info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bugliosi Was Afraid To Address This!
357 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2021, 11:06:11 AM4/23/21
to
************************************************************
"James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively scientific
books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among
the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current
conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer
wrote me on January, 23, 2001;
'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What
would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and
cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of
Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none
of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -
convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'
Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming
History, page 974.
*************************************************************
Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.
For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission
defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
inhabit forums.
Although the details of each "Smoking Gun" must be appreciated by
reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
from:
*************************************************************
For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
(H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
his throat at the level of his tie;
(H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
display, causing his death; and,
(H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
Mannlicher-Carcano.
Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the
position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
explosive damage.
Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
the right temple.
Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more
than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
photographs.
Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of
the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National
Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
Smoking Gun #9: Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs
claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
created, or destroyed.
Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively
edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcast
reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
Smoking Gun #12: The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy
photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
to discredit eyewitness reports.
Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute
and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
Smoking Gun #14: Secret Service policies for the protection of the
President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
Smoking Gun #15: Neither the Mafia nor pro- or anti-Castro Cubans nor
the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
either incarcerated or already dead.
Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination
before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
than a patsy.
*************************************************************
Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
(rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
or QUOTE the response.
But you won't...
You can't.
"James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively scientific
books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among
the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current
conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer
wrote me on January, 23, 2001;
'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What
would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and
cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of
Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none
of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -
convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'
Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming
History, page 974.
*************************************************************
Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.
For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission
defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
inhabit forums.
Although the details of each "Smoking Gun" must be appreciated by
reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
from:
*************************************************************
For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
(H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
his throat at the level of his tie;
(H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
display, causing his death; and,
(H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
Mannlicher-Carcano.
Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the
position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
explosive damage.
Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
the right temple.
Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more
than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
photographs.
Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of
the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National
Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
Smoking Gun #9: Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs
claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
created, or destroyed.
Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively
edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcast
reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
Smoking Gun #12: The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy
photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
to discredit eyewitness reports.
Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute
and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
Smoking Gun #14: Secret Service policies for the protection of the
President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
Smoking Gun #15: Neither the Mafia nor pro- or anti-Castro Cubans nor
the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
either incarcerated or already dead.
Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination
before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
than a patsy.
*************************************************************
Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
(rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
or QUOTE the response.
But you won't...
You can't.
donald willis
Apr 23, 2021, 11:43:58 AM4/23/21
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2021, 12:03:47 PM4/23/21
to
more mass that smaller fragments. And since they have the same
initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further.
That's elementary science.
This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to
publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray
of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION
because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
Believers are TERRIFIED of this scientific proof that JFK was shot in
the temple... and *always* refuse to state where the larger bullet
fragments can be seen in the side X-ray.
donald willis
Apr 23, 2021, 12:59:37 PM4/23/21
to
dcw
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 1:36:27 PM4/23/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> ************************************************************
> "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively scientific
> books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among
> the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current
> conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer
> wrote me on January, 23, 2001;
>
> 'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What
> would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and
> cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of
> Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none
> of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -
> convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'
>
> Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming
> History, page 974.
> *************************************************************
>
> Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
> clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
> Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.
How does what you presented "make it clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns"? Do you think merely mentioning something makes a person "well acquainted" with an issue?
> ************************************************************
> "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively scientific
> books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among
> the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current
> conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer
> wrote me on January, 23, 2001;
>
> 'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What
> would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and
> cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of
> Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none
> of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -
> convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'
>
> Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming
> History, page 974.
> *************************************************************
>
> Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
> clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
> Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.
> For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission
> defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
>
> David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
> question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
> much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
> inhabit forums.
> Although the details of each "Smoking Gun" must be appreciated by
> reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
> from:
>
> *************************************************************
> For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
> therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
> let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
> what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
>
> (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
> transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
> his throat at the level of his tie;
>
> (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
> display, causing his death; and,
>
> (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
> using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
> Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
> Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
> bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
> Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the
> position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
> Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
> fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
> Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
> War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
> explosive damage.
> Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
> shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
> the right temple.
> Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more
> than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
> photographs.
> Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of
> the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
> Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National
> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
> Smoking Gun #9: Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs
> claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
> created, or destroyed.
> Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively
> edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
> Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcast
> reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
> Smoking Gun #12: The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy
> photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
> to discredit eyewitness reports.
> Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute
> and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
> Smoking Gun #14: Secret Service policies for the protection of the
> President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
> Smoking Gun #15: Neither the Mafia nor pro- or anti-Castro Cubans nor
> the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
> X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
> created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
> motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
> highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
> either incarcerated or already dead.
> Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination
> before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
> than a patsy.
> *************************************************************
>
> Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
> (rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
> or QUOTE the response.
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 1:43:52 PM4/23/21
to
https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
> This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to
> publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray
> of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION
> because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2021, 1:46:46 PM4/23/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:36:26 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> ************************************************************
>> "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively scientific
>> books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among
>> the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current
>> conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer
>> wrote me on January, 23, 2001;
>>
>> 'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What
>> would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and
>> cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of
>> Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none
>> of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -
>> convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'
>>
>> Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming
>> History, page 974.
>> *************************************************************
>>
>> Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
>> clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
>> Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.
>
> How does what you presented "make it clear that Bugliosi was well
> acquainted with the 16 smoking guns"? Do you think merely mentioning
> something makes a person "well acquainted" with an issue?
Logical fallacy.
Bugliosi *CLEARLY* knew of the 16 smoking guns, he simply refused to
address them.
>> For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission
>> defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
>>
>> David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
>> question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
>> much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
>> inhabit forums.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> Although the details of each "Smoking Gun" must be appreciated by
>> reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
>> from:
>>
>> *************************************************************
>> For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
>> therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
>> let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
>> what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
>>
>> (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
>> transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
>> his throat at the level of his tie;
>>
>> (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
>> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
>> display, causing his death; and,
>>
>> (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
>> using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
>> Mannlicher-Carcano.
>>
>> Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
>> bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
>
> This is claim, this isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the
>> position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
>
> This is a claim, this isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
>> fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
>> War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
>> explosive damage.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address. And
it's a claim that has been partially cited for just today.
>> Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
>> shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
>> the right temple.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
This is science. Science that you run from.
>> Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more
>> than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
>> photographs.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of
>> the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National
>> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #9: Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs
>> claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
>> created, or destroyed.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively
>> edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcast
>> reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #12: The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy
>> photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
>> to discredit eyewitness reports.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute
>> and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #14: Secret Service policies for the protection of the
>> President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #15: Neither the Mafia nor pro- or anti-Castro Cubans nor
>> the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
>> X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
>> created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
>> motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
>> highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
>> either incarcerated or already dead.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination
>> before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
>> than a patsy.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>> *************************************************************
>>
>> Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
>> (rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
>> or QUOTE the response.
>
> Bugliosi asked for evidence. I`m not seeing any presented here.
Lies do not an argument make.
wrote:
>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> ************************************************************
>> "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively scientific
>> books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among
>> the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current
>> conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer
>> wrote me on January, 23, 2001;
>>
>> 'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What
>> would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and
>> cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of
>> Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none
>> of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -
>> convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'
>>
>> Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming
>> History, page 974.
>> *************************************************************
>>
>> Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
>> clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
>> Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.
>
> How does what you presented "make it clear that Bugliosi was well
> acquainted with the 16 smoking guns"? Do you think merely mentioning
> something makes a person "well acquainted" with an issue?
Bugliosi *CLEARLY* knew of the 16 smoking guns, he simply refused to
address them.
>> For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission
>> defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
>>
>> David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
>> question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
>> much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
>> inhabit forums.
>> Although the details of each "Smoking Gun" must be appreciated by
>> reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
>> from:
>>
>> *************************************************************
>> For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
>> therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
>> let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
>> what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
>>
>> (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
>> transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
>> his throat at the level of his tie;
>>
>> (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
>> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
>> display, causing his death; and,
>>
>> (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
>> using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
>> Mannlicher-Carcano.
>>
>> Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
>> bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
>
> This is claim, this isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the
>> position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
>
> This is a claim, this isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
>> fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
>> War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
>> explosive damage.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
it's a claim that has been partially cited for just today.
>> Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
>> shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
>> the right temple.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more
>> than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
>> photographs.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of
>> the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National
>> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #9: Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs
>> claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
>> created, or destroyed.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively
>> edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcast
>> reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #12: The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy
>> photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
>> to discredit eyewitness reports.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute
>> and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #14: Secret Service policies for the protection of the
>> President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #15: Neither the Mafia nor pro- or anti-Castro Cubans nor
>> the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
>> X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
>> created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
>> motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
>> highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
>> either incarcerated or already dead.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination
>> before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
>> than a patsy.
>
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> *************************************************************
>>
>> Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
>> (rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
>> or QUOTE the response.
>
> Bugliosi asked for evidence. I`m not seeing any presented here.
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2021, 1:54:59 PM4/23/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
This isn't merely a logical fallacy, though of course it is.
It's an INTENTIONAL LIE on Chickenshit's part.
He's now claiming that JFK was shot with a shotgun.
All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
>> This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to
>> publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray
>> of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION
>> because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
>
> You often attempt to shift the burden. You have to show your ideas have merit.
Your fear of basic scientific facts proves this to the average person.
I feel no need to "prove" it to you.
>> Believers are TERRIFIED of this scientific proof that JFK was shot in
>> the temple... and *always* refuse to state where the larger bullet
>> fragments can be seen in the side X-ray.
Notice folks, that Chickenshit **AGAIN** refused to say...
It's an INTENTIONAL LIE on Chickenshit's part.
He's now claiming that JFK was shot with a shotgun.
All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
>> This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to
>> publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray
>> of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION
>> because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
>
> You often attempt to shift the burden. You have to show your ideas have merit.
I feel no need to "prove" it to you.
>> Believers are TERRIFIED of this scientific proof that JFK was shot in
>> the temple... and *always* refuse to state where the larger bullet
>> fragments can be seen in the side X-ray.
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 2:02:37 PM4/23/21
to
> >> For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission
> >> defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
> >>
> >> David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
> >> question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
> >> much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
> >> inhabit forums.
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >> Although the details of each "Smoking Gun" must be appreciated by
> >> reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
> >> from:
> >>
> >> *************************************************************
> >> For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
> >> therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
> >> let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
> >> what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
> >>
> >> (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
> >> transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
> >> his throat at the level of his tie;
> >>
> >> (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
> >> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
> >> display, causing his death; and,
> >>
> >> (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
> >> using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
> >> Mannlicher-Carcano.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
> >> bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
> >
> > This is claim, this isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the
> >> position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
> >
> > This is a claim, this isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
> >> fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
> >> War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
> >> explosive damage.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address. And
> it's a claim that has been partially cited for just today.
> >> Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
> >> shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
> >> the right temple.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> This is science. Science that you run from.
> >> Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more
> >> than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
> >> photographs.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of
> >> the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National
> >> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #9: Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs
> >> claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
> >> created, or destroyed.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively
> >> edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcast
> >> reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #12: The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy
> >> photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
> >> to discredit eyewitness reports.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute
> >> and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #14: Secret Service policies for the protection of the
> >> President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #15: Neither the Mafia nor pro- or anti-Castro Cubans nor
> >> the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
> >> X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
> >> created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
> >> motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
> >> highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
> >> either incarcerated or already dead.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination
> >> before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
> >> than a patsy.
> >
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
> >> *************************************************************
> >>
> >> Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
> >> (rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
> >> or QUOTE the response.
> >
> > Bugliosi asked for evidence. I`m not seeing any presented here.
> Lies do not an argument make.
healyd...@gmail.com
Apr 23, 2021, 2:04:19 PM4/23/21
to
healyd...@gmail.com
Apr 23, 2021, 2:13:37 PM4/23/21
to
Don't laugh, he's on his way, you old fossilized believers won't last 2 months without being harnessed up in evidence denying straitjackets...
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 2:13:58 PM4/23/21
to
If larger fragments go further than smaller fragments as you allege, then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape all not go the exact same distance?
A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this x-ray rather than just size and mass.
https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
> All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
>
>
> > https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>
>
> Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
> >> This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to
> >> publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray
> >> of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION
> >> because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
> >
> > You often attempt to shift the burden. You have to show your ideas have merit.
> Your fear of basic scientific facts proves this to the average person.
> I feel no need to "prove" it to you.
But it only shows you have nothing.
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 2:15:02 PM4/23/21
to
healyd...@gmail.com
Apr 23, 2021, 2:16:20 PM4/23/21
to
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 2:26:50 PM4/23/21
to
donald willis
Apr 23, 2021, 2:49:32 PM4/23/21
to
> > Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
> > fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
> > War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
> > explosive damage.
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
> > shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
> > the right temple.
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination
> > before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
> > than a patsy.
> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
dcw
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 2:57:54 PM4/23/21
to
> > > Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
> > > fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > > Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
> > > War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
> > > explosive damage.
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > > Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
> > > shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
> > > the right temple.
> > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> Oh, hell. At least look at the xrays! Or consult your photographic memory of them.
But it seems I do.
donald willis
Apr 23, 2021, 3:02:44 PM4/23/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:13:58 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
CUT > > >>>
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>>I find #5 especially intriguing. Can you elaborate?
> > >>
> > >> You only need know one scientific fact... larger bullet fragments have
> > >> more mass that smaller fragments. And since they have the same
> > >> initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further.
> > >>
> > >> That's elementary science.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. Shotgun pellets are all basically the same size, weight
> > > and shape, can you explain their dispersal shown in x-rays like the
> > > one below?
> > This isn't merely a logical fallacy, though of course it is.
> >
> > It's an INTENTIONAL LIE on Chickenshit's part.
> >
> > He's now claiming that JFK was shot with a shotgun.
> An idiot with no ability to reason might think that. Anyone else would see I was addressing what you represented to be "elementary science".
>
> If larger fragments go further than smaller fragments as you allege, then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape all not go the exact same distance?
That probing question summons up the image of shotgun pellets arrayed at the exact same distance from the shotgun, in a straight line, like Rockettes.
> > >>
> > >> You only need know one scientific fact... larger bullet fragments have
> > >> more mass that smaller fragments. And since they have the same
> > >> initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further.
> > >>
> > >> That's elementary science.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. Shotgun pellets are all basically the same size, weight
> > > and shape, can you explain their dispersal shown in x-rays like the
> > > one below?
> > This isn't merely a logical fallacy, though of course it is.
> >
> > It's an INTENTIONAL LIE on Chickenshit's part.
> >
> > He's now claiming that JFK was shot with a shotgun.
> An idiot with no ability to reason might think that. Anyone else would see I was addressing what you represented to be "elementary science".
>
> If larger fragments go further than smaller fragments as you allege, then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape all not go the exact same distance?
>
> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this x-ray rather than just size and mass.
donald willis
Apr 23, 2021, 3:05:39 PM4/23/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:27 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > ************************************************************
> > > > "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively CUT
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:27 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > ************************************************************
> > > > the right temple.
> > > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > Oh, hell. At least look at the xrays! Or consult your photographic memory of them.
> What will looking at the x-rays tell me?
Perhaps more than xrays of... shotgun pellets!
> > > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > Oh, hell. At least look at the xrays! Or consult your photographic memory of them.
> What will looking at the x-rays tell me?
healyd...@gmail.com
Apr 23, 2021, 3:06:05 PM4/23/21
to
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 3:27:50 PM4/23/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 3:02:44 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:13:58 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> CUT > > >>>
> > > >>>I find #5 especially intriguing. Can you elaborate?
> > > >>
> > > >> You only need know one scientific fact... larger bullet fragments have
> > > >> more mass that smaller fragments. And since they have the same
> > > >> initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's elementary science.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. Shotgun pellets are all basically the same size, weight
> > > > and shape, can you explain their dispersal shown in x-rays like the
> > > > one below?
> > > This isn't merely a logical fallacy, though of course it is.
> > >
> > > It's an INTENTIONAL LIE on Chickenshit's part.
> > >
> > > He's now claiming that JFK was shot with a shotgun.
> > An idiot with no ability to reason might think that. Anyone else would see I was addressing what you represented to be "elementary science".
> >
> > If larger fragments go further than smaller fragments as you allege, then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape all not go the exact same distance?
> That probing question summons up the image of shotgun pellets arrayed at the exact same distance from the shotgun, in a straight line, like Rockettes.
If Ben`s "elementary science" idea had any merit, they should. They reason they don`t is because Ben has no clue about the science of wound ballistics, nor can he produce any expert in this field that would attest to his nonsense.
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:13:58 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> CUT > > >>>
> > > >>>I find #5 especially intriguing. Can you elaborate?
> > > >>
> > > >> You only need know one scientific fact... larger bullet fragments have
> > > >> more mass that smaller fragments. And since they have the same
> > > >> initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's elementary science.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense. Shotgun pellets are all basically the same size, weight
> > > > and shape, can you explain their dispersal shown in x-rays like the
> > > > one below?
> > > This isn't merely a logical fallacy, though of course it is.
> > >
> > > It's an INTENTIONAL LIE on Chickenshit's part.
> > >
> > > He's now claiming that JFK was shot with a shotgun.
> > An idiot with no ability to reason might think that. Anyone else would see I was addressing what you represented to be "elementary science".
> >
> > If larger fragments go further than smaller fragments as you allege, then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape all not go the exact same distance?
> That probing question summons up the image of shotgun pellets arrayed at the exact same distance from the shotgun, in a straight line, like Rockettes.
> > A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this x-ray rather than just size and mass.
> Do bullet fragments behave exactly like shotgun pellets?
>The pellets must jockey with each other for position!
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 3:29:38 PM4/23/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 3:05:39 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:27 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > ************************************************************
> > > > > "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively CUT
> > > > > the right temple.
> > > > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > > Oh, hell. At least look at the xrays! Or consult your photographic memory of them.
> > What will looking at the x-rays tell me?
> Perhaps more than xrays of... shotgun pellets!
So you don`t know what looking at the x-rays will show me. Why did you bring it up?
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:27 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > ************************************************************
> > > > > "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively CUT
> > > > > the right temple.
> > > > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > > Oh, hell. At least look at the xrays! Or consult your photographic memory of them.
> > What will looking at the x-rays tell me?
> Perhaps more than xrays of... shotgun pellets!
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2021, 6:21:31 PM4/23/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Logical fallacy deleted.
> If larger fragments go further than smaller fragments as you allege
Sorry stupid, this is basic science.
See Newton's second law of motion.
> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
> all not go the exact same distance?
They would.
Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
than shotgun dispersal pattern.
> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>
>> All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
>>
>>
>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>>
>>
>> Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
>
> <snicker> You couldn`t discuss ideas to save your life.
You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to
do with distance traveled given the same velocity.
>>>> This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to
>>>> publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray
>>>> of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION
>>>> because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
>>>
>>> You often attempt to shift the burden. You have to show your ideas have merit.
>>
>> Your fear of basic scientific facts proves this to the average person.
>>
That fact tells the tale.
> If larger fragments go further than smaller fragments as you allege
See Newton's second law of motion.
> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
> all not go the exact same distance?
Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
than shotgun dispersal pattern.
> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>
>> All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
>>
>>
>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>>
>>
>> Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
>
> <snicker> You couldn`t discuss ideas to save your life.
do with distance traveled given the same velocity.
>>>> This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to
>>>> publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray
>>>> of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION
>>>> because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
>>>
>>> You often attempt to shift the burden. You have to show your ideas have merit.
>>
>> Your fear of basic scientific facts proves this to the average person.
>>
>> I feel no need to "prove" it to you.
>>
>>
>>>> Believers are TERRIFIED of this scientific proof that JFK was shot in
>>>> the temple... and *always* refuse to state where the larger bullet
>>>> fragments can be seen in the side X-ray.
>>
>> Notice folks, that Chickenshit **AGAIN** refused to say...
And despite it being pointed out, he *STILL* refuses to go on record.
>>>> the temple... and *always* refuse to state where the larger bullet
>>>> fragments can be seen in the side X-ray.
>>
>> Notice folks, that Chickenshit **AGAIN** refused to say...
That fact tells the tale.
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2021, 6:27:46 PM4/23/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:02:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Simply cite where he dealt with the 16 smoking guns.
You can't.
You lose!
>>>> For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission
>>>> defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
>>>>
>>>> David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
>>>> question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
>>>> much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
>>>> inhabit forums.
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
guns, exactly as I stated.
You can't.
You lose!
>>>> For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission
>>>> defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
>>>>
>>>> David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
>>>> question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
>>>> much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
>>>> inhabit forums.
>>
>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>
>>>> Although the details of each "Smoking Gun" must be appreciated by
>>>> reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
>>>> from:
>>>>
>>>> *************************************************************
>>>> For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
>>>> therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
>>>> let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
>>>> what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
>>>>
>>>> (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
>>>> transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
>>>> his throat at the level of his tie;
>>>>
>>>> (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
>>>> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
>>>> display, causing his death; and,
>>>>
>>>> (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
>>>> using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
>>>> Mannlicher-Carcano.
>>>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
>>>> bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
>>>
>>> This is claim, this isn`t evidence
>>
>>>> reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
>>>> from:
>>>>
>>>> *************************************************************
>>>> For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
>>>> therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
>>>> let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
>>>> what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
>>>>
>>>> (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
>>>> transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
>>>> his throat at the level of his tie;
>>>>
>>>> (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
>>>> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
>>>> display, causing his death; and,
>>>>
>>>> (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
>>>> using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
>>>> Mannlicher-Carcano.
>>>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
>>>> bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
>>>
>>> This is claim, this isn`t evidence
>>
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the
>>>> position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
>>>
>>> This is a claim, this isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
>>>
>>> This is a claim, this isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
>>>> fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
>>>> War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
>>>> explosive damage.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address. And
>> it's a claim that has been partially cited for just today.
>>
>>>> War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
>>>> explosive damage.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address. And
>> it's a claim that has been partially cited for just today.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
>>>> shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
>>>> the right temple.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> This is science. Science that you run from.
>>
>>>> shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
>>>> the right temple.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> This is science. Science that you run from.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more
>>>> than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
>>>> photographs.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>>
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
>>>> photographs.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>>
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of
>>>> the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National
>>>> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #9: Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs
>>>> claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
>>>> created, or destroyed.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>>
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
>>>> created, or destroyed.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>>
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively
>>>> edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcast
>>>> reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #12: The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy
>>>> photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
>>>> to discredit eyewitness reports.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
>>>> to discredit eyewitness reports.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute
>>>> and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #14: Secret Service policies for the protection of the
>>>> President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #15: Neither the Mafia nor pro- or anti-Castro Cubans nor
>>>> the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
>>>> X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
>>>> created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
>>>> motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
>>>> highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
>>>> either incarcerated or already dead.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
>>>> X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
>>>> created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
>>>> motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
>>>> highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
>>>> either incarcerated or already dead.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination
>>>> before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
>>>> than a patsy.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
>>>> than a patsy.
>>>
>>> This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
>> It's a "claim" that both you and Bugliosi refused to address.
>>
>>>> *************************************************************
>>>>
>>>> Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
>>>> (rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
>>>> or QUOTE the response.
>>>
>>> Bugliosi asked for evidence. I`m not seeing any presented here.
>> Lies do not an argument make.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
>>>> (rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
>>>> or QUOTE the response.
>>>
>>> Bugliosi asked for evidence. I`m not seeing any presented here.
>> Lies do not an argument make.
>>
>>>> But you won't...
>>>>
>>>> You can't.
Looks like dufus admits that Bugliosi didn't address the 16 smoking
>>>>
>>>> You can't.
guns, exactly as I stated.
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 6:43:24 PM4/23/21
to
> > If larger fragments go further than smaller fragments as you allege
> Sorry stupid, this is basic science.
>
> See Newton's second law of motion.
> > then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
> > all not go the exact same distance?
> They would.
> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
> > A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
> > things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
> > x-ray rather than just size and mass.
> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
> > https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
> >
> >> All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
> >>
> >>
> >>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
> >>
> >>
> >> Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
> >
> > <snicker> You couldn`t discuss ideas to save your life.
> You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to
> do with distance traveled given the same velocity.
> >>>> This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to
> >>>> publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray
> >>>> of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION
> >>>> because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
> >>>
> >>> You often attempt to shift the burden. You have to show your ideas have merit.
> >>
> >> Your fear of basic scientific facts proves this to the average person.
> >>
> >> I feel no need to "prove" it to you.
> >>
> >>>> Believers are TERRIFIED of this scientific proof that JFK was shot in
> >>>> the temple... and *always* refuse to state where the larger bullet
> >>>> fragments can be seen in the side X-ray.
> >>
> >> Notice folks, that Chickenshit **AGAIN** refused to say...
> And despite it being pointed out, he *STILL* refuses to go on record.
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 6:47:08 PM4/23/21
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2021, 7:03:55 PM4/23/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
I already know you're too scientifically challenged to teach.
>>> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
>>> all not go the exact same distance?
>> They would.
>
> Why didn`t they?
Prove they didn't.
Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
>> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
>> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
>
> Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
Are you stupid enough to tell us you can judge front to back distance
from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
>>> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
>>
>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
>
> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
This is a question which proves you a moron.
Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>>>
>>>> All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
>>>
>>> <snicker> You couldn`t discuss ideas to save your life.
>> You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to
>> do with distance traveled given the same velocity.
>
> I think you haven`t supported your idea one iota.
Can't teach basic science to someone who doesn't want to learn.
>>>>>> This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to
>>>>>> publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray
>>>>>> of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION
>>>>>> because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
>>>>>
>>>>> You often attempt to shift the burden. You have to show your ideas have merit.
>>>>
>>>> Your fear of basic scientific facts proves this to the average person.
>>>>
>>>> I feel no need to "prove" it to you.
>>>>
>>>>>> Believers are TERRIFIED of this scientific proof that JFK was shot in
>>>>>> the temple... and *always* refuse to state where the larger bullet
>>>>>> fragments can be seen in the side X-ray.
>>>>
>>>> Notice folks, that Chickenshit **AGAIN** refused to say...
>> And despite it being pointed out, he *STILL* refuses to go on record.
>>
>>> If larger fragments go further than smaller fragments as you allege
>> Sorry stupid, this is basic science.
>>
>> See Newton's second law of motion.
>
> Exactly what proves your idea wrong.
Sorry stupid, that statement was for interested readers.
>> Sorry stupid, this is basic science.
>>
>> See Newton's second law of motion.
>
> Exactly what proves your idea wrong.
I already know you're too scientifically challenged to teach.
>>> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
>>> all not go the exact same distance?
>> They would.
>
> Why didn`t they?
Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
>> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
>> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
>
> Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
>>> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
>>
>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
>
> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>>>
>>>> All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
>>>
>>> <snicker> You couldn`t discuss ideas to save your life.
>> You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to
>> do with distance traveled given the same velocity.
>
> I think you haven`t supported your idea one iota.
>>>>>> This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to
>>>>>> publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray
>>>>>> of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION
>>>>>> because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
>>>>>
>>>>> You often attempt to shift the burden. You have to show your ideas have merit.
>>>>
>>>> Your fear of basic scientific facts proves this to the average person.
>>>>
>>>> I feel no need to "prove" it to you.
>>>>
>>>>>> Believers are TERRIFIED of this scientific proof that JFK was shot in
>>>>>> the temple... and *always* refuse to state where the larger bullet
>>>>>> fragments can be seen in the side X-ray.
>>>>
>>>> Notice folks, that Chickenshit **AGAIN** refused to say...
>> And despite it being pointed out, he *STILL* refuses to go on record.
>>
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2021, 7:05:14 PM4/23/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Bugliosi provably ran... just as all cowards do.
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 7:26:13 PM4/23/21
to
> >>> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
> >>> all not go the exact same distance?
> >> They would.
> >
> > Why didn`t they?
> Prove they didn't.
> Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
> using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
> >> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
> >> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
> >
> > Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
> Are you stupid enough to tell us you can judge front to back distance
> from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
But it seems to me you are undercutting your ideas about the distances the big and little fragments in Kennedy skull went when you contest this can be done.
> >>> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
> >>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
> >>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
> >>
> >> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
> >> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
> >
> > Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
> This is a question which proves you a moron.
You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass. Does this mean that objects that are same mass will travel through obstacles at the same distances?
The big problem with your idea is that it assumes equal resistance to all fragments.
> Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
> >>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
> >>>
> >>>> All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
> >>>
> >>> <snicker> You couldn`t discuss ideas to save your life.
> >> You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to
> >> do with distance traveled given the same velocity.
> >
> > I think you haven`t supported your idea one iota.
> Can't teach basic science to someone who doesn't want to learn.
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 7:28:26 PM4/23/21
to
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2021, 7:43:18 PM4/23/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:26:12 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
You're the fool. Not I.
>>>>> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
>>>>> all not go the exact same distance?
>>>> They would.
>>>
>>> Why didn`t they?
>> Prove they didn't.
>
> Are you saying they did?
Are you saying you can't prove what you claim?
>> Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
>> using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
>
> Not the point of contention.
You're claiming distance traveled...
Why can't you prove it?
>>>> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
>>>> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
>>>
>>> Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
>> Are you stupid enough to tell us you can judge front to back distance
>> from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
>
> Don`t need to. I only need the dispersal.
Then you really are a moron.
>>>>> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
>>>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
>>>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
>>>>
>>>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
>>>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
>>>
>>> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
>> This is a question which proves you a moron.
>
> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
>
> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass.
You contend that Newton's Second law is nonsense.
>> Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
>
> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger
> fragments travel further than smaller ones.
Who am I proving it to?
>>>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>> All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snicker> You couldn`t discuss ideas to save your life.
>>>> You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to
>>>> do with distance traveled given the same velocity.
>>>
>>> I think you haven`t supported your idea one iota.
>> Can't teach basic science to someone who doesn't want to learn.
>>
>>>>> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
>>>>> all not go the exact same distance?
>>>> They would.
>>>
>>> Why didn`t they?
>> Prove they didn't.
>
> Are you saying they did?
>> Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
>> using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
>
> Not the point of contention.
Why can't you prove it?
>>>> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
>>>> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
>>>
>>> Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
>> Are you stupid enough to tell us you can judge front to back distance
>> from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
>
> Don`t need to. I only need the dispersal.
>>>>> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
>>>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
>>>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
>>>>
>>>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
>>>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
>>>
>>> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
>> This is a question which proves you a moron.
>
> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
>
> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass.
>> Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
>
> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger
> fragments travel further than smaller ones.
>>>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>>> All he has to do now is put a shotgun into Oswald's hands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://media.springernature.com/lw785/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-642-38818-7_10/MediaObjects/271926_1_En_10_Fig13_HTML.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only a moron would try to make such a false comparison.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snicker> You couldn`t discuss ideas to save your life.
>>>> You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to
>>>> do with distance traveled given the same velocity.
>>>
>>> I think you haven`t supported your idea one iota.
>> Can't teach basic science to someone who doesn't want to learn.
>>
Ben Holmes
Apr 23, 2021, 7:44:20 PM4/23/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:28:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
You should be able to support your lie.
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 8:20:20 PM4/23/21
to
> >>>>> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
> >>>>> all not go the exact same distance?
> >>>> They would.
> >>>
> >>> Why didn`t they?
> >> Prove they didn't.
> >
> > Are you saying they did?
> Are you saying you can't prove what you claim?
> >> Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
> >> using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
> >
> > Not the point of contention.
> You're claiming distance traveled...
> Why can't you prove it?
> >>>> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
> >>>> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
> >>>
> >>> Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
> >> Are you stupid enough to tell us you can judge front to back distance
> >> from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
> >
> > Don`t need to. I only need the dispersal.
> Then you really are a moron.
And it seems that you removed this, accidently, I`m sure, and not because you are a yellow coward who removes the points he has no answers to. Let me put it back in...
"But it seems to me you are undercutting your ideas about the distances the big and little fragments in Kennedy skull went when you contest this can be done."
> >>>>> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
> >>>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
> >>>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
> >>>>
> >>>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
> >>>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
> >>>
> >>> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
> >> This is a question which proves you a moron.
> >
> > This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
> >
> > You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass.
> You contend that Newton's Second law is nonsense.
You have to show how this decides the point in your favor.
> >>>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
> >>>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
> >>>>
> >>>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
> >>>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
> >>>
> >>> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
> >> This is a question which proves you a moron.
> >
> > This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
> >
> > You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass.
> You contend that Newton's Second law is nonsense.
> >> Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
> >
> > Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger
> > fragments travel further than smaller ones.
> Who am I proving it to?
Bud
Apr 23, 2021, 8:21:38 PM4/23/21
to
David Von Pein
Apr 23, 2021, 9:17:39 PM4/23/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Bugliosi *CLEARLY* knew of the 16 smoking guns, he simply refused to address them.
I see that Ben Holmes is continuing to spread his special brand of misrepresentation....year after year.
> Bugliosi *CLEARLY* knew of the 16 smoking guns, he simply refused to address them.
I addressed Holmes' BS regarding Vincent Bugliosi and the so-called "16 Smoking Guns" way back in 2007. After fourteen years, Ben is still pretending my webpage below doesn't exist or was even written. Nothing ever changes with the conspiracy fantasists, does it? ....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/16-smoking-guns-or-16-misfires.html
donald willis
Apr 23, 2021, 11:53:11 PM4/23/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 3:05:39 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:27 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > ************************************************************
> > > > > > "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively CUT
> > > > > > the right temple.
> > > > > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > > > Oh, hell. At least look at the xrays! Or consult your photographic memory of them.
> > > What will looking at the x-rays tell me?
> > Perhaps more than xrays of... shotgun pellets!
> So you don`t know what looking at the x-rays will show me. Why did you bring it up?
I think that you would find it very interesting....
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 3:05:39 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:27 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > ************************************************************
> > > > > > "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively CUT
> > > > > > the right temple.
> > > > > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > > > Oh, hell. At least look at the xrays! Or consult your photographic memory of them.
> > > What will looking at the x-rays tell me?
> > Perhaps more than xrays of... shotgun pellets!
> So you don`t know what looking at the x-rays will show me. Why did you bring it up?
donald willis
Apr 24, 2021, 12:05:24 AM4/24/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:26:13 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:03:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 6:21:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 12:03:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: CUT
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:03:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 6:21:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
> > >
> > > Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
> > This is a question which proves you a moron.
> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
>
> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass. Does this mean that objects that are same mass will travel through obstacles at the same distances?
>
> The big problem with your idea is that it assumes equal resistance to all fragments.
> > Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger fragments travel further than smaller ones.
Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite-- acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But just the one word "mass" seems vague....
> > >
> > > Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
> > This is a question which proves you a moron.
> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
>
> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass. Does this mean that objects that are same mass will travel through obstacles at the same distances?
>
> The big problem with your idea is that it assumes equal resistance to all fragments.
> > Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger fragments travel further than smaller ones.
Bud
Apr 24, 2021, 7:31:03 AM4/24/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:53:11 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 3:05:39 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:27 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > ************************************************************
> > > > > > > "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively CUT
> > > > > > > the right temple.
> > > > > > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > > > > Oh, hell. At least look at the xrays! Or consult your photographic memory of them.
> > > > What will looking at the x-rays tell me?
> > > Perhaps more than xrays of... shotgun pellets!
> > So you don`t know what looking at the x-rays will show me. Why did you bring it up?
> I think that you would find it very interesting....
I`ve looked at them. They don`t tell me a whole lot other than the destructive force of bullets. I do remember seeing one person who contended that the cracks radiated away from the rear, showing the shot entered the back of the skull.
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 3:05:39 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 10:36:27 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > ************************************************************
> > > > > > > "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively CUT
> > > > > > > the right temple.
> > > > > > This is a claim. This isn`t evidence.
> > > > > Oh, hell. At least look at the xrays! Or consult your photographic memory of them.
> > > > What will looking at the x-rays tell me?
> > > Perhaps more than xrays of... shotgun pellets!
> > So you don`t know what looking at the x-rays will show me. Why did you bring it up?
> I think that you would find it very interesting....
Bud
Apr 24, 2021, 7:36:39 AM4/24/21
to
On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:05:24 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:26:13 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:03:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 6:21:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 12:03:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: CUT
> > > >> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
> > > >
> > > > Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
> > > This is a question which proves you a moron.
> > This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
> >
> > You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass. Does this mean that objects that are same mass will travel through obstacles at the same distances?
> >
> > The big problem with your idea is that it assumes equal resistance to all fragments.
> > > Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
> > Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger fragments travel further than smaller ones.
> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite-- acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But just the one word "mass" seems vague....
Perhaps I got Ben`s idea backwards. Doesn`t matter to me, in either case if such a rule existed he would be able to produce a forensic source showing this was so, and it would be taught to people that the size of fragments show which direction a shot came from. I assure you, this idea of his exists only in his imagination. It is what happens when you are desperate to believe something you really can`t support properly, you have to start making things up.
> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:26:13 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:03:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 6:21:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > >>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 12:03:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: CUT
> > > >> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
> > > >
> > > > Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
> > > This is a question which proves you a moron.
> > This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
> >
> > You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass. Does this mean that objects that are same mass will travel through obstacles at the same distances?
> >
> > The big problem with your idea is that it assumes equal resistance to all fragments.
> > > Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
> > Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger fragments travel further than smaller ones.
> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite-- acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But just the one word "mass" seems vague....
John Corbett
Apr 24, 2021, 8:14:19 AM4/24/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:06:11 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> ************************************************************
> ************************************************************
> "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively scientific
> books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among
> the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current
> conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer
> wrote me on January, 23, 2001;
>
> 'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What
> would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and
> cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of
> Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none
> of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -
> convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'
>
> Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming
> History, page 974.
> *************************************************************
>
> Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
> clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
> Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.
>
> books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among
> the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current
> conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer
> wrote me on January, 23, 2001;
>
> 'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What
> would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and
> cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of
> Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none
> of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -
> convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'
>
> Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming
> History, page 974.
> *************************************************************
>
> Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
> clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
> Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.
>
> For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission
> defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
>
> David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
> question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
> much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
> inhabit forums.
>
> defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
>
> David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
> question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
> much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
> inhabit forums.
>
> Although the details of each "Smoking Gun" must be appreciated by
> reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
> from:
>
> *************************************************************
> For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
> therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
> let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
> what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
>
> (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
> transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
> his throat at the level of his tie;
>
> (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
> display, causing his death; and,
>
> (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
> using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
> Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
> Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
> bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
>
> reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
> from:
>
> *************************************************************
> For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
> therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
> let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
> what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
>
> (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
> transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
> his throat at the level of his tie;
>
> (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
> display, causing his death; and,
>
> (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
> using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
> Mannlicher-Carcano.
>
> Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
> bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
>
> Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the
> position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
>
> position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
>
> Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
> fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
>
> fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
>
> Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
> War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
> explosive damage.
>
> War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
> explosive damage.
>
> Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
> shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
> the right temple.
>
> shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
> the right temple.
>
> Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more
> than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
> photographs.
>
> than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
> photographs.
>
> Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of
> the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
>
> the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
>
> Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National
> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
>
> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
>
> Smoking Gun #9: Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs
> claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
> created, or destroyed.
>
> claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
> created, or destroyed.
>
> Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively
> edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
>
> edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
>
> Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcast
> reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
>
> reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
>
> Smoking Gun #12: The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy
> photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
> to discredit eyewitness reports.
>
> photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
> to discredit eyewitness reports.
>
> Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute
> and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
>
> and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
>
> Smoking Gun #14: Secret Service policies for the protection of the
> President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
>
> President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
>
> Smoking Gun #15: Neither the Mafia nor pro- or anti-Castro Cubans nor
> the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
> X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
> created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
> motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
> highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
> either incarcerated or already dead.
>
> the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
> X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
> created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
> motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
> highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
> either incarcerated or already dead.
>
> Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination
> before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
> than a patsy.
> before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
> than a patsy.
> *************************************************************
>
> Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
> (rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
> or QUOTE the response.
>
>
> Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
> (rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
> or QUOTE the response.
>
> But you won't...
>
> You can't.
What Holmes claims are smoking guns are nothing more than his steaming piles of crap.
>
> You can't.
Ben Holmes
Apr 26, 2021, 9:16:06 AM4/26/21
to
censored are the ones who demonstrate their inability to control
themselves.
John "Monkey Man" Corbett couldn't address a single item, so he
resorted to logical fallacies...
Ben Holmes
Apr 26, 2021, 9:16:10 AM4/26/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Bugliosi *CLEARLY* knew of the 16 smoking guns, he simply refused to address them.
>
> I see that Ben Holmes is continuing to spread his special brand of
> misrepresentation....year after year.
And it's never answered, year after year.
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Bugliosi *CLEARLY* knew of the 16 smoking guns, he simply refused to address them.
>
> I see that Ben Holmes is continuing to spread his special brand of
> misrepresentation....year after year.
> I addressed Holmes' BS regarding Vincent Bugliosi and the so-called
> "16 Smoking Guns" way back in 2007.
Posting a webpage where no refutations can appear is hardly the
actions of someone convinced that they've refuted me.
Indeed, you DELETED THIS ENTIRE POST in order to respond.
You can't respond, point by point, with citations to Bugliosi where he
specifically addressed these points.
> After fourteen years, Ben is still pretending my webpage below doesn't
> exist or was even written. Nothing ever changes with the conspiracy
> fantasists, does it? ....
>
>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/16-smoking-guns-or-16-misfires.html
responses can be made.
You are clearly afraid of what I would do to your nonsense, and rely
on the fact that most people aren't knowledgeable enough to catch your
errors and lies.
Ben Holmes
Apr 26, 2021, 9:16:16 AM4/26/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:05:23 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
<dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:26:13 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:03:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 6:21:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > >>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> > >>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 12:03:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: CUT
>> > >> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
>> > >
>> > > Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
>> > This is a question which proves you a moron.
>> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
>>
>> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass. Does this mean that objects that are same mass will travel through obstacles at the same distances?
>>
>> The big problem with your idea is that it assumes equal resistance to all fragments.
>> > Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
>> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger fragments travel further than smaller ones.
>
> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite-- acceleration
> "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But just the one
> word "mass" seems vague....
I see you failed math too. I'll give you the same example I gave
<dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 4:26:13 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:03:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:43:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 6:21:31 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:13:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:54:59 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > >>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:43:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> > >>>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>>On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 12:03:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote: CUT
>> > >> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
>> > >
>> > > Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
>> > This is a question which proves you a moron.
>> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
>>
>> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass. Does this mean that objects that are same mass will travel through obstacles at the same distances?
>>
>> The big problem with your idea is that it assumes equal resistance to all fragments.
>> > Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
>> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger fragments travel further than smaller ones.
>
> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite-- acceleration
> "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But just the one
> word "mass" seems vague....
Dufus.
If I throw a basketball at you, as HARD as I can... would you be in
any particular fear for your life? Indeed, is it likely that I could
do you any damage - no matter the distance?
If, on the other hand, a car, engine turned off, is travelling at the
SAME SPEED AS THROWN BASKETBALL straight at you...
If acceleration is identical - and it is in my above example, as it is
for bullet fragments - given two different masses, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THE FORCE TO BE IDENTICAL!
This is basic science. Dufus can't understand it, and you
misunderstand it.
Given the same velocity - HEAVIER OBJECTS HAVE MORE FORCE THAN LIGHTER
OBJECTS.
It's right in the formula - F=MA ... if M is larger, and A stays the
same, the F absolutely MUST be larger.
Chuck Schuyler
Apr 26, 2021, 9:45:17 AM4/26/21
to
On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 8:16:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Bugliosi *CLEARLY* knew of the 16 smoking guns, he simply refused to address them.
> >
> > I see that Ben Holmes is continuing to spread his special brand of
> > misrepresentation....year after year.
> And it's never answered, year after year.
Never answered to your satisfaction. Always remember to add that.
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> Bugliosi *CLEARLY* knew of the 16 smoking guns, he simply refused to address them.
> >
> > I see that Ben Holmes is continuing to spread his special brand of
> > misrepresentation....year after year.
> And it's never answered, year after year.
> > I addressed Holmes' BS regarding Vincent Bugliosi and the so-called
> > "16 Smoking Guns" way back in 2007.
> Nope.
>
> Posting a webpage where no refutations can appear is hardly the
> actions of someone convinced that they've refuted me.
>
> Indeed, you DELETED THIS ENTIRE POST in order to respond.
>
> You can't respond, point by point, with citations to Bugliosi where he
> specifically addressed these points.
> > After fourteen years, Ben is still pretending my webpage below doesn't
> > exist or was even written. Nothing ever changes with the conspiracy
> > fantasists, does it? ....
> >
> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/16-smoking-guns-or-16-misfires.html
> If you had faith in your website posting, you'd put it here, where
> responses can be made.
>
> You are clearly afraid of what I would do to your nonsense, and rely
> on the fact that most people aren't knowledgeable enough to catch your
> errors and lies.
Ben Holmes
Apr 26, 2021, 9:58:05 AM4/26/21
to
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 06:45:16 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 8:16:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> Bugliosi *CLEARLY* knew of the 16 smoking guns, he simply refused to address them.
>> >
>> > I see that Ben Holmes is continuing to spread his special brand of
>> > misrepresentation....year after year.
>
>
>> And it's never answered, year after year.
>
>Never answered to your satisfaction. Always remember to add that.
Never answered AT ALL. Always remember to add that.
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 8:16:10 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:17:37 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 1:46:46 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> Bugliosi *CLEARLY* knew of the 16 smoking guns, he simply refused to address them.
>> >
>> > I see that Ben Holmes is continuing to spread his special brand of
>> > misrepresentation....year after year.
>
>
>> And it's never answered, year after year.
>
>Never answered to your satisfaction. Always remember to add that.
I've offered many times to post to a polling site, to get another
outside opinion, and cowards like you refuse to accept the judgment of
anyone else.
Take, for example, today's example of a proven WC lie - all it would
take is a quote from the citations given, that reference the clip.
NO OTHER ANSWER WOULD ANSWER THE POINT.
Or, an honest man can say - Yes, these citations are wrong, perhaps
someone just made a mistake... but believers aren't honest enough to
even go this far.
And that fact tells the tale.
>> > I addressed Holmes' BS regarding Vincent Bugliosi and the so-called
>> > "16 Smoking Guns" way back in 2007.
>> Nope.
>>
>> Posting a webpage where no refutations can appear is hardly the
>> actions of someone convinced that they've refuted me.
>>
>> Indeed, you DELETED THIS ENTIRE POST in order to respond.
>>
>> You can't respond, point by point, with citations to Bugliosi where he
>> specifically addressed these points.
>> > After fourteen years, Ben is still pretending my webpage below doesn't
>> > exist or was even written. Nothing ever changes with the conspiracy
>> > fantasists, does it? ....
>> >
>> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/16-smoking-guns-or-16-misfires.html
>> If you had faith in your website posting, you'd put it here, where
>> responses can be made.
>>
>> You are clearly afraid of what I would do to your nonsense, and rely
>> on the fact that most people aren't knowledgeable enough to catch your
>> errors and lies.
>
> Here's Ben again and his non-stop arguing to argue, always avoiding
> the elephant in the room: we're at a JFK conspiracy website, and its
> major participant--Ben Holmes--refuses to discuss his theory about
> what happened that day.
The Challenge - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/x4n7Di-GBd8/_WbEfALeAAAJ
The Challenge - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/WVBtmUQkx6c/9ZdyxAPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 1
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/y0hdkKgWvtI/3uukYgXeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/jSfe1BrGfJc/SOXAOQbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 2a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kGfZPR4C-Lw/AlnRq1HeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/IShoUFao5OU/VuYGWFTeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 3a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/JFuasrnWRqA/l1vih03eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 4
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/LRMeWBFE1ug/bfjGTAbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/S1ddVKc3Jj4/IESJbFPeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 6
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/b5ODl3yA4uk/g77N-UreAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 7
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/rmZjz92YC8/P-9Mn07eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 8
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c6e29olW6XA/Os29-FveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 9
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ixNqGISHbrU/gd06wVHeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 10
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/3Di6kuseb2Q/aHbAQmLeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/sYEyPH0A_eI/IH-UZgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/aGduj6uaGUk/3eDp513eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 11b
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8rAmKZBOCiY/yCELq27eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/OnrH5R6ryHE/stjdfgbeAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 12a
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/J0A8N12PPHU/CcxpiU7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 13
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/8hD-q0gTa_c/Co3ZJE7eAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 14
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/lsaXwhPRbEg/hZ7ZmEveAAAJ
My Scenario - Part 15
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UA86YdJXEgY/JhG8o0reAAAJ
My Scenario - The Conclusion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/UWfco_sGxYw/yApSPFXeAAAJ
The fact that *YOU* can't post *YOUR* scenario, as I so easily do, and
the fact that you keep lying about it, shows lurkers all they need to
know.
(As well as the fact that not *ONE* of those posts was ever responded
to...)
Chuck Schuyler
Apr 26, 2021, 10:28:04 AM4/26/21
to
You're just going over the same old ground. It's all been answered. All of it.
Why not simply post a few paragraphs detailing what you think happened? We'll then ask you questions and see how well you can support your theory.
Too tough?
Ben Holmes
Apr 26, 2021, 10:35:21 AM4/26/21
to
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:28:02 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
As usual, Chuckles runs to the end, ignores all the points raised, and
tries to post his own thoughts.
I always delete without response such nonsense... Chuckles needs to be
encouraged to debate properly.
tries to post his own thoughts.
I always delete without response such nonsense... Chuckles needs to be
encouraged to debate properly.
Chuck Schuyler
Apr 26, 2021, 10:41:49 AM4/26/21
to
You will never put forward your JFK assassination theory.
Ben Holmes
Apr 26, 2021, 10:46:46 AM4/26/21
to
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 07:41:48 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
Once again, Chuckles demonstrates his fear of debate.
Running to the end of the post isn't the way to do it.
Deleted, as always.
Running to the end of the post isn't the way to do it.
Deleted, as always.
Bud
Apr 26, 2021, 6:31:14 PM4/26/21
to
> This is basic science. Dufus can't understand it, and you
> misunderstand it.
>
> Given the same velocity - HEAVIER OBJECTS HAVE MORE FORCE THAN LIGHTER
> OBJECTS.
https://youtu.be/fbvEOdfSnEs
> It's right in the formula - F=MA ... if M is larger, and A stays the
> same, the F absolutely MUST be larger.
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2021, 7:43:10 PM5/19/21
to
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 15:31:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Which I can safely do - since the bullet fragments all encountered the
same amount of resistance.
You're a science denier, and you **CANNOT** cite for your claim that a
more massive object at the same velocity as a lighter object will have
the same force.
>> This is basic science. Dufus can't understand it, and you
>> misunderstand it.
>>
>> Given the same velocity - HEAVIER OBJECTS HAVE MORE FORCE THAN LIGHTER
>> OBJECTS.
>
> Small objects move faster than larger ones with the same kinetic energy.
Logical fallacy.
Velocity is the same.
Now you're trying to claim that when a bullet breaks apart, the
smaller fragments start to move faster.
You're a moron.
>> It's right in the formula - F=MA ... if M is larger, and A stays the
>> same, the F absolutely MUST be larger.
>
> This, of course, is all noise.
No ... it's basic math.
same amount of resistance.
You're a science denier, and you **CANNOT** cite for your claim that a
more massive object at the same velocity as a lighter object will have
the same force.
>> This is basic science. Dufus can't understand it, and you
>> misunderstand it.
>>
>> Given the same velocity - HEAVIER OBJECTS HAVE MORE FORCE THAN LIGHTER
>> OBJECTS.
>
> Small objects move faster than larger ones with the same kinetic energy.
Velocity is the same.
Now you're trying to claim that when a bullet breaks apart, the
smaller fragments start to move faster.
You're a moron.
>> It's right in the formula - F=MA ... if M is larger, and A stays the
>> same, the F absolutely MUST be larger.
>
> This, of course, is all noise.
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2021, 7:43:10 PM5/19/21
to
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 04:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
>On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:05:24 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
...
Simple science, simple math.
It's amusing how many believers don't understand such simple concepts.
> Doesn`t matter to me, in either case if such a rule existed he would
> be able to produce a forensic source showing this was so,
Don't need it. Forensics doesn't contradict basic science.
> and it would be taught to people that the size of fragments show which
> direction a shot came from.
You're clearly too stupid to correctly characterize what I stated.
> I assure you, this idea of his exists only in his imagination.
Here it is being taught in 6th grade:
https://www.ixl.com/science/grade-6/how-does-mass-affect-force-and-acceleration
> It is what happens when you are desperate to believe something you
> really can`t support properly, you have to start making things up.
I've proven you a moron, you just don't want to understand.
I've given all the citations I need to give to prove that Newton's
second law is quite ordinary and basic science.
Science that is instinctively understood by kids.
Heavier objects carry more force than lighter objects at a given
velocity.
Basic.
wrote:
>On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:05:24 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite--
>> acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But
>> just the one word "mass" seems vague....
>
> Perhaps I got Ben`s idea backwards.
F=MA can also be written as A=F/M or as M=F/A.
>> acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But
>> just the one word "mass" seems vague....
>
> Perhaps I got Ben`s idea backwards.
Simple science, simple math.
It's amusing how many believers don't understand such simple concepts.
> Doesn`t matter to me, in either case if such a rule existed he would
> be able to produce a forensic source showing this was so,
> and it would be taught to people that the size of fragments show which
> direction a shot came from.
> I assure you, this idea of his exists only in his imagination.
https://www.ixl.com/science/grade-6/how-does-mass-affect-force-and-acceleration
> It is what happens when you are desperate to believe something you
> really can`t support properly, you have to start making things up.
I've given all the citations I need to give to prove that Newton's
second law is quite ordinary and basic science.
Science that is instinctively understood by kids.
Heavier objects carry more force than lighter objects at a given
velocity.
Basic.
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2021, 7:43:11 PM5/19/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 17:20:19 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
No need to show *you*... when two equal velocity objects are
traveling, the one with larger mass has more total energy.
The fact that you don't understand this is amusing.
Perhaps you don't *want* to understand it, because you've looked at
the X-rays, and realized that the larger fragments are to the rear of
JFK's head.
>>>>>>> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
>>>>>>> all not go the exact same distance?
>>>>>> They would.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why didn`t they?
>>>> Prove they didn't.
>>>
>>> Are you saying they did?
>>
>> Are you saying you can't prove what you claim?
>
> Are you saying..
I'm saying you made a claim you can't support.
What part of that didn't you understand?
>>>> Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
>>>> using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
>>>
>>> Not the point of contention.
>> You're claiming distance traveled...
>
> Nope. The distance is irrelevant.
And yet, this is PRECISELY the topic I'm speaking about.
So you're now admitting that your citation had nothing to do with the
topic.
>> Why can't you prove it?
>>>>>> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
>>>>>> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
>>>> Are you stupid enough to tell us you can judge front to back distance
>>>> from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
>>>
>>> Don`t need to. I only need the dispersal.
>> Then you really are a moron.
>>
>>>> Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
>>>
>>> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger
>>> fragments travel further than smaller ones.
>>
>> Who am I proving it to?
>
> Nobody, apparently.
Most people aren't so stupid.
Indeed, most people instinctively know that a heavier object will be
more difficult to stop than a lighter object, given the same velocity.
Even you... you would hardly be terrified at a basketball thrown at
you, but if you were standing in front of a car moving the same speed,
this forum would have one less fool in it.
You know this, yet you blatanly lie about it.
traveling, the one with larger mass has more total energy.
The fact that you don't understand this is amusing.
Perhaps you don't *want* to understand it, because you've looked at
the X-rays, and realized that the larger fragments are to the rear of
JFK's head.
>>>>>>> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
>>>>>>> all not go the exact same distance?
>>>>>> They would.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why didn`t they?
>>>> Prove they didn't.
>>>
>>> Are you saying they did?
>>
>> Are you saying you can't prove what you claim?
>
I'm saying you made a claim you can't support.
What part of that didn't you understand?
>>>> Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
>>>> using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
>>>
>>> Not the point of contention.
>> You're claiming distance traveled...
>
> Nope. The distance is irrelevant.
So you're now admitting that your citation had nothing to do with the
topic.
>> Why can't you prove it?
>>>>>> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
>>>>>> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
>>>> Are you stupid enough to tell us you can judge front to back distance
>>>> from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
>>>
>>> Don`t need to. I only need the dispersal.
>> Then you really are a moron.
>>
>>>>>>> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
>>>>>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
>>>>>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
>>>>>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
>>>> This is a question which proves you a moron.
>>>
>>> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
>>>
>>> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass.
>> You contend that Newton's Second law is nonsense.
>
> You have to show how this decides the point in your favor.
You've SPECIFICALLY denied it.
>>>>>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
>>>>>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
>>>>>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
>>>> This is a question which proves you a moron.
>>>
>>> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
>>>
>>> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass.
>> You contend that Newton's Second law is nonsense.
>
> You have to show how this decides the point in your favor.
>>>> Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
>>>
>>> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger
>>> fragments travel further than smaller ones.
>>
>> Who am I proving it to?
>
> Nobody, apparently.
Indeed, most people instinctively know that a heavier object will be
more difficult to stop than a lighter object, given the same velocity.
Even you... you would hardly be terrified at a basketball thrown at
you, but if you were standing in front of a car moving the same speed,
this forum would have one less fool in it.
You know this, yet you blatanly lie about it.
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2021, 7:45:08 PM5/19/21
to
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 17:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> It is your...
Tut tut tut, Dufus - we're examining your inability to refute the fact
that Bugliosi knew about, yet refused to address the 16 smoking guns.
Tut tut tut, Dufus - we're examining your inability to refute the fact
that Bugliosi knew about, yet refused to address the 16 smoking guns.
Chuck Schuyler
May 19, 2021, 7:56:35 PM5/19/21
to
Ben Holmes
May 19, 2021, 8:05:53 PM5/19/21
to
If you're afraid to defend your cite, why would you post it?
Bud
May 19, 2021, 8:22:10 PM5/19/21
to
Bud
May 19, 2021, 8:31:09 PM5/19/21
to
> The fact that you don't understand this is amusing.
> Perhaps you don't *want* to understand it, because you've looked at
> the X-rays, and realized that the larger fragments are to the rear of
> JFK's head.
> >>>>>>> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
> >>>>>>> all not go the exact same distance?
> >>>>>> They would.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why didn`t they?
> >>>> Prove they didn't.
> >>>
> >>> Are you saying they did?
> >>
> >> Are you saying you can't prove what you claim?
> >
> > Are you saying..
> I'm saying you made a claim you can't support.
>
> What part of that didn't you understand?
> >>>> Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
> >>>> using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
> >>>
> >>> Not the point of contention.
> >> You're claiming distance traveled...
> >
> > Nope. The distance is irrelevant.
> And yet, this is PRECISELY the topic I'm speaking about.
> So you're now admitting that your citation had nothing to do with the
> topic.
> >> Why can't you prove it?
> >>>>>> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
> >>>>>> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
> >>>> Are you stupid enough to tell us you can judge front to back distance
> >>>> from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
> >>>
> >>> Don`t need to. I only need the dispersal.
> >> Then you really are a moron.
> >>
> >>>>>>> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
> >>>>>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
> >>>>>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
> >>>>>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
> >>>> This is a question which proves you a moron.
> >>>
> >>> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
> >>>
> >>> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass.
> >> You contend that Newton's Second law is nonsense.
> >
> > You have to show how this decides the point in your favor.
> You've SPECIFICALLY denied it.
And you`ve already lost.
> >>>> Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
> >>>
> >>> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger
> >>> fragments travel further than smaller ones.
> >>
> >> Who am I proving it to?
> >
> > Nobody, apparently.
> Most people aren't so stupid.
> Indeed, most people instinctively know that a heavier object will be
> more difficult to stop than a lighter object, given the same velocity.
> Even you... you would hardly be terrified at a basketball thrown at
> you, but if you were standing in front of a car moving the same speed,
> this forum would have one less fool in it.
Message has been deleted
Bud
May 19, 2021, 8:34:09 PM5/19/21
to
healyd...@gmail.com
May 19, 2021, 9:04:23 PM5/19/21
to
Bud
May 19, 2021, 9:13:41 PM5/19/21
to
Chuck Schuyler
May 20, 2021, 2:13:04 AM5/20/21
to
You wrote:
"Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues."
DVP linked to this and I reposted it:
"Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues."
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/16-smoking-guns-or-16-misfires.html
Look like you lied. Bugs addressed all of 'em.
You literally have nothing new.
Now go ahead and snip the proof of your defeat.
You know you want to.
I'll let you have the last word.
Ben Holmes
May 20, 2021, 10:04:54 AM5/20/21
to
On Wed, 19 May 2021 23:13:02 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
How does *anything* I wrote answer a question I ask *YOU* to answer?
Ben Holmes
Jun 1, 2021, 11:40:19 AM6/1/21
to
On Wed, 19 May 2021 17:22:09 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
All Chickenshit has to do is refute this.
He hasn't been able to...
He hasn't been able to...
Ben Holmes
Jun 1, 2021, 11:41:42 AM6/1/21
to
On Wed, 19 May 2021 17:31:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
Meaningless.
This is an intentional bit of nonsense.
Cite for YOUR claim that any part of the brain has greater resistance
than any other part of the brain.
But you won't.
You can't.
>> The fact that you don't understand this is amusing.
>>
No, you provably don't. You're scientifically illiterate.
>>>>>> Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
>>>>>> using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the point of contention.
>>>> You're claiming distance traveled...
>>>
>>> Nope. The distance is irrelevant.
>>
>> And yet, this is PRECISELY the topic I'm speaking about.
>>
This is an intentional bit of nonsense.
Cite for YOUR claim that any part of the brain has greater resistance
than any other part of the brain.
But you won't.
You can't.
>> The fact that you don't understand this is amusing.
>>
>> Perhaps you don't *want* to understand it, because you've looked at
>> the X-rays, and realized that the larger fragments are to the rear of
>> JFK's head.
>>
>> the X-rays, and realized that the larger fragments are to the rear of
>> JFK's head.
>>
>>>>>>>>> then why don`t objects that are all the same weight, size and shape
>>>>>>>>> all not go the exact same distance?
>>>>>>>> They would.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why didn`t they?
>>>>>> Prove they didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying they did?
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying you can't prove what you claim?
>>>
>>> Are you saying..
>>
>>>>>>>>> all not go the exact same distance?
>>>>>>>> They would.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why didn`t they?
>>>>>> Prove they didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying they did?
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying you can't prove what you claim?
>>>
>>> Are you saying..
>>
>> I'm saying you made a claim you can't support.
>>
>> What part of that didn't you understand?
>
> I understand...
>>
>> What part of that didn't you understand?
>
No, you provably don't. You're scientifically illiterate.
>>>>>> Show us how you can tell how far into the body those pellets went
>>>>>> using that 2 dimensional X-ray.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the point of contention.
>>>> You're claiming distance traveled...
>>>
>>> Nope. The distance is irrelevant.
>>
>> And yet, this is PRECISELY the topic I'm speaking about.
>>
>> So you're now admitting that your citation had nothing to do with the
>> topic.
>>
>> topic.
>>
>>>> Why can't you prove it?
>>>>>>>> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
>>>>>>>> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
>>>>>> Are you stupid enough to tell us you can judge front to back distance
>>>>>> from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don`t need to. I only need the dispersal.
>>>> Then you really are a moron.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
>>>>>>>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
>>>>>>>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
>>>>>>>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
>>>>>> This is a question which proves you a moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
>>>>>
>>>>> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass.
>>>>
>>>> You contend that Newton's Second law is nonsense.
>>>
>>> You have to show how this decides the point in your favor.
>>
>> You've SPECIFICALLY denied it.
>>
>>>>>>>> Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back
>>>>>>>> distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying all the pellets went the same distance?
>>>>>> Are you stupid enough to tell us you can judge front to back distance
>>>>>> from a 2 dimensional X-ray?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don`t need to. I only need the dispersal.
>>>> Then you really are a moron.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A reasoning person would likely conclude that there are other
>>>>>>>>> things in play that cause the shotgun`s pellets dispersal seen in this
>>>>>>>>> x-ray rather than just size and mass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A reasoning person wouldn't think that this is showing anything other
>>>>>>>> than shotgun dispersal pattern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is there a dispersal at all? They all have the same mass.
>>>>>> This is a question which proves you a moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> This proves you can`t discuss ideas so you resort to ad hominem.
>>>>>
>>>>> You contend that big and smaller fragments travel will different distances because of their mass.
>>>>
>>>> You contend that Newton's Second law is nonsense.
>>>
>>> You have to show how this decides the point in your favor.
>>
>> You've SPECIFICALLY denied it.
>>
>>>>>> Try this in a gun forum, and watch them laugh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger
>>>>> fragments travel further than smaller ones.
>>>>
>>>> Who am I proving it to?
>>>
>>> Nobody, apparently.
>>
>> Most people aren't so stupid.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try producing a wound ballistic expert who say that bigger
>>>>> fragments travel further than smaller ones.
>>>>
>>>> Who am I proving it to?
>>>
>>> Nobody, apparently.
>>
>> Most people aren't so stupid.
>>
>> Indeed, most people instinctively know that a heavier object will be
>> more difficult to stop than a lighter object, given the same velocity.
>>
>> more difficult to stop than a lighter object, given the same velocity.
>>
>> Even you... you would hardly be terrified at a basketball thrown at
>> you, but if you were standing in front of a car moving the same speed,
>> this forum would have one less fool in it.
>>
>> you, but if you were standing in front of a car moving the same speed,
>> this forum would have one less fool in it.
>>
Ben Holmes
Jun 1, 2021, 11:41:42 AM6/1/21
to
Ben Holmes
Jun 1, 2021, 11:41:55 AM6/1/21
to
Bud
Jun 1, 2021, 12:33:50 PM6/1/21
to
Bud
Jun 1, 2021, 12:34:07 PM6/1/21
to
Ben Holmes
Jul 6, 2021, 8:59:35 AM7/6/21
to
Ben Holmes
Jul 6, 2021, 8:59:54 AM7/6/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Jul 8, 2021, 5:04:52 AM7/8/21
to
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 12:03:47 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:43:57 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
> <dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:43:57 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
> <dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 8:06:11 AM UTC-7, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> ************************************************************
> >> "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively scientific
> >> books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among
> >> the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current
> >> conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer
> >> wrote me on January, 23, 2001;
> >>
> >> 'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What
> >> would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and
> >> cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of
> >> Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none
> >> of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -
> >> convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'
> >>
> >> Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming
> >> History, page 974.
> >> *************************************************************
> >>
> >> Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
> >> clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
> >> Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.
> >>
> >> ************************************************************
> >> "James Fetzer, PhD, is the editor of the only exclusively scientific
> >> books (three) on the assassination. David Mantik, MD, PhD, is among
> >> the leading conspiracy researchers and writers in the current
> >> conspiracy community. They are both good and sincere men. Dr. Fetzer
> >> wrote me on January, 23, 2001;
> >>
> >> 'What would it take, David Mantik has asked me to inquire of you. What
> >> would it take to convince you of the existence of a conspiracy and
> >> cover-up in the death of JFK? What would it take to persuade you of
> >> Oswald's innocence, which is not necessarily the same thing? Are none
> >> of our major discoveries - our '16 smoking guns,' for example -
> >> convincing? And if not, why? And, if not, then what would it take?'
> >>
> >> Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." - Reclaiming
> >> History, page 974.
> >> *************************************************************
> >>
> >> Sadly, although the above quote from Bugliosi's book makes it quite
> >> clear that Bugliosi was well acquainted with the 16 smoking guns...
> >> Bugliosi didn't have the guts to actually address these issues.
> >>
> >> For in what has become EXPECTED BEHAVIOR for Warren Commission
> >> defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
> >>
> >> David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
> >> question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
> >> much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
> >> inhabit forums.
> >>
> >> defenders, Bugliosi too refuses to answer the evidence.
> >>
> >> David Mantik made the mistake of thinking that he was addressing the
> >> question to an honest man. A mistake that I rarely make - having had
> >> much experience with the sort of Warren Commission defenders who
> >> inhabit forums.
> >>
> >> Although the details of each "Smoking Gun" must be appreciated by
> >> reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
> >> from:
> >>
> >> *************************************************************
> >> For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
> >> therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
> >> let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
> >> what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
> >>
> >> (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
> >> transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
> >> his throat at the level of his tie;
> >>
> >> (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
> >> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
> >> display, causing his death; and,
> >>
> >> (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
> >> using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
> >> Mannlicher-Carcano.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
> >> bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
> >>
> >> reading the book - here's a synopsis of what Bugliosi simply ran away
> >> from:
> >>
> >> *************************************************************
> >> For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true,
> >> therefore, at least the following three conjectures - "hypotheses,"
> >> let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted
> >> what needs to be established on independent grounds - have to be true:
> >>
> >> (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that
> >> transversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited
> >> his throat at the level of his tie;
> >>
> >> (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the
> >> sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams
> >> display, causing his death; and,
> >>
> >> (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
> >> using a high powered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian
> >> Mannlicher-Carcano.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #1: (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the
> >> bullet would have had to impact bony structures.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the
> >> position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
> >>
> >> position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2).
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have
> >> fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
> >>
> >> fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3).
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #4: The bullets, which were standard copper-jacketed World
> >> War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
> >> explosive damage.
> >>
> >> War II vintage military ammunition, could not have caused the
> >> explosive damage.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a
> >> shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
> >> the right temple.
> >>
> >> shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
> >> the right temple.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more
> >> than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
> >> photographs.
> >>
> >> than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
> >> photographs.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #7: These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of
> >> the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
> >>
> >> the X-rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National
> >> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
> >>
> >> Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #9: Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs
> >> claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
> >> created, or destroyed.
> >>
> >> claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered,
> >> created, or destroyed.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively
> >> edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
> >>
> >> edited using highly sophisticated techniques.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcast
> >> reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
> >>
> >> reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #12: The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy
> >> photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
> >> to discredit eyewitness reports.
> >>
> >> photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used
> >> to discredit eyewitness reports.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute
> >> and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
> >>
> >> and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #14: Secret Service policies for the protection of the
> >> President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
> >>
> >> President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #15: Neither the Mafia nor pro- or anti-Castro Cubans nor
> >> the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
> >> X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
> >> created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
> >> motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
> >> highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
> >> either incarcerated or already dead.
> >>
> >> the KGB could have done any of these things - [fabricated autopsy
> >> X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK;
> >> created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected
> >> motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using
> >> highly sophisticated techniques] - much less Lee Oswald, who was
> >> either incarcerated or already dead.
> >>
> >> Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination
> >> before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
> >> than a patsy.
> >> before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more
> >> than a patsy.
> >> *************************************************************
> >>
> >> Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
> >> (rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
> >> or QUOTE the response.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, if you'd like to claim that these were addressed by Bugliosi
> >> (rather than just referred to), you'll have to cite the page number,
> >> or QUOTE the response.
> >>
> >> But you won't...
> >>
> >> You can't.
> >
> >>
> >> You can't.
> >
> >I find #5 especially intriguing. Can you elaborate?
> You only need know one scientific fact... larger bullet fragments have
> more mass that smaller fragments. And since they have the same
> initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further.
>
> That's elementary science.
Explain why the smaller fragments remained in the head while the two largest fragments (comprising nearly half the mass of a whole bullet between the two fragments) exited the head and were found inside the limousine in front of the President.
> You only need know one scientific fact... larger bullet fragments have
> more mass that smaller fragments. And since they have the same
> initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further.
>
> That's elementary science.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. EISENBERG - I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is your mark on--
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you weigh this fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I did. It weighs 44.6 grains.
...
Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.
Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did you receive that?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569?
Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted.
(The item, identified as Commission Exhibit No. 569, was received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139.
Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you weigh this fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, I did. It weighs 21.0 grains.
== UNQUOTE ==
The largest fragments exited the head entirely and were found forward of the President in the limousine.
Hank
Tim Brennan
Jul 8, 2021, 7:35:22 AM7/8/21
to
Very good reasoning AND I believe you have nailed it!
Maybe we should examine what Ben Holmes said EARLIER in this very thread, re bullet fragments:
QUOTE ON:
You only need know one scientific fact... larger bullet fragments have
initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further.
That's elementary science.
QUOTE OFF
That's elementary science.
Well it sure looks like ELEMENTARY SCIENCE has failed Ben on this occasion in his JFK-CT pursuits!
Oh dear...
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
ps Say, Holmes, if UR out there. I think Hank Sienzant just RIPPED YOU A NEW ONE, pal! You AND your ghastly MIDP guff. TB
pps Say, Holmes, pretty BIG fragments found FORWARD of the President, eh? They must have had more MASS! Elementary science and all THAT, y'know. TB
Ben Holmes
Jul 8, 2021, 9:22:11 AM7/8/21
to
No.
Logical fallacy deleted.
If you want to deny that larger fragments weigh more, and thus have
more mass... and that all bullet fragments from the same bullet have
the same initial velocity, then *YOU* are going to have to cite for
your wacky claim.
This folks, shows just how desperate believers are getting... they're
turning against basic science!
Hank Sienzant
Jul 8, 2021, 9:59:05 AM7/8/21
to
>
> Logical fallacy deleted.
No, you simply deleted my point you couldn't deal with. I put it back. Ball is still in your court. Then you pretend to argue against my point by arguing against something I didn't say:
>
> If you want to deny that larger fragments weigh more, and thus have
> more mass...
> and [deny] that all bullet fragments from the same bullet have
> the same initial velocity,
Straw man argument. No one here is arguing for that. You're the only one to bring it up.
> then *YOU* are going to have to cite for
> your wacky claim.
Now, according to one person on this board, "You only need know one scientific fact... larger bullet fragments have more mass that [sic - than] smaller fragments. And since they have the same initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further."
*YOU* said that.
Deal with the fact the two largest fragments recovered traveled further than the smallest ones. They both escaped the head and both were found forward of the President in the limo.
>
> This folks, shows just how desperate believers are getting... they're
> turning against basic science!
Doesn't basic science, and the location of those found large fragments, establish the shot came from behind?
Hank
John Corbett
Jul 8, 2021, 11:06:56 AM7/8/21
to
Bud
Jul 8, 2021, 11:42:01 AM7/8/21
to
> Logical fallacy deleted.
>
> If you want to deny that larger fragments weigh more, and thus have
> more mass... and that all bullet fragments from the same bullet have
> the same initial velocity, then *YOU* are going to have to cite for
> your wacky claim.
See conspiracy idiot frame argument dishonestly.
Frame argument dishonestly conspiracy idiot, frame argument dishonestly.
When you say "initial velocity" you mean when the bullet leaves the rifle. No other laws of physics come into play after that, that is all that you need to know? How did the bullet become fragmented?
> This folks, shows just how desperate believers are getting... they're
> turning against basic science!
Chuck Schuyler
Jul 8, 2021, 11:48:14 AM7/8/21
to
Again.
Ouch.
Holmes, you're sliding into Lady in Yellow Pants territory on this one. Quit while you're behind and ask Healy to butter up your buns with some calamine lotion to ease the pain of the welts from the beating he just administered.
Ben Holmes
Jul 8, 2021, 2:23:04 PM7/8/21
to
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 06:59:02 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>Explain why ...
Science is science. If you want to be a science denier, go right
ahead.
Science is science. If you want to be a science denier, go right
ahead.
Ben Holmes
Jul 8, 2021, 2:23:32 PM7/8/21
to
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 08:48:13 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ben has been Hank Spanked.
Only if you don't believe science...
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ben has been Hank Spanked.
Bud
Jul 8, 2021, 3:16:20 PM7/8/21
to
Hank Sienzant
Jul 9, 2021, 7:59:22 PM7/9/21
to
On the one hand, you claim larger objects travel further than smaller ones, but when confronted with the facts that the largest pieces exited the head entirely and were found forward of the President, all you could do was delete my points.
You were so terrified of addressing my points you not only deleted them, you created a bunch of straw man arguments, each of them a logical fallacy, where my points were mis-stated so you could better attempt to rebut them.
I pointed out what you did there, so you simply ignored all that and called me a science denier.
You're pretty much painted yourself into a corner of your own creation.
But it gets worse for you. You destroyed your own point in another way. You above claimed that one cannot tell how far a fragment travelled from a two-dimensional x-ray, but earlier in this thread you stated you could discern how far a fragment travelled by looking at a two-dimensional x-ray.
Ben said (April 23rd, 12:03pm):
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ng91qGnxYL0/m/BmNki55rAQAJ
== quote ==
This is why I've asked repeatedly in this forum for believers to publicly state where the larger fragments are - in the side view X-ray of JFK. There's a very clear trail of fragments. They show DIRECTION because larger fragments will travel further than lighter fragments.
== unquote ==
Ben also said, a little more than six hours later (April 23rd, 6:21pm):
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/ng91qGnxYL0/m/Y7cAfTuAAQAJ
== quote ==
Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray.
== unquote ==
So which is it, Ben? Can we discern front to back distance travelled by a fragment in a two-dimensional x-ray, or not?
In the post at 12:03, you claim we could discern the direction by determining -- in the side view x-ray of JFK (a two-dimensional x-ray) -- that the larger fragments traveled further than the lighter ones.
But six hours later, you were denying that it was possible to do that, claiming in a response to Bud, "Only you are stupid enough to think you can judge front to back distance in a 2 dimensional x-ray."
But that's exactly what you were doing at 12:03pm the same day!
So was Ben mistaken when he claimed it *was* possible to determine distance in a two-dimensional x-ray?
Or was Ben mistaken when he claimed it *wasn't* possible to determine distance in a two-dimensional x-ray?
Chose one, but either way, you lose the argument. Either your argument has not basis to start with, or you have no basis to reject the shotgun pellet x-ray.
But either way, it's clear you're arguing less than honestly, and just throwing out whatever justification comes to mind at the moment.
Hank
Hank Sienzant
Jul 10, 2021, 4:32:10 PM7/10/21
to
On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:43:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 04:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:05:24 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> ...
> >> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite--
> >> acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But
> >> just the one word "mass" seems vague....
> >
> > Perhaps I got Ben`s idea backwards.
> F=MA can also be written as A=F/M or as M=F/A.
>
> Simple science, simple math.
>
> It's amusing how many believers don't understand such simple concepts.
Speaking of not understanding simple concepts, the acceleration of a bullet in flight is zero.
Acceleration is the *change in velocity* of an object, it is not the velocity itself.
People who haven’t taken college-level physics courses constantly make this error, confusing the two terms, acceleration and velocity.
If the velocity is constant, the acceleration is zero.
Tell us the force, in Newton’s, when the acceleration is zero, Ben.
You use a formula for acceleration but talk of velocity, like here:
“You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to do with distance traveled given the same velocity.”
Velocity and acceleration are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable.
You should try taking a college-level physics class before you lecture here again.
Hank
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 04:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> wrote:
> >On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:05:24 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> ...
> >> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite--
> >> acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But
> >> just the one word "mass" seems vague....
> >
> > Perhaps I got Ben`s idea backwards.
> F=MA can also be written as A=F/M or as M=F/A.
>
> Simple science, simple math.
>
> It's amusing how many believers don't understand such simple concepts.
Speaking of not understanding simple concepts, the acceleration of a bullet in flight is zero.
Acceleration is the *change in velocity* of an object, it is not the velocity itself.
People who haven’t taken college-level physics courses constantly make this error, confusing the two terms, acceleration and velocity.
If the velocity is constant, the acceleration is zero.
Tell us the force, in Newton’s, when the acceleration is zero, Ben.
You use a formula for acceleration but talk of velocity, like here:
“You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to do with distance traveled given the same velocity.”
Velocity and acceleration are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable.
You should try taking a college-level physics class before you lecture here again.
Hank
healyd...@gmail.com
Jul 10, 2021, 4:46:02 PM7/10/21
to
TOP POST Only:
Hank, are you STILL trying to sing?
Sounds like whining to a few of us hereabouts....
Perhaps Chuckles daShow Schuyler is giving loser lessons once again?
Hank, are you STILL trying to sing?
Sounds like whining to a few of us hereabouts....
Perhaps Chuckles daShow Schuyler is giving loser lessons once again?
BT George
Jul 10, 2021, 5:02:13 PM7/10/21
to
BT George
Jul 10, 2021, 5:07:20 PM7/10/21
to
> Hank
Ben Holmes
Jul 12, 2021, 10:57:20 AM7/12/21
to
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 16:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
Quote my statement denying "science"... if you cannot, you're a proven
liar.
I'll be awaiting your response...
> On the one hand, you claim larger objects travel further than
> smaller ones, but when confronted with the facts that the largest
> pieces exited the head entirely and were found forward of the
> President, all you could do was delete my points.
I sincerely hope you have something better than this.
Here we see you AGREEING with me that larger objects will travel
further.
Why do you assert that I'm "confronted" with facts that merely agree
with what I stated???
Are you stupid?
I've deleted the rest of your nonsense, so we can focus SPECIFICALLY
on topics...
So produce my statement "denying" science, and cite the relevant
scientific fact that I'm "denying."
Not, of course, what you pretend I've said... PRODUCE MY ACTUAL QUOTE,
AND CITE THE RELEVANT CONTEXT.
Or be proven beyond all doubt a liar.
It *is* your burden to support your statements.
liar.
I'll be awaiting your response...
> On the one hand, you claim larger objects travel further than
> smaller ones, but when confronted with the facts that the largest
> pieces exited the head entirely and were found forward of the
> President, all you could do was delete my points.
Here we see you AGREEING with me that larger objects will travel
further.
Why do you assert that I'm "confronted" with facts that merely agree
with what I stated???
Are you stupid?
I've deleted the rest of your nonsense, so we can focus SPECIFICALLY
on topics...
So produce my statement "denying" science, and cite the relevant
scientific fact that I'm "denying."
Not, of course, what you pretend I've said... PRODUCE MY ACTUAL QUOTE,
AND CITE THE RELEVANT CONTEXT.
Or be proven beyond all doubt a liar.
It *is* your burden to support your statements.
Ben Holmes
Jul 12, 2021, 10:57:24 AM7/12/21
to
On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<apci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:43:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 04:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:05:24 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite--
>>>> acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But
>>>> just the one word "mass" seems vague....
>>>
>>> Perhaps I got Ben`s idea backwards.
>>
>> F=MA can also be written as A=F/M or as M=F/A.
>>
>> Simple science, simple math.
>>
>> It's amusing how many believers don't understand such simple concepts.
>
>Speaking of not understanding simple concepts, the acceleration of a bullet in flight is zero.
Then zero times the mass of the bullet is zero. So no force is
<apci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:43:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 04:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:05:24 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite--
>>>> acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But
>>>> just the one word "mass" seems vague....
>>>
>>> Perhaps I got Ben`s idea backwards.
>>
>> F=MA can also be written as A=F/M or as M=F/A.
>>
>> Simple science, simple math.
>>
>> It's amusing how many believers don't understand such simple concepts.
>
>Speaking of not understanding simple concepts, the acceleration of a bullet in flight is zero.
exerted by the bullet.
And mass would have no meaning - as division by zero has no meaning.
Here we see Huckster's poor understanding of both math and physics...
As I stated, it's amusing how many believers don't understand such
simple concepts... but Huckster is willing to PROVE it.
Message has been deleted
Hank Sienzant
Aug 13, 2021, 5:02:32 PM8/13/21
to
-- quote --
Speaking of not understanding simple concepts, the acceleration of a bullet in flight is zero.
Acceleration is the *change in velocity* of an object, it is not the velocity itself.
People who haven’t taken college-level physics courses constantly make this error, confusing the two terms, acceleration and velocity.
If the velocity is constant, the acceleration is zero.
Tell us the force, in Newton’s, when the acceleration is zero, Ben.
You use a formula for acceleration but talk of velocity, like here:
“You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to do with distance traveled given the same velocity.”
Velocity and acceleration are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable.
You should try taking a college-level physics class before you lecture here again.
-- unquote --
People who haven’t taken college-level physics courses constantly make this error, confusing the two terms, acceleration and velocity.
If the velocity is constant, the acceleration is zero.
Tell us the force, in Newton’s, when the acceleration is zero, Ben.
You use a formula for acceleration but talk of velocity, like here:
“You're the scientific illiterate who thinks that mass has nothing to do with distance traveled given the same velocity.”
Velocity and acceleration are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable.
You should try taking a college-level physics class before you lecture here again.
Hank
Hank Sienzant
Aug 13, 2021, 5:31:54 PM8/13/21
to
>
> Why do you assert that I'm "confronted" with facts that merely agree
> with what I stated???
>
> Are you stupid?
Now, Ben, you know that’s simply ad hominem, and both know you resort to that when the facts are against you.
Let’s start at the top. You argued for this point:
“Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of the right temple.”
You stated in furtherance of this assertion that: “You only need know one scientific fact... larger bullet fragments have more mass that [sic - than] smaller fragments. And since they have the same initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further."
Explain then why the largest fragments of the bullet were found not *behind* JFK’s head where they should have been if the shot came from in front of the President, but were found forward of his head. If your claim is true, those fragments should not have ended up in front of JFK, but behind JFK. They didn’t. They ended up in front. So your argument for a shot from the front is exposed as false by your argument and the found location of the largest fragments.
>
> I've deleted the rest of your nonsense, so we can focus SPECIFICALLY
> on topics...
>
> So produce my statement "denying" science, and cite the relevant
> scientific fact that I'm "denying."
>
> Not, of course, what you pretend I've said... PRODUCE MY ACTUAL QUOTE,
> AND CITE THE RELEVANT CONTEXT.
>
> Or be proven beyond all doubt a liar.
>
> It *is* your burden to support your statements.
Hank Sienzant
Aug 13, 2021, 5:42:08 PM8/13/21
to
I can’t help you if you don’t understand physics. Take a college level course in physics before you deign to lecture again about things you know little about.
Hank
Hank Sienzant
Aug 13, 2021, 5:54:58 PM8/13/21
to
On Monday, July 12, 2021 at 10:57:24 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <apci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:43:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 04:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:05:24 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite--
> >>>> acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But
> >>>> just the one word "mass" seems vague....
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps I got Ben`s idea backwards.
> >>
> >> F=MA can also be written as A=F/M or as M=F/A.
> >>
> >> Simple science, simple math.
> >>
> >> It's amusing how many believers don't understand such simple concepts.
> >
> >Speaking of not understanding simple concepts, the acceleration of a bullet in flight is zero.
> Then zero times the mass of the bullet is zero. So no force is
> exerted by the bullet.
The net force is zero.
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2021 13:32:09 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <apci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:43:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 04:36:38 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>On Saturday, April 24, 2021 at 12:05:24 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> Newton's second law seems to say exactly the opposite--
> >>>> acceleration "inversely proportional to the mass of the object". But
> >>>> just the one word "mass" seems vague....
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps I got Ben`s idea backwards.
> >>
> >> F=MA can also be written as A=F/M or as M=F/A.
> >>
> >> Simple science, simple math.
> >>
> >> It's amusing how many believers don't understand such simple concepts.
> >
> >Speaking of not understanding simple concepts, the acceleration of a bullet in flight is zero.
> Then zero times the mass of the bullet is zero. So no force is
> exerted by the bullet.
>
> And mass would have no meaning - as division by zero has no meaning.
The formula calls for F=M*A.
It calls for multiplication, not division.
What force is being applied to the bullet when it’s in flight? The force is applied when the weapon is fired, and that causes the bullet to accelerate. But once the built is in motion, at constant velocity, there is no additional force causing it to speed up. The forces on the bullet are air resistance and gravity, both of which can be ignored in a bullet traveling a short distance.
>
> Here we see Huckster's poor understanding of both math and physics...
>
> As I stated, it's amusing how many believers don't understand such
> simple concepts... but Huckster is willing to PROVE it.
Ben Holmes
Aug 13, 2021, 6:02:34 PM8/13/21
to
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 13:57:18 -0700 (PDT), Eric Beren
<ericb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Try reading my point again ...
No thankyou.
The first time was enough.
New name now?
<ericb...@gmail.com> wrote:
No thankyou.
The first time was enough.
New name now?
BT George
Aug 13, 2021, 6:04:25 PM8/13/21
to
> > As I stated, it's amusing how many believers don't understand such
> > simple concepts... but Huckster is willing to PROVE it.
> You have no understanding of what you’re trying to lecture about.
Ben Holmes
Aug 13, 2021, 6:05:21 PM8/13/21
to
identical mathematical statements, then I can't help you.
And divistion is indeed called for when change the formula to get the
solution needed from the supplied data.
Ben Holmes
Aug 13, 2021, 6:08:52 PM8/13/21
to
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 14:31:53 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
Which direction did I "assert".
QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS.
Let's see you prove yourself a liar.
>> Why do you assert that I'm "confronted" with facts that merely agree
>> with what I stated???
>
>The facts are diametrically opposed to what you’re asserting, Ben.
Another empty and unsupported claim by a dumbass.
>> Are you stupid?
>
>Now, Ben, you know that’s simply ad hominem...
And unfortunately, based on your actions.
QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS.
Let's see you prove yourself a liar.
>> Why do you assert that I'm "confronted" with facts that merely agree
>> with what I stated???
>
>The facts are diametrically opposed to what you’re asserting, Ben.
>> Are you stupid?
>
>Now, Ben, you know that’s simply ad hominem...
And unfortunately, based on your actions.
Hank Sienzant
Aug 16, 2021, 3:58:53 PM8/16/21
to
On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 6:02:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
You might not be the best judge of whether you understand physics or not.
As I said, only one of us majored in physics in college. And it wasn't you.
We both know your response wasn't close to a rebuttal, avoided all my points, and simply handwaved away everything you failed to grasp.
As I said, only one of us majored in physics in college. And it wasn't you.
We both know your response wasn't close to a rebuttal, avoided all my points, and simply handwaved away everything you failed to grasp.
Hank Sienzant
Aug 16, 2021, 4:06:10 PM8/16/21
to
'Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of
the right temple."
and
"...larger bullet fragments have more mass that smaller fragments. And since they have the same initial velocity, those that are larger will travel further."
I asked why, then, the two largest fragments not only exited the head, but were found *forward* of the President's head, if the "axis of metallic debris .. is consistent with a shot that entered the area of the right temple".
You have yet to respond to my point here in any meaningful way.
>
> Let's see you prove yourself a liar.
> >> Why do you assert that I'm "confronted" with facts that merely agree
> >> with what I stated???
> >
> >The facts are diametrically opposed to what you’re asserting, Ben.
> Another empty and unsupported claim by a dumbass.
You can continue to avoid answering, but we both know why.
>
>
> >> Are you stupid?
> >
> >Now, Ben, you know that’s simply ad hominem...
>
>
> And unfortunately, based on your actions.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages