Looking At Things The Wrong Way...

[Ben Holmes]

Found in the censored forum.

On Thursday, August 30, 2018 at 6:12:26 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 8/29/2018 11:04 PM, GKnoll wrote:
> > There is a simple formula for calculating the recording capacity of a
> > Dictabelt. If you multiply the recording time per track in SECONDS by 10
> > it will give you the recording capacity for the Dictabelt in MINUTES.
> >
>
> That just tells you the total seconds. Then you have to multiply by 60
> to get the minutes.


Hmmm... so if I have a spare 60 seconds laying around, I can multiply
60 seconds by 60 to get 3,600 minutes? Here... let me convert those
3,600 minutes to hours... I presume that the procedure is the same...
it comes to 216,000 hours. As there are roughly 8,760 hours in a year,
my 60 seconds has blossomed to close to 25 years just by doing a
little "Marsh Math" (tm)

Next time someone asks you if you can spare a minute - do the 'Marsh
Math' before you answer...

I'm sure Puddy will support the new "Marsh Math."

[healyd...@gmail.com]

lmfao!

[Bud]

Of course Marsh looks at things the wrong way, lurkers, he is a conspiracy advocate. All conspiracy advocates do.

[BT George]

Holmes just hates Marsh because he opposes his crazy alteration theories Lurkers. But don't give Tony too much credit for doing so out of selfless dedication to following the truth wherever it may lie. Rather, his theories depend on the Z Film being an accurate record. Same for Bob Harris, whom Holmes hates for the same reason, and who defends the integrity of the Z Film for the same reasons as Marsh.

[donald willis]

The only RIGHT way is the Bud way....

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:37:49 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

That's funny... McAdams was praising Marsh recently. Do you suppose
that McAdams is a closet critic?

Marsh is an apologist for the Warren Commission. He's needed in the
censored forum to have something to react against. But he's never been
a real critic.

No-one who accepts falsified evidence can be...

[Bud]

Another example of Ben`s poor thinking, lurkers. Wasn`t McCain praised by both sides of the aisle at his funeral? If Marsh had the good grace to follow McCain I`m sure even I might find something good to say about him.

> Marsh is an apologist for the Warren Commission. He's needed in the
> censored forum to have something to react against. But he's never been
> a real critic.

Tony Marsh is a garden variety conspiracy retard, lurkers, just like Ben. Irrational and unreachable.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

As we all know, Marsh repeatedly says the WC report was an orchestrated coverup to prevent WWIII. They knew there was a conspiracy but were ordered to hush it up to prevent a nuclear holocaust.

He thinks Oswald was framed - the rifle was planted - and the actual murderers, elements of the CIA under Helms' orders, were not held accountable.

How anyone can think that someone who believes this is a Warren Commission apologist is absurd. An apologist for what? He says it was a sham.

[donald willis]

He's an equal opportunity needler. He has needled me, and I'm hardly a WC apologist.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:58:56 -0700 (PDT), stevemg...@yahoo.com
wrote:

I find it amusing to see all believers jumping to Marsh's defense.

[Bud]

I find it amusing that Ben sees people correcting him as supporting Marsh, lurkers.

[BT George]

Now *THAT* is a true statement. He is even more of an SA than a CT. What is an SA you ask? SA = Serial Arguer.

Heck, he disagrees with himself from post to post.

[BT George]

No Ben. It's really more that we like to attack you, because you *deserve* it so much.

[borisba...@gmail.com]

I've been attacked here since my first day, hence my prickly demeanor. What's your "scenario", BT Barnum?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:30:21 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com

This is one ironclad way to tell who is who. If you're attacted by all
the believers, you're a critic.

Those "ciritics" that are *NOT* attacked aren't really critics...

Simple.

As above... it's perfectly okay to multiply seconds by 60 to get
minutes... believers see nothing wrong with that approach.

If **I** had said that, every single believer in this forum would jump
on me for it.

But it was Tony Marsh that said it... therefore, not a *SINGLE*
believer has jumped on such an idiotic mistake.

NOT ONE!

And that fact tells the tale.

[Ben Holmes]

(Wait for it, Boris... don't give the game away...)

[BT George]

My scenario is Oswald + 3 rifle shots and 2 hits into a President and 4 pistol shots into a police officer = 1 dead JFK & 1 dead JD Tippit.

Hopefully that clarifies any nagging doubts you have.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

No one is jumping to his defense. We're lumping him with you. Another retard with a kooky theory that thousands killed JFK or covered it up.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Poor Boris. He's been attacked, and he's a sensitive little Truther. Plus, Bud posted an icky animal video once. Boris almost cried, but recovered in time to watch the Z film and see JFK's brains get splattered all over Dealey Plaza for the millionth time.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:55:20 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

I'll bet that Boris is literate enough to tell you how many minutes
... X amount of seconds is...

Clearly, every single believer thus far has refused to point out
Tony's error.

Only critics.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 15:52:42 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

You're lying again, Chuckles.

Silence is clearly agreement in this case, where it's been repeatedly
pointed out.

Why do you have such a hard time stating that Marsh made a mistake?

[borisba...@gmail.com]

>
> Poor Boris. He's been attacked, and he's a sensitive little Truther. Plus, Bud posted an icky animal video once. Boris almost cried, but recovered in time to watch the Z film and see JFK's brains get splattered all over Dealey Plaza for the millionth time.

In fairness, I was eating a burger while I cried, and I admired the animals' killers in that they had the balls to expose who they were.

By the way, did you notice your friend BT Barnum offered his scenario? I'm surprised you're not mad at him, Chucky, since by your own admission LNers need no scenario, nor have one.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:03:21 -0700 (PDT), borisba...@gmail.com
wrote:

>>

Believers never criticize other believers. That's one of the sure-fire
ways to spot the believers pretending to be critics.

For example (and you may remember this one)

*******************************************************
"As I stated, the VISIBLE reaction of JC is only two thirds of a
second after we see JFK react - I have no problem with that, neither
does science, nor should you." - Patrick Collins.

Clearly, Patrick is still agreeing with the Warren Commission, and
hasn't gotten the memo that LN'ers are *now* supposed to "see" a
reaction at Z-224.

Watch, as not a *SINGLE* believer will castigate Patrick for his
defense of the Warren Commission.
*******************************************************

Of course, if **I** say what Patrick says, the believers are whining
left and right about it.

But not if Patrick says it.

They refuse to even assert that he's wrong.

So you can't blame Chuckles for refusing to publicly say anything
about a believer who posts a scenario he doesn't believe exists...

That's reserved for the scenarios that *I've* posted.

[BT George]

Oh how quickly Benny forgets.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/EBdwYmtoWS0/woqKUUcrLzoJ

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

He doesn't have a scenario separate from the historically accepted null hypothesis, Truther.

You do.

Get busy.

Let's start with you explaining when your cute SEAL Team Whatever kidnapped JFK's corpse, if that's not too sensitive a subject for you.

When did it occur within the timeline of leaving Parkland, getting to Love Field, landing in DC, etc., and please point to reenactments/tests that show how this was feasible. Be specific.

Fire up the propeller on your tinfoil beanie and get going, Truther. Feel free to use all the science at your disposal to prove what you think happened, happened: aural consilience, nano-thermite, etc.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Marsh makes mistakes constantly. Almost as often as you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 21:57:47 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 6:03:22 PM UTC-5, borisba...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Poor Boris. He's been attacked, and he's a sensitive little Truther. Plus, Bud posted an icky animal video once. Boris almost cried, but recovered in time to watch the Z film and see JFK's brains get splattered all over Dealey Plaza for the millionth time.
>>
>> In fairness, I was eating a burger while I cried, and I admired the animals' killers in that they had the balls to expose who they were.
>>
>> By the way, did you notice your friend BT Barnum offered his scenario? I'm surprised you're not mad at him, Chucky, since by your own admission LNers need no scenario, nor have one.
>
> He doesn't have a scenario separate from the historically accepted
> null hypothesis, Truther.
>
>You do.
>
>Get busy.

Actually, the "null hypothesis" is for a probable conspiracy.

So yes, the "scenario" offered actually *WAS* a scenario, something
you claim not to have.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:01:54 -0700 (PDT), chucksch...@gmail.com

And when it's pointed out by a critic, he's defended by his fellow
believers.

You *STILL* refuse to acknowledge the mistake I pointed out.

Why the cowardice, Chuckles?

Why the fear?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:53:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Marsh has *always* been a fake critic.


Amusingly, not a single believer has stepped up to the plate, and
agreed with me that Marsh told a whopper...

>> Marsh is an apologist for the Warren Commission. He's needed in the
>> censored forum to have something to react against. But he's never been
>> a real critic.
>

> I'm a retard. Irrational and unreachable.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 13:42:44 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

So *YOU* believe that you multiply seconds by 60 to get the total
number of minutes.

That makes you a PROVABLE moron. Tony simply made a mistake, yet
you've had plenty of time to contemplate this mistake, and agree that
it's a mistake.

Instead, you refuse to...