. Illustrating in every post his
complete intellectual cowardice...


In article <1144981917....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


>
>> Not in an adversarial setting. And that's the *ONLY* forum that I'll
>> accept.
>
>Meaning, of course, that you'll be totally dismissing Vince Bugliosi's
>2,100 pages of CS&L just because you can't keep hitting your CT-skewed
>tennis ball back and forth over the net with him. Correct?


I will do the same thing with him that I do to you... point out where he's
misrepresented the evidence, omitted evidence, and undoubtably, where he lied.

I don't expect him to respond.


>Because I have no doubt that Vince is going to be utilizing some of the
>very same common-sense pro-LN arguments I've used in my NG posts within
>his "Final Verdict" tome.


Then he's already lost... since it's clear that YOU can't defend your own words,
neither will Bugliosi.


>But he'll be full of shit because his "defense" of the WR is going to
>be in book form, instead of an "adversarial" setting. Is that about the
>size of your oddball CT stance as she exists as of this moment?

Try not to get too confused - the logic would be damning to your impression of
your intellectual achievements.


>You're a kook. (And a pathetic kook at that.)

Got the balls to say that to my face? Gutless coward...

David VP

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 11:51:51 PM4/13/06
to
>>>"Got the balls to say that to my face?"<<<


I couldn't possibly get to within a country mile of your face, because
your balls take up whole city blocks.

Ever thought of sending those babies in to the Guinness people? Must be
a record-setter.

aeffects

unread,
Apr 13, 2006, 11:59:14 PM4/13/06
to
this is a Lone Neuter......? roflmfao! DaBug ain't gettin his money's
worth oh--wee!

Ben Holmes

unread,
Apr 14, 2006, 12:07:58 AM4/14/06
to

Snip snip... snip snip... snip snip...

In article <1144986711....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, David VP
says...


Translation: "no"

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages