Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hard Scientific Evidence...
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Holmes
Dec 22, 2023, 1:01:53 PM12/22/23
to
HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
X-ray...
The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
wound in the throat...
The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
prosectors for examination.
The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
grass.
The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
never identified.
The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
film a fake.
The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us
about the ballistic path of that bullet.
Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
case... to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
X-ray...
The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
wound in the throat...
The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
prosectors for examination.
The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
grass.
The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
never identified.
The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
film a fake.
The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us
about the ballistic path of that bullet.
Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
case... to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
Bud
Dec 22, 2023, 8:28:36 PM12/22/23
to
Bud
Dec 22, 2023, 8:38:02 PM12/22/23
to
On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 1:01:53 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...
>
> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
> X-ray...
You refuse to take this anywhere.
>
> The "hard evidence" of the 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP
> X-ray...
> The "hard evidence" of the medically observed appearance of the bullet
> wound in the throat...
> The "hard evidence" of clothing, which was irrationally refused to the
> prosectors for examination.
> The "hard evidence" of autopsy photos & X-rays that have disappeared.
> The "hard evidence" of photos showing a bullet being recovered in the
> grass.
> The "hard evidence" of Frazier - and how the Warren Commission went
> 'expert shopping' to find Nicol...
You refuse to show the WC went witness shopping.
> The "hard evidence" of a fingerprint in the 'sniper's nest' that was
> never identified.
> The "hard evidence" of NAA testing that was concealed by the Warren
> Commission. (and lied about to this very day)
> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used
> real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary
> targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
> The "hard evidence" of the lack of 'First Frame Flash' in the extant
> Zapruder film - the very same error that proved the 'alien autopsy'
> film a fake.
> The "hard evidence" of the curb near Tague being patched. Tell us
> about the ballistic path of that bullet.
> Believers can run, but they can't address the hard evidence in this
> case... to say nothing about the eyewitness testimony...
Gil Jesus
Dec 23, 2023, 5:34:26 AM12/23/23
to
On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 8:38:02 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 1:01:53 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
> If you don`t like the testing ignore the results, stupid.
The test results are EVIDENCE. So if they don't give you the results you're looking for, what does that mean ?
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 1:01:53 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
> If you don`t like the testing ignore the results, stupid.
You ignore EVIDENCE ?
Yeah, that sounds about right for you people.
Talk about stupid.
ROFLMAO.
Bud
Dec 23, 2023, 7:07:42 AM12/23/23
to
On Saturday, December 23, 2023 at 5:34:26 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 8:38:02 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 1:01:53 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
>
> > If you don`t like the testing ignore the results, stupid.
> The test results are EVIDENCE.
If you feel the test results are flawed and give no insight into the event ignore them, stupid.
> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 8:38:02 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 1:01:53 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
>
> > If you don`t like the testing ignore the results, stupid.
> The test results are EVIDENCE.
Until you learn to weigh information like an adult, you are going nowhere. And it seems that is your goal.
> So if they don't give you the results you're looking for, what does that mean ?
If you want to criticize anything you might want to consider criticizing the fact that they did testing at all. Have you ever seen this done in any other murder?
> You ignore EVIDENCE ?
I look at it correctly, by applying reason and critical thinking to information. If everyone could do that there would be no conspiracy hobbyists.
> Yeah, that sounds about right for you people.
> Talk about stupid.
> ROFLMAO.
Ben Holmes
Dec 26, 2023, 10:27:13 AM12/26/23
to
On Fri, 22 Dec 2023 17:28:35 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
wrote:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
Dec 26, 2023, 10:27:13 AM12/26/23
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 26, 2023, 10:27:13 AM12/26/23
to
Ben Holmes
Dec 26, 2023, 10:27:14 AM12/26/23
to
On Sat, 23 Dec 2023 02:34:24 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 8:38:02?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
scientific evidence, and he denies it all. Such a coward!
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 8:38:02?PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> On Friday, December 22, 2023 at 1:01:53?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
>
>> If you don`t like the testing ignore the results, stupid.
>
>The test results are EVIDENCE. So if they don't give you the results you're looking for, what does that mean ?
>You ignore EVIDENCE ?
>
>Yeah, that sounds about right for you people.
>Talk about stupid.
>ROFLMAO.
Chickenshit's simply a coward. I list what is INDISPUTABLY hard
>>> The "hard evidence" of rifle testing, where the Warren Commission used real experts, firing from half the height, at oversized stationary targets with all the time they wanted for the first shot.
>
>> If you don`t like the testing ignore the results, stupid.
>
>The test results are EVIDENCE. So if they don't give you the results you're looking for, what does that mean ?
>You ignore EVIDENCE ?
>
>Yeah, that sounds about right for you people.
>Talk about stupid.
>ROFLMAO.
scientific evidence, and he denies it all. Such a coward!
0 new messages