VERY old news.
Ken Rahn
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5399f7dc-f060-4ba2...@y13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v3n2/v3n2dolmar.pdf
I agree with Dr. Rahn's position and statements 100%. As a
professional educator myself I too am inundated with lengthy e-mails
from former students, friends of former students, enemies of former
students, who have read an Internet article, a portion of a book, or
recently watched "JFK" and they expect me to sit down and answer
fifteen questions which it took them fifteen seconds to write and it
takes me fifteen hours to respond to. Then, when I don't physically
have the time they proclaim victory and parade off the field of battle
with arms upstretched in celebration. I am not nearly as busy as is
Dr. Rahn but not even I have time to answer the call every time
someone wants me to reinvent the wheel for the umpteenth time.
Besides I learned long ago that trying to talk reason to a conspiracy
nut is like talking to a drawing of a windmill.
Many, if not most of the questions I raise have been around for decades, if not
for over 45 years.
The LNT'er camp has had plenty of time to answer them.
Thus intelligent people are led to the inevitable conclusion that it's not a
lack of time, BUT YOUR INABILITY TO ANSWER that drives your apparent cowardice.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
The "lone nut camp" is aware that you like to play games, Holmes, and
that is why no one
in "the lone nut camp" takes your bait.
None of the questions I raise are unique to me. They have been asked by others
at least once, and in some cases, by multiple authors.
They aren't unknown to the LNT'er crowd. Yet for decades, you, and other
LNT'ers have been totally unable to respond to them.
IOW's, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS YOUR POSITION.
You can keep reaching for excuses - but there really aren't any - you *must*
stay away from the evidence, it doesn't support your stance.
It's been known since the early 1990's, for example, that the HSCA flat lied
about the medical testimony.
When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve? And why are you ducking
and running away from any evidential debate?
You mean like you have with this "yellow pants" lady?
Sometimes, given ample rope, people ( in this case, you) tangle
themselves up.
>>> "When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve?" <<<
The above-quoted crap is one of Holmes' favorite mottos.
But the truth is -- Holmes cannot provide a stitch of PROOF that
anyone involved with the WC "lied" about anything connected to the
death of JFK.
Holmes likes to THINK the WC "lied" here and "covered up" there -- but
he has never once proven that such lies (or cover up) occurred.
And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
"lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted alone
while killing them.
~Mark VII~
Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.
Were you there, Steve? Were *YOU* willing to answer the simple questions I
asked?
I had trolls and LNT'ers running like crazy when all I would ask is "how many
people are seen in this frame?"
Just as *YOU* are running right now from the evidence you invited.
Why such a coward, Steve? Let's try it again...
It's been known since the early 1990's, for example, that the HSCA flat lied
about the medical testimony.
When does the "truth" need a lie to support it, Steve? And why are you ducking
and running away from any evidential debate?
Do you plan to duck and run again?
> Sometimes, given ample rope, people ( in this case, you) tangle
>themselves up.
All I've been doing, Steve, is providing you with what you can't deal with.
You've been demonstrating just what a coward you are.
Understandable, of course, the evidence doesn't support you, and you know it.
And DVP is a bald-faced liar, too.
>> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
>> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.
>> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted alone
>> while killing them.
>>
>> ~Mark VII~
>
> Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.
Hardly. The trolls ran. Just as you're running right now.
Excuse me, but the correct term is "Bold-faced liar", and no, he
isn't..
>
> >> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
> >> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
>
> A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.
> > >> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted alone
> >> while killing them.
>
> >> ~Mark VII~
>
> > Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.
>
> Hardly. The trolls ran. Just as you're running right now.
Hmmmm... I've lost count as to how many times I have seen people
in here
asking you to address the so called "Lady in yellow pants" issue, and
you have yet to do so.
Looks to me like tis *you* are the one "running".
I, on the other hand, won't play your silly games, Holmes.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/992.html
http://learnsomethingnew365.blogspot.com/2008/03/bold-face-liar-or-bald-face-liar-76365.html
If you take the time to look up a few references, you'll discover that both are
accepted as correct.
>and no, he isn't..
If that were true, you'd have no problems defending the HSCA on their lies about
the medical testimony.
But you duck and run instead. Do you think you're convincing anyone?
>> >> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
>> >> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
>>
>> A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.
>>
>> > >> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted alo=
>ne
>> >> while killing them.
>>
>> >> ~Mark VII~
>>
>> > =A0Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.
>>
>> Hardly. The trolls ran. Just as you're running right now.
>
> Hmmmm... I've lost count as to how many times I have seen people
>in here asking you to address the so called "Lady in yellow pants" issue,
Why not go back to the original threads, and read 'em?
They're still there for anyone who cares. And JUST AS YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW,
the trolls were ducking and running from the debate.
Indeed, I couldn't even get anyone to specify how many people were visible in a
given frame. When you can't even establish a common fundamental understanding
of the evidence, you can't debate.
So tell us Steve - why are you refusing to defend the lies that the HSCA told
about the medical testimony?
>and
>you have yet to do so.
Bringing up old issues that you have no idea about won't hide the fact that
you're running as fast as you can from the evidence I've cited.
>Looks to me like tis *you* are the one "running".
I'm sure that there's *someone*, somewhere, who believes your opinion. But in
the meantime, why are you running from the evidence I cited?
Why did you lie about even the fact that I'd provided evidence? Why are you now
refusing to even respond to those posts?
> I, on the other hand, won't play your silly games, Holmes.
You started it, coward. Now you can't finish it.
ohhhhh-yeah, now here is a tough Lone Nutter, sticks his head out long
enough from under .john's dress to ask about the Lady in yellow
pants..... ROTFLMFAO what-a-pussy.... Trying to change the subject, ya
run kiddo, you've always run when confronted and your bosom pals were
no where to be seen..... Speaking of which, there is not ONE Lone Nut
on this board competent to speak to the Zapruder Film, no CT cares
what Lone Nut dipshits think about the Z-film. Now if you're gonna
drag your sorry ass back in here to discuss other case evidence, lets
see what you got.... Knock off the sniveling...
Ben introduced his *Lady in Yellow Pants* theory in the post that
started the following thread, titled "Z-369 and Proof that Zapruder &
Nix Have Been Altered."
Ben thought he (or Jack White in MIDL?) had found certain "problems"
with two assassination films (Nix and Zapruder) that could only be
explained in terms of alteration. The first such "problem" was a
couple seen standing behind the Franzen group in Nix and not visible
in Z-369 (Zapruder frame 369). In another thread, Ben had previously
challenged Bob Harris to tell him how many people he could see
standing in the grass in Z-369:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6821c612971c6024
Actually, the shadows and/or legs of the couple can be seen in every
frame between Z-334 and Z355, making Ben's challenge rather
meaningless, and it seems that he later discarded this part of his
theory.
The other "problem" was a *Lady in Yellow Pants* figure seen in later
Nix frames, but not in Zapruder. Ben confidently modified the
challenge to his critics:
BEN ON
The Zapruder film shows how many people in the grass at Z-377?
How many people does the Nix film show in the same location?
This is really simple. Even trolls can tell the difference between
"2" and "3".
BEN OFF
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4375be1606567904
The correct answer to the second question is "2" (or "the same number
of people"). The location occupied by the *Lady in Yellow Pants*
(included in Ben's count of "3") was never filmed by Zapruder. She
would have appeared much earlier than Z-377, btw, but was standing too
far back. Nix and Zapruder were filming from opposite sides, the
latter standing much further down the road and in an elevated
position, so their perspectives were vastly different. Debunking Ben's
foolish theory isn't particularly difficult; the hard part is getting
him to admit he was wrong.
Thanks for your thoughts, Holmes.
Well, the truth comes out, coward.
You like to bluster, but you end up running away.
The sad thing is ... you probably don't even realize what this looks like to the
average lurker.
I DEFY this coward to name my "theory", then debate or refute it.
This is just another excuse to try to get away...
How did Weisberg put it? Something about just whacking 'em upside the head with
the evidence, over and over again?
>ROTFLMFAO what-a-pussy.... Trying to change the subject, ya
>run kiddo, you've always run when confronted and your bosom pals were
>no where to be seen..... Speaking of which, there is not ONE Lone Nut
>on this board competent to speak to the Zapruder Film, no CT cares
>what Lone Nut dipshits think about the Z-film. Now if you're gonna
>drag your sorry ass back in here to discuss other case evidence, lets
>see what you got.... Knock off the sniveling...
>
>> =A0 I, on the other hand, won't play your silly games, Holmes.
>>
>>
>>
>> > --
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------=
I could care less "what it looks like to average lurker!!!!!
close enough for government work, in fact HaroldW. told me: "just beat
them over the head with the evidence, the exhibits, photos, film and
the testimony. That's all you need."
Well Mark, looks like little "Sadam" ingored your post again about his
lady in yellow pants. Why would anyone expect differently. Holmes is
just like Robcrap, if the words "PROOF" and "COWARD" weren't in their
vocabulary, they would have nothing to say. Holmes is a little midget
who thinks he's a man.
whew, stinks of tuna in here, close your legs troll!
LOL! You would, being that you are a fool. You didn't read close
enough Holmes. "Bald faced" came into existence only because
someone misunderstood the term "bold faced", and said "bald faced",
much like people turned the word "pesty" into "pesky".
No such word as "pesk", no such thing as a "bald face".
I already did. You're an fool and an idiot, Holmes.
Of course not! You don't mind acting the fool.
Actually, this is a perfectly ordinary usage documented by the dictionary. So
you'll have to take it up with them.
>You didn't read close
>enough Holmes. "Bald faced" came into existence only because
>someone misunderstood the term "bold faced", and said "bald faced",
>much like people turned the word "pesty" into "pesky".
>No such word as "pesk", no such thing as a "bald face".
Indeed, I cited for this. But in contradiction to your assertion, the
dictionary accepts it.
Is this all you have? Why do you keep running away from the evidence IN THIS
CASE, Steve? Coward?
>> >and no, he isn't..
>>
>> If that were true, you'd have no problems defending the HSCA on their lie=
>s about
>> the medical testimony.
>>
>> But you duck and run instead. =A0Do you think you're convincing anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> And the main reason Holmes The Kook cannot prove that any WC person
>> >> >> "lied" is because no such lies ever occurred in the first place.
>>
>> >> A gutless liar who can't support such an assertion.
>>
>> >> > >> Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit. And LHO almost certainly acted =
>alo=3D
>> >ne
>> >> >> while killing them.
>>
>> >> >> ~Mark VII~
>>
>> >> > =3DA0Holmes continues to dodge the "lady in yellow pants" issue.
>>
>> >> Hardly. The trolls ran. Just as you're running right now.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0Hmmmm... I've lost count as to how many times I have seen people
>> >in here asking you to address the so called "Lady in yellow pants" issue=
>,
>>
>> Why not go back to the original threads, and read 'em?
>>
>> They're still there for anyone who cares. =A0And JUST AS YOU'RE DOING RIG=
>HT NOW,
>> the trolls were ducking and running from the debate.
>>
>> Indeed, I couldn't even get anyone to specify how many people were visibl=
>e in a
>> given frame. =A0When you can't even establish a common fundamental unders=
>tanding
>> of the evidence, you can't debate.
>>
>> So tell us Steve - why are you refusing to defend the lies that the HSCA =
>told
>> about the medical testimony?
>>
>> >and
>> >you have yet to do so.
>>
>> Bringing up old issues that you have no idea about won't hide the fact th=
>at
>> you're running as fast as you can from the evidence I've cited.
>>
>> >Looks to me like tis *you* are the one "running".
>>
>> I'm sure that there's *someone*, somewhere, who believes your opinion. =
>=A0But in
>> the meantime, why are you running from the evidence I cited?
>>
>> Why did you lie about even the fact that I'd provided evidence? =A0Why ar=
>e you now
>> refusing to even respond to those posts?
>>
>> > =A0I, on the other hand, won't play your silly games, Holmes.
>>
>> You started it, coward. =A0Now you can't finish it.
>
> I already did. You're an fool and an idiot, Holmes.
Yep... this would be called "finishing it" by someone who's dishonest and a
coward.
Just don't think you've convinced anyone.
At least I'm not *being* a fool. You are!
Like I said. You are a fool and an idiot, Holmes.
You've convinced many of that fact.
ALL in his own words.
Under the "Rogue" button.>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/rogue.htm
<snl1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38d192ba-e6a7-4810...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
If you knew anything about the evidence in the Tippit case, you would
know that the shell casings at the scene were from a .45 auto, LHO
carried a .38 revolver, two different cartriges, and the .45 ejects
spent shells as the gun is fired, the revolver holds the empty's in
the gun till the person manually ejects them! sorry LHO has never been
proven to kill anyone, and the fact that he didn't own or carry a .45
at least proves that he did NOT kill Tippit, and very conveniently
that he died, that the trial of the century never took place in the
open forum of a court room, a fact that seems to miss you folks who so
badly want to believe the lying government that put people like Allen
dulles on the WC. He hated JFK for firing him, and yet he is put on
the panel to investigate his death? Are you idiot's really that
stupid? Or just very ignorant of the facts?
The only reason you blame Oswald for the death's of Kennedy, and
Tippit is because that is what you have been told! What court ever
proved Oswald ever killed ANYONE? None! Just because the same people
in control of the gov't that killed JFK told you Oswald did it is the
only reason ANYONE believes he did it. Face the FACTS he has never
been convicted in a court of law for any of this, so until that day we
are forced to leave things the way the killers in power wanted it
left, a mystery!
Hate to burst your bubble about no proof anyone on the WC lied, but
the only unelected president of the USA Gerald dipshit Ford did just
that when he changed the location of JFK's back wound from where he
initially said it was, bacause the WC's case would not hold water if
his origional testimony had been aleft as he first stated it! So yes
there were liars on the Warren Commission dude, but i am sure you do
not want to hear that.
Ken, you are just another dip shit, that doesn't know shit about the
Kennedy murder. Either you are deliberately backing the governments
TOP SECRET version, which i believe to be the case, or you are just
plain stupid! Answer a couple of questions for me and i will jump over
to your side immediately. What is the name of Lee Harvey Oswalds
attorney in his murder charge?
Where is the evidence of his interrogation? What did he have to say on
his behalf? Where is John F. Kennedy's brain? It should be in the
national archives, but it is missing, convenient for anyone who
doesn't want the truth to get out.
Why was the evidence, and information regarding the killing of the
president labeled TOP SECRET? Should not this investigation been
carried out in a public forum, so the american people wuold know
without a doubt what really happened?
Does the killing of Oswald, and the fact that there would be no public
trial set the stage for the common sense train of thought that Oswald
was deliberately silenced so that the facts would never have to be
brought to light strike any chord of conspiracy with anyone with an
I.Q. over, say 40?
search is your friend... BHolmes is not a CT
I'm not?
Since when is Ben Holmes "not a CT"????? Wow. No wonder they call
you "junkie"!
"Are you idiot's really that stupid?" ??????? ROTFLMAO at my vote for the
funniest question of the day.
Healey will be thrilled, another stoner to play with.
ROTFLMAO!!!! This one's a keeper. Another classic junkie posting.
Priceless.
LMFAO....thats one of the best posts yet Steve ROFLMAO
Thank GAWD your here Sam-little man-in-the-boat-Bo.... these dipshit
Nutters have been getting the shit knocked out of them and we haven't
really got to the meat of the subject (meat, does that make your knees
shake, hon?) Save'm winch, you might even find a story line thar-
abouts, then again when it comes to your skills, I doubt THAT very
much.... have you ever sold a story there Sam-little man-in-the-boat-
Bo?
Note that Healy doesn't respond to his friend, Holmes' question?
Steve-o-reno why are you hiding behind that alias, fucking pussy!
ROTFLMFAO!
So that folks like you will ask questions!
sitdown Samantha Brown and cross those damn hairy legs of yours --
besides the stench of tuna is nauseating..... say, troll do you know
who JFK was, you illiterate pole smoker....
I do indeed, stoner, I am however, at loss to know who you are talking
about. Who's "JKK" clever clogs?
Chandras' infections clear up yet?
With the incest Healy has with his daughter, her infections will never
clear up LOL
english illiterate, ENGLISH.... Why do all these perverted lone nut
females love me? They can't get enough of my charity.... something
tells me its got something to do with their (Samantha Tuna Brown, and
JCorbetts wife Justmethe tuna farm 1952) father's. OMG! You don't
think.....
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:67216b2c-0608-4652...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
english illiterate, ENGLISH....
Ah the delicious irony. Don't EVER change junkie. Promise? LOL
Why do all these perverted lone nut
females love me?
Pity?
They can't get enough of my charity.... something
tells me its got something to do with their (Samantha Tuna Brown, and
JCorbetts wife Justmethe tuna farm 1952) father's. OMG! You don't
think.....
I'm sure you'd love to know who your father was, wouldn't you Junkie? A
positive role model would have done you the world of good.