Cliff Notes to An Accusation
robcap...@netscape.com
productive things (and the board can too).
1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment when
Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment
traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also said this
is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
velocity rifle. Thus producing anything (fragment, bullet, etc...)
that would exit a skull traveling faster than it went in is highly
improbable. Meanwhile, the cause of death is listed as "high velocity
projectiles" by the WCR on page 523. This brings up more questions,
but for now I'll skip them. Furthermore, the size of the fragments
indicate it is highly improbable they could cause a major dent in
chrome.
Ben says I lied. He of course offers no proof to back up his
*assertions* as usual.
2) He says I "lied" when I said the fragments could not be linked to
the same bullet.
The FBI ran test on all of the fragments and the CE399 to determine if
they matched. They did not, thus the term of being "similar" in
metallic composition (there is only matching or not matching). They
added a big "But" after this saying they "could not determine whether
two or more of the fragments came from the same bullet" (WCR p.77
first full paragraph). I concluded that based on this they could not
prove their theory.
Ben said this is a "lie" as saying "not possible" is not proof that
they couldn't have come from the same bullet. Again, he offers no
proof for his *assertion*. To him it is not possible and possible all
at the same time.
3) He called me a "liar" to the third power when I said based on the
pronouncement that the two fragments did not come from the same bullet
there had to more than the 3 shots.
I made the "mistake" of using Dr. Finck's assertion that JBC had more
in his wrist than was lost from the magic bullet (CE399) AND right
away Ben said this was from the Shaw trial in 1967/68 so it is outside
the WCR. Obviously he assumes this was not mentioned to anyone during
the "investigation". To be fair, I am not sure what area it may be
mentioned in the WCR, so let's play the game his way. He claims this
puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of
the fragments. Okay. I'm fair unlike him. Explain how a bullet who
only lost 2.4 grains can parcel out a fragment the size of 44 grains
or 21 grains or both? This is truly a magic bullet.
Ben can't think of this and makes another crazy assertion just like
when he used his "math" to explain the two fragments coming from the
head shot. For those of you who missed this (Can't blame you with this
never ending thread) here it is.
Bullet weight = 161 grains (per WCR)
First fragment = 44 grains
Second fragment = 21 grains
Here is Ben's math problem.
161-44-21=96 grains
He *asserts* the remaining 96 grain fragment also exited (something
the WCR wouldn't even say) and hit the chrome and bounced outside of
the limo. Somehow it misses the rearview mirror. The other two wind
up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
head!! Does this make any sense? He is saying not one fragment would
have stayed in the brain. And I'm the liar according to him.
As usual Ben has no proof for his *assertion*.
4) He said I "lied" when I said DVP was using Guinn to dispute the
testimony and findings of the FBI and Frazier.
Obviously by the time of the HSCA the government was aware of the same
problem I had outlined, that if all the fragments couldn't be linked
to the same set of bullets (2) they would have some "explainin' ta
do", so in comes Guinn. He overturns the FBI and says they can match
all the fragments to the two bullets. I was simply showing DVP that
the FBI via Frazier didn't agree in 1964.
Ben got all of this all twisted around (and I can't even remember what
he was saying as it made no sense) and called me a liar. Again, he
offered no proof for his *assertion*.
I could go on but these are the main points and there is no reason to
at this point in time.
YoHarvey
wrote:
Jesus/Robcap/CuriousGeorge? Have you given any thought whatsoever why
not only do LN's think you an idiot, but now, even CT's do?
robcap...@netscape.com
I could care less what you think, but I do find it interesting that
you chimed in on Ben's defense.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still can't read huh? I didn't say Holmes. I said CT's. The silence
from your supporters is deafening, it is not?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>Let's wrap why Ben has called me a liar so I can move on to more
>productive things (and the board can too).
>
>1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment when
>Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment
>traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
And based your entire argument around that lie. For without Frazier saying
"bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome dent, but
Frazier never said that.
>I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also said this
>is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
>velocity rifle.
Of course, you're lying right now.
Frazier was referencing the fragment as being "fairly high velocity" IN RELATION
TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. In other words, when Frazier said "fairly high
velocity", he was speaking of a fragment traveling SLOWER than a normal bullet.
>Thus producing anything (fragment, bullet, etc...)
>that would exit a skull traveling faster than it went in is highly
>improbable.
No-one but you has asserted such a silly statement.
Nor can you quote anyone saying anything of the sort.
>Meanwhile, the cause of death is listed as "high velocity
>projectiles" by the WCR on page 523. This brings up more questions,
>but for now I'll skip them.
You should... since you titled this post "Cliff Notes to An Accusation", and
this topic has NEVER come up between us.
>Furthermore, the size of the fragments
>indicate it is highly improbable they could cause a major dent in
>chrome.
With *NO* citation given. Rob doesn't like to admit that Frazier testified that
either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could have done the damage to the
chrome.
Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is attempting to
use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. Yet consistently fails to do
so.
And if Rob doesn't like the 21 or 44 grain size... I gave him a perfectly good
96 grain size.
>Ben says I lied.
You provably did. You implied another lie immediately above when comparing the
MC to Frazier's "fairly high velocity" statement.
You lied when you asserted that it's been said that the fragments COULD NOT HAVE
COME from the same bullet.
You lied when you asserted that ANYONE AT ALL had ever asserted that those
fragments might have come from CE399.
You probably told a few more... I'm starting to lose track of them.
>He of course offers no proof to back up his
>*assertions* as usual.
Other than quotes from Frazier's testimony, you mean.
>2) He says I "lied" when I said the fragments could not be linked to
>the same bullet.
No, I've never stated that.
Nor can you provide any quote of my doing so.
Indeed, it's the simple truth that the fragments could *NOT* be provably linked
to each other.
>The FBI
Who, at the FBI.
For some strange reason, Rob keeps running from this question.
>ran test on all of the fragments and the CE399 to determine if
>they matched. They did not, thus the term of being "similar" in
>metallic composition (there is only matching or not matching).
No, there is *NOT* only "matching or not matching". There are many times when
it is simply not possible to "prove" something. I've given you several
examples...
Tell us where that second pencil came from Rob?
If you can't prove that the sandblasted car was painted yellow, does that prove
that it had green racing stripes?
>They
>added a big "But" after this saying they "could not determine whether
>two or more of the fragments came from the same bullet" (WCR p.77
>first full paragraph). I concluded that based on this they could not
>prove their theory.
Very poor logic, of course. Tell us where the second pencil came from Rob?
>Ben said this is a "lie" as saying "not possible" is not proof that
>they couldn't have come from the same bullet.
No-one other than Rob has stated that it's "not possible" that the fragments
came from the same bullet.
Despite my quoting of Frazier asserting that this is indeed a possibility, Rob
keeps lying about it.
>Again, he offers no
>proof for his *assertion*.
Other than Frazier's explicit testimony, you mean.
>To him it is not possible and possible all
>at the same time.
You're a liar, Rob.
It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the same bullet.
It is POSSIBLE that they did. As Frazier testified to.
I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to simutaneously refer
to the same event.
>3) He called me a "liar" to the third power when I said based on the
>pronouncement that the two fragments did not come from the same bullet
No Rob - *NO-ONE* other than you is saying that CE567 & CE569 "did not come from
the same bullet".
You're a liar to suggest that anyone other than you has stated that.
The inability to *PROVE* that they came from the same bullet is not a
"pronouncement" that they did not. Indeed, both Frazier and Nicol EXPLICITLY
deny any such assumption.
Where's your second pencil, Rob?
>there had to more than the 3 shots.
Not by any evidence you've cited out of the WCR...
>I made the "mistake" of using Dr. Finck's assertion that JBC had more
>in his wrist than was lost from the magic bullet (CE399) AND right
>away Ben said this was from the Shaw trial in 1967/68 so it is outside
>the WCR.
It obviously is.
You made the mistake of asserting that based ONLY on your reading of the WCR,
that you could prove that there were more than three shots.
Can't be done.
>Obviously he assumes this was not mentioned to anyone during
>the "investigation". To be fair, I am not sure what area it may be
>mentioned in the WCR,
It wasn't. Don't you think it might be sorta silly for the WCR to say: "we
believe that CE399 went through JFK and Connally, and that no other bullet
struck Connally - but oh, by the way, there were more bullet fragments left in
Connally than were missing out of CE399"
I've told you time and time again that you can't impugn the WCR based ONLY on
the evidence that the WCR chose to tell you about in it's report. You *MUST* go
to the same evidence that they had - then it's relatively trivial to prove the
WCR a fraud.
Any number of books have done quite well demonstrating this... Walt Brown's
book, for example, or some of the books written by a historian, can't recall the
title... that dealt with the problems and misrepresentations of the WCR.
>so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of
>the fragments.
You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 could have been
the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide the quote of ANYONE
AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to show everyone where Rob
claimed that he'd been convicted of child molestation.
For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they were never
said.
>Okay. I'm fair unlike him.
Difficult to maintain such... when you've just got through lying about what I've
said.
Tell me Rob - can you QUOTE a single example where I asserted that you'd said
something that you didn't say?
Yet you keep asserting things that *I'D NEVER SAID*. What's "fair" about that?
>Explain how a bullet who
>only lost 2.4 grains can parcel out a fragment the size of 44 grains
>or 21 grains or both? This is truly a magic bullet.
When you need to lie to make a point... the only point you've made is that
you're a liar.
I have no intention at all of answering a question based on something I never
stated.
>Ben can't think of this and makes another crazy assertion just like
>when he used his "math" to explain the two fragments coming from the
>head shot. For those of you who missed this (Can't blame you with this
>never ending thread) here it is.
>
>Bullet weight = 161 grains (per WCR)
>First fragment = 44 grains
>Second fragment = 21 grains
>
>Here is Ben's math problem.
>
>161-44-21=96 grains
>
>He *asserts* the remaining 96 grain fragment also exited (something
>the WCR wouldn't even say) and hit the chrome and bounced outside of
>the limo.
Nope... merely demonstrated that if you didn't like the size of the 21 or 44
grain fragment, that there was PROVABLY a larger fragment available to do the
job. Rob, you see, hasn't taken the time to review the ballistics studies,
which demonstrate that FMJ bullets typically break up into just a few fragments.
There was certainly *NOTHING* close to 96 grains left in JFK's head... so Rob
can't figure out what to do with the missing mass.
What happened to it, Rob? Where did it go? Is this the "magical fragment?"
It may not have weighed 96 grains... who knows, it might have weighed only 94
grains, it might have broken into *two* 48 grain pieces...
But what is *INDISPUTABLE* is that there is the possibility of a much larger
fragment, indeed; TWICE THE SIZE, of the 44 grain fragment that you disbelieve
could have caused the dented chrome.
>Somehow it misses the rearview mirror.
It also missed the side mirrors, the flags, Greer's head, the steering wheel...
well I could go on, but Rob would miss the point.
>The other two wind
>up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
>Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
>head!!
I forgot, Rob... was that little boys or little girls that you like to molest?
For just like your assertion of your gender preference, at no time did I ever
state that none of the bullet[s] that struck JFK's head remained in his head.
In fact, it was not long ago that I was asking you about the largest fragment
that was pulled out of JFK's head. I don't recall you answering that one.
>Does this make any sense? He is saying not one fragment would
>have stayed in the brain. And I'm the liar according to him.
You've provably lied... for you can't quote me saying any such thing - yet you
assert that I did.
>As usual Ben has no proof for his *assertion*.
The fact that you can't quote me saying what you just lied about is proof
enough.
>4) He said I "lied" when I said DVP was using Guinn to dispute the
>testimony and findings of the FBI and Frazier.
Never said any such thing. Here's the actual quote:
*******************************************************************
>I never used him as an expert, I simply wouldn't let DVP wiggle off
>the hook by using Guinn when he is the defender of the WCR. If he
>believes LHO did it then he has to deal with Frazier.
If you proclaim Frazier as an expert to contradict Guinn (and, of course, he
*doesn't* contradict Guinn on the two fragments possibly being from a single
bullet) then yes you did use Frazier as an expert.
You can't use him to "prove" what you believe, then deny his testimony on points
you don't like.
*******************************************************************
That's quite a bit different than calling you a liar for saying that DVP was
using the testimony and findings of the FBI and Frazier, isn't it? (Indeed, I
didn't even *read* what DVP wrote... for although it was in that post, DVP
rarely makes worthwhile comments)
And in fact, both Frazier and Nicol *BOTH* state that the two fragments could be
part of the same bullet. I've previously quoted Frazier, now here's Nicol on
the same topic:
*******************************************************************
Mr. DULLES. These are pretty badly mutilated, aren't they?
Mr. NICOL. Apparently they are separated so that one can't tell whether they
come from a single bullet or from two separate projectiles. One is a nose
portion and the other is a base.
Mr. DULLES. Is this the one that is the nose portion?
Mr. EISENBERG. You are handing, Mr. Dulles is handing Mr. Nicol Commission
Exhibit 569.
Mr. NICOL. No, that would be the base portion.
Mr. DULLES. That is what I thought. Are those different parts of the same bullet
possibly?
Mr. NICOL. That is possible, because there appears to be an interval of ap
proximately an eighth of an inch that is not present, so that the area where one
begins is not even with the other, so it is not possible to tell, at least I
couldn't to express an opinion.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, they might be two separate bullets or two parts of the
same bullet?
Mr. NICOL. Two parts of the same or separate bullets, that is right.
*******************************************************************
>Obviously by the time of the HSCA the government was aware of the same
>problem I had outlined, that if all the fragments couldn't be linked
>to the same set of bullets
The WCR already stated this. Why is this knowledge mystically hidden until the
HSCA?
>(2) they would have some "explainin' ta do",
Which they did back in 1964 with Frazier and Nicol's testimony.
>so in comes Guinn. He overturns the FBI and says they can match
>all the fragments to the two bullets.
Of course, both Frazier and Nicol *ALREADY* said that the fragments could be
part of the same bullet.
>I was simply showing DVP that
>the FBI via Frazier didn't agree in 1964.
You lie to make such an assertion. Frazier, *IN 1964* testified that the
fragments could be part of the same bullet. (As I've already quoted)
>Ben got all of this all twisted around (and I can't even remember what
>he was saying as it made no sense)
Here - let me repeat it again: The WCR cannot be impugn ONLY on the basis of the
evidence contained within it. You *MUST* examine the same evidence that they
did to prove their lies, misrepresentations, and chicanery.
>and called me a liar. Again, he
>offered no proof for his *assertion*.
See above...
>I could go on but these are the main points and there is no reason to
>at this point in time.
I do hope you get around to telling everyone where that second pencil came from.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
Why, thank you "YoHarvey"... it's always a pleasure having your support for my
words and arguments... to say nothing of the evidence I continually cite and
quote. We should get together soon and do lunch. Perhaps at NARA - as we
examine the altered Z-film?
Gil Jesus
> from your supporters is deafening, it is not?-
Almost as deafening as the silence on YOUR behalf when I post PROOF
that you are a liar.
LIE # 1
1. He/she posted a false "letter" and attributed the author as my
third grade teacher, who claimed to have me in her class at a time
when I was in kindergarten, proving himself/herself once again as a
liar.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4f6f846cc8f05f54
Lie # 2
2. In one post YoHarvey calls the Education Forum the "research
community"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/48acfed5de8ec2ac
then he refers to it as a "demented group of misfits"
in another post he refers to it as "major kook central"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/605057d1f9873de2
LIE # 3
3. YoHarvey lied when he/she said that I was arrested in March 1994
for not paying a cable TV bill.
He/she would like the reader to believe that the theft of cable TV
would go on for 2 or 3 years without their knowing.
He/she provides no evidence to support this charge except his say so.
No links to any police records, court records, newspaper accounts of
the theft. No links. No info.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/515311a1bd65759b
LIE # 4
4. YoHarvey lied when he said that I believed that Santos Trafficante
meant that JFK was going to be hit by Jackie because she found a bra
under JFK's pillow. I never said that. YOHARVEY DID THEN ATTRIBUTED IT
TO ME!!
Here's the link to YoLarvae's ridiculous post:
and my response was:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8140300091f92867
LIE # 5
YoHarvey claimed that I said that Connally shot JFK. The post that was
cited is here.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd783b571f900c24
But as the post shows, I didn't actually say it, I implied it.
Implying something is not the same as actually saying something.
Once again, YoHarvey and his fellow falsifiers took something that I
implied and tried to spin it. In fact, if you do a search of this
newsgroup of the phrase "Connally shot JFK", you'll find that most, if
not all of the posts were made by
the trolls and that I never actually said any such thing.
I put to rest any notion that I ever actually said any such thing
here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/25bc946d919d2937
MORE YOHARVEY LIES
YoHarvey makes up LIES as he/she goes along...like these:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bc526ae91bd97331
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/54b99cbd78e1b516
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9dbf202aa827db5
Given his/her propensity for being a LIAR, can we believe ANYTHING
YoHarvey/baileynme/spiffy says ?
robcap...@netscape.com
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
> >Let's wrap why Ben has called me a liar so I can move on to more
> >productive things (and the board can too).
>
> >1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment when
> >Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment
> >traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
>
> And based your entire argument around that lie. For without Frazier saying
> "bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
No I didn't Ben, not hardly. My main goal was not to say what hit the
chrome, but rather to show that the two hit scenario was IMPOSSIBLE.
Again, you have *assumed* what my goal was instead of asking me. And
call me a liar to boot.
>
> You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome dent, but
> Frazier never said that.
No I didn't, I said to account for all the wounds, *fragments* and
damage there had to be more than two bullets simply based on what the
WCR said. That was my goal, not the chrome dent. YOU have made that
the main point, not me.
>
> >I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also said this
> >is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
> >velocity rifle.
>
> Of course, you're lying right now.
Prove it. You are saying the Mannlicher-Carcano is a high-velocity
gun?
>
> Frazier was referencing the fragment as being "fairly high velocity" IN RELATION
> TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. In other words, when Frazier said "fairly high
> velocity", he was speaking of a fragment traveling SLOWER than a normal bullet.
That is your interpretation and you chastise me for doing this. I
don't have a clue what he was saying so I have to go by what is in the
report. In the report he says a "fairly high velocity" and the rifle
that is alleged to be used is not capable of this speed, especially
after hitting bone like JFK's head. So my only conclusion is this is
faulty info at best.
>
> >Thus producing anything (fragment, bullet, etc...)
> >that would exit a skull traveling faster than it went in is highly
> >improbable.
>
> No-one but you has asserted such a silly statement.
It is the only way to interpret what he said. How does a bullet/
fragment pick up speed after hitting solid mass?
>
> Nor can you quote anyone saying anything of the sort.
I never said anyone was saying it, this is my thought and you have
called me a liar. I may be wrong, I'm not above being wrong, but
Frazier language makes no sense to me. I'm am entitled to have an
opinion without being called a liar, aren't I? I haven't called one
LNer a liar. I don't agree with them, but they are entitled to their
opinion.
>
> >Meanwhile, the cause of death is listed as "high velocity
> >projectiles" by the WCR on page 523. This brings up more questions,
> >but for now I'll skip them.
>
> You should... since you titled this post "Cliff Notes to An Accusation", and
> this topic has NEVER come up between us.
No it has not, but the official cause of death is by "high velocity
projectiles". I ask you now, doesn't a fragment traveling at a "fairly
high velocity" make more sense if it started as a high-velocity
bullet, rather than a low-to-medium velocity bullet? It does to me.
>
> >Furthermore, the size of the fragments
> >indicate it is highly improbable they could cause a major dent in
> >chrome.
>
> With *NO* citation given. Rob doesn't like to admit that Frazier testified that
> either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could have done the damage to the
> chrome.
Of course he did, but in MY opinion, it is not possible. I never said
this was said by anyone else by the way as this was "My
interpretation" of the evidence (I have read several SS agents said it
was a bullet, but I don't know where those are so I won't use them).
However, without seeing test results I can't agree with Frazier that a
fragment the size of either could do it. My main point was more about
them not being able to say the two fragments came from the same
bullet.
>
> Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is attempting to
> use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. Yet consistently fails to do
> so.
Well I obviously failed with you, and if you really cared about
showing the WCR to be liars you could have added weight to fill in
what I may have missed, that is what I would have done for you or any
other CT person. I would not have called them a liar.
>
> And if Rob doesn't like the 21 or 44 grain size... I gave him a perfectly good
> 96 grain size.
Yes you did, but the WCR did not mention this so I can't use it can I
under your insistance of sticking to what they said, can I?
>
> >Ben says I lied.
>
> You provably did. You implied another lie immediately above when comparing the
> MC to Frazier's "fairly high velocity" statement.
It wasn't a lie, it was my thought on the issue. If you don't agree
that is fine with me, but again it is juvenile to keep saying someone
is lying just because you don't agree. No wonder the CT community has
trouble advancing ideas due to other CTers attacking them if they
don't agree.
>
> You lied when you asserted that it's been said that the fragments COULD NOT HAVE
> COME from the same bullet.
I don't think so as I provided the quote from the report and cited the
page number. They are the ones that said they couldn't say the
fragments came from the same bullet, not me.
>
> You lied when you asserted that ANYONE AT ALL had ever asserted that those
> fragments might have come from CE399.
I never said that either (you like to read your own spin on things
don't you?), I said they tested the fragments (limo and Parkland) and
the CE399 to see if they matched. That is all I said.
>
> You probably told a few more... I'm starting to lose track of them.
Based on the way you read what people write and put your own thoughts
to it even when it is not what the writer meant, I know see why you
think so many people are lying.
>
> >He of course offers no proof to back up his
> >*assertions* as usual.
>
> Other than quotes from Frazier's testimony, you mean.
You offered nothing to refute the point I made about the FBI saying
the two fragments found in the limo couldn't be proved to have come
from the same bullet. Frazier's testimony was a tap dance.
>
> >2) He says I "lied" when I said the fragments could not be linked to
> >the same bullet.
>
> No, I've never stated that.
This is my main point to the whole post. You have to be saying that
because you keep calling me a liar.
>
> Nor can you provide any quote of my doing so.
Then list what you are calling me a liar for, I've lost track as
everthing I write you say it.
> Indeed, it's the simple truth that the fragments could *NOT* be provably linked
> to each other.
Right, and this was my main point for showing more than two bullets
were used as the magic bullet (at least the one they presented as
being the magic bullet) only lost 2.4 grains so there is no way a 44
or 21 grain fragment came from it, so they backed themselves into a
corner.
>
> >The FBI
>
> Who, at the FBI.
The report doesn't name names, they just say the fragments and the
CE399 were tested by them. I would guess it is the same ones that did
the other ballistic tests however.
>
> For some strange reason, Rob keeps running from this question.
I don't run from it since you haven't asked me it before, at least not
in the posts I have read and responded to.
>
> >ran test on all of the fragments and the CE399 to determine if
> >they matched. They did not, thus the term of being "similar" in
> >metallic composition (there is only matching or not matching).
>
> No, there is *NOT* only "matching or not matching". There are many times when
> it is simply not possible to "prove" something. I've given you several
> examples...
This is not what ballistic experts say. Even when a mutilated bullet
or fragement is too marred it is listed as a non-match. There is no
in between from the experts I have read. If you know of ballistic
experts that say differently please provide them as I would like to
read what they say.
>
> Tell us where that second pencil came from Rob?
Back to the pencil stuff. What does this have to do with anything?
>
> If you can't prove that the sandblasted car was painted yellow, does that prove
> that it had green racing stripes?
Ben, these are not scientifically the same as ballistic matching. I'm
sure a CSI unit today could tell you what color a car had been painted
and if it had stripes or not as buffing is not going to remove every
ounce of paint as there will be trace amounts left. Technology has
advanced a lot, but in 1963 they probably couldn't. This is not the
same as testing bullets or fragments however, unless you have a study
that did match these two different examples to show the WC lied, then
I'd like to see it.
>
> >They
> >added a big "But" after this saying they "could not determine whether
> >two or more of the fragments came from the same bullet" (WCR p.77
> >first full paragraph). I concluded that based on this they could not
> >prove their theory.
>
> Very poor logic, of course. Tell us where the second pencil came from Rob?
What does a pencil have to do with anything? My logic is related to
two bullets, one of which could not bear a loss of 44 or 21 grains
since it was nearly pristine according to the WC. The other one could
bear it but they are saying they can't prove both came form it. You
don't think the defense would have a field day with this?
>
> >Ben said this is a "lie" as saying "not possible" is not proof that
> >they couldn't have come from the same bullet.
>
> No-one other than Rob has stated that it's "not possible" that the fragments
> came from the same bullet.
You're right, "could not determine whether **two or more of the
fragments came from the same bullet**", this statement means it could
come from one bullet, not! What aren't you getting with this
statement? The only thing less than two or more is one. One fragment
leaves one, where did this other one come from according to you?
>
> Despite my quoting of Frazier asserting that this is indeed a possibility, Rob
> keeps lying about it.
It did not assert it, he was tap dancing. He was keeping both
possibilities open and this is baloney as you have to reach a
conclusion one way or another. The FBI made them not outright lie I
guess (fear they could be showed to be lying) so they had him act like
*both* scenarios were viable, of course they are not. It is one or
the other.
>
> >Again, he offers no
> >proof for his *assertion*.
>
> Other than Frazier's explicit testimony, you mean.
I don't remember him saying explicitly that they were from one bullet,
you are fibbing if you claim that. He was dancing all over the place
in his testimony, but in the report ther is no dancing. It says they
could not be determined to come from one bullet.
>
> >To him it is not possible and possible all
> >at the same time.
>
> You're a liar, Rob.
Whatever, but that is what you were saying.
>
> It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the same bullet.
>
> It is POSSIBLE that they did. As Frazier testified to.
Ben, I'm surprised by you. I thought you were more on the ball than
this. In the world of science if you can't prove it than it is not
so, period. To say I can't prove it, but it is possible is what you
shoot people down for all the time, but now you are willing to accept
it just to make me look bad I guess. I know you aren't supporting the
WCR so that is the only conclusion I can reach. It is not POSSIBLE if
you can't prove it in the world of science, that is just the way it
is. Also, as I have said before if it really was possible they
wouldn't have mentioned they couldn't prove it.
>
> I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to simutaneously refer
> to the same event.
You did and you just did again right before this.
> It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the same bullet.
>
> It is POSSIBLE that they did. As Frazier testified to.
> >3) He called me a "liar" to the third power when I said based on the
> >pronouncement that the two fragments did not come from the same bullet
>
> No Rob - *NO-ONE* other than you is saying that CE567 & CE569 "did not come from
> the same bullet".
Yeah, I know the remark in quotation marks on page 77 of the WCR was
me, I helped write the report in 1964 even though I wasn't alive yet.
>
> You're a liar to suggest that anyone other than you has stated that.
I'm a liar it says this on page 77 of the WCR.
>
> The inability to *PROVE* that they came from the same bullet is not a
> "pronouncement" that they did not. Indeed, both Frazier and Nicol EXPLICITLY
> deny any such assumption.
Sorry in the world of ballistics it is. If you can't determine they
came from the same bullet or gun, the defense would not have allowed
this "evidence" to be allowed into court. It is the same thing.
>
> Where's your second pencil, Rob?
>
> >there had to more than the 3 shots.
>
> Not by any evidence you've cited out of the WCR...
You are just being mean and not even trying to see my point of view,
it is so important for you to be right and all knowing instead of
helping someone.
You're an sad person to resort to this. This is a horrible crime that
ruins someone for life and you make a joke of it. You must be John as
this is his trick. Any credibilty you had is gone in my book. You
can't have a civil discussion I guess.
See: http://www.geocities.com/justicewell/faq.htm
Check out number 5 and see how John likes to accuse people of being
child molestors.
>
> When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 could have been
> the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide the quote of ANYONE
> AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to show everyone where Rob
> claimed that he'd been convicted of child molestation.
You're a brave one through the computer John. You are discounting the
CE399 bullet, good, now based on the fact the two fragments not being
able to be determined to have come from one bullet, what other bullet
do you have loser?
>
> For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they were never
> said.
>
> >Okay. I'm fair unlike him.
WHATEVER, YOU A LIAR AND A LOSER JOHN.
>
> Difficult to maintain such... when you've just got through lying about what I've
> said.
No, I don't think so John.
>
> Tell me Rob - can you QUOTE a single example where I asserted that you'd said
> something that you didn't say?
He knows what you are talking about as all you mention is pencils.
>
> Yet you keep asserting things that *I'D NEVER SAID*. What's "fair" about that?
Yeah, I just made them up. If anyone had the energy to go through all
the posts they would see you have said them.
>
> >Explain how a bullet who
> >only lost 2.4 grains can parcel out a fragment the size of 44 grains
> >or 21 grains or both? This is truly a magic bullet.
>
> When you need to lie to make a point... the only point you've made is that
> you're a liar.
So no even cold, hard fact is a lie, right? The bullet presented as
CE399 only lost 2.4 grains, and we are sticking to what the WC said
John.
>
> I have no intention at all of answering a question based on something I never
> stated.
Nice evasion John. Typical.
>
> >Ben can't think of this and makes another crazy assertion just like
> >when he used his "math" to explain the two fragments coming from the
> >head shot. For those of you who missed this (Can't blame you with this
> >never ending thread) here it is.
>
> >Bullet weight = 161 grains (per WCR)
> >First fragment = 44 grains
> >Second fragment = 21 grains
>
> >Here is Ben's math problem.
>
> >161-44-21=96 grains
>
> >He *asserts* the remaining 96 grain fragment also exited (something
> >the WCR wouldn't even say) and hit the chrome and bounced outside of
> >the limo.
>
> Nope... merely demonstrated that if you didn't like the size of the 21 or 44
> grain fragment, that there was PROVABLY a larger fragment available to do the
> job. Rob, you see, hasn't taken the time to review the ballistics studies,
> which demonstrate that FMJ bullets typically break up into just a few fragments.
> There was certainly *NOTHING* close to 96 grains left in JFK's head... so Rob
> can't figure out what to do with the missing mass.
Sure it is provable only in your nutty mind John. So no fragment
stayed in the brain, sure. Haven't read the ballistic studies, you are
a fraud John. While you were hiding in your university I was serving
in the militay, Marines, so I think I know how FMJ ammo works loser.
Based on agreements through the Geneva Convention military bullets are
not designed to fragment to reduce the suffering of soldier. I guess
sitting on your ass in the States you wouldn't know this.
> What happened to it, Rob? Where did it go? Is this the "magical fragment?"
Of course not as we had two brain exams and the WC was never clear
beyond a few small fragments what they found in the brain. Quit trying
to save face John, you're a jackass.
> It may not have weighed 96 grains... who knows, it might have weighed only 94
> grains, it might have broken into *two* 48 grain pieces...
And Santa Claus might visit my house on 12/24 too.
>
> But what is *INDISPUTABLE* is that there is the possibility of a much larger
> fragment, indeed; TWICE THE SIZE, of the 44 grain fragment that you disbelieve
> could have caused the dented chrome.
Only in your mind, prove it John or quit asserting this junk.
>
> >Somehow it misses the rearview mirror.
>
> It also missed the side mirrors, the flags, Greer's head, the steering wheel...
> well I could go on, but Rob would miss the point.
You're stupid, the rearview mirror was right in near the dent, those
other things were not.
>
> >The other two wind
> >up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
> >Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
> >head!!
>
> I forgot, Rob... was that little boys or little girls that you like to molest?
You are a loser John. A pathetic loser. A sad human being to mock
this vicious crime.
>
> For just like your assertion of your gender preference, at no time did I ever
> state that none of the bullet[s] that struck JFK's head remained in his head.
You did moron, admit it.
>
> In fact, it was not long ago that I was asking you about the largest fragment
> that was pulled out of JFK's head. I don't recall you answering that one.
You did not liar. John you are full of it.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ca471993-babf-4663...@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
LIE # 1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4f6f846cc8f05f54
Lie # 2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/48acfed5de8ec2ac
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/605057d1f9873de2
LIE # 3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/515311a1bd65759b
LIE # 4
and my response was:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8140300091f92867
LIE # 5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd783b571f900c24
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/25bc946d919d2937
MORE YOHARVEY LIES
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bc526ae91bd97331
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/54b99cbd78e1b516
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9dbf202aa827db5
Here's Another GOOD One>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 30, 5:13 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>> >Let's wrap why Ben has called me a liar so I can move on to more
>> >productive things (and the board can too).
>>
>> >1) He said I "lied" because I typed "bullet" instead of fragment when
>> >Frazier said the dent in the hardened chrome was from a fragment
>> >traveling at a "fairly high velocity" hitting it.
>>
>> And based your entire argument around that lie. For without Frazier saying
>> "bullet", you don't *HAVE* an argument.
>
>No I didn't Ben, not hardly. My main goal was not to say what hit the
>chrome,
And without Frazier stating a "bullet", you don't have a 'missing' bullet.
This isn't rocket science.
>but rather to show that the two hit scenario was IMPOSSIBLE.
By all means, go ahead. You haven't done it so far...
>Again, you have *assumed* what my goal was instead of asking me. And
>call me a liar to boot.
I call you a liar because you PROVABLY LIE.
>> You tried to argue that an extra bullet was needed for the chrome dent, but
>> Frazier never said that.
>
>No I didn't, I said to account for all the wounds, *fragments* and
>damage there had to be more than two bullets simply based on what the
>WCR said.
Nope. You *STILL* can't tell us just what, about the scenario given by the WCR,
and presuming *ONLY* the evidence that they presented in the WCR, is impossible.
>That was my goal, not the chrome dent. YOU have made that
>the main point, not me.
Yet you still can't do it. Go ahead, Rob - lay out your argument. Be ready to
cite.
But just *asserting* that it's not possible, isn't going to 'prove it' to
anyone.
>> >I explained I simply typed the wrong word by mistake. I also said this
>> >is not possible due to the alleged rifle being a low-to-medium
>> >velocity rifle.
>>
>> Of course, you're lying right now.
>
>Prove it. You are saying the Mannlicher-Carcano is a high-velocity
>gun?
I just *did* prove it, immediately below:
>> Frazier was referencing the fragment as being "fairly high velocity"
>> IN RELATION TO THE SPEED OF A NORMAL BULLET. In other words, when
>> Frazier said "fairly high velocity", he was speaking of a fragment
>> traveling SLOWER than a normal bullet.
>
>That is your interpretation
There's no "interpretation" needed.
>and you chastise me for doing this. I
>don't have a clue what he was saying so I have to go by what is in the
>report.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been caused, for
instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full velocity from a rifle, but
merely from a fragment traveling at fairly high velocity which struck the inside
surface of the chrome.
The comparison of "fairly high velocity" IS WITH THE FULL VELOCITY OF A BULLET.
You're a liar to suggest that it had anything at all to do with "low velocity",
"medium velocity", "high velocity" weapons...
I've shown you this quote before.
>In the report he says a "fairly high velocity" and the rifle
>that is alleged to be used is not capable of this speed,
Again, you lie about Frazier's testimony.
Doing it once can be understandable, doing it again AFTER I quoted Frazier's
testimony, as I've already done in earlier posts - means that you're
intentionally lying.
>especially
>after hitting bone like JFK's head. So my only conclusion is this is
>faulty info at best.
When you need to lie about Frazier's testimony, then call it "faulty info" based
on your lies - then it's clear where you're headed.
>> >Thus producing anything (fragment, bullet, etc...)
>> >that would exit a skull traveling faster than it went in is highly
>> >improbable.
>>
>> No-one but you has asserted such a silly statement.
>
>It is the only way to interpret what he said. How does a bullet/
>fragment pick up speed after hitting solid mass?
You're a bald-faced liar, Rob. Here it is again:
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been caused, for
instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full velocity from a rifle, but
merely from a fragment traveling at fairly high velocity which struck the inside
surface of the chrome.
>> Nor can you quote anyone saying anything of the sort.
>
>I never said anyone was saying it, this is my thought and you have
>called me a liar.
I'm going to CONTINUE calling you a liar each time you misrepresent or misquote
the evidence.
>I may be wrong, I'm not above being wrong, but
>Frazier language makes no sense to me.
And yet, I've previously provided this quote, I've even provided a link where
you can go read it yourself.
Yet you persist in lying about what Frazier said.
>I'm am entitled to have an
>opinion without being called a liar, aren't I?
Absolutely... you can have any opinion you want.
But when you lie about what someone ELSE said - you've lost any protection
against being labeled for what you are, a liar.
Opinions can't be "lies", but falsely *asserting* what someone said *IS A LIE*.
>I haven't called one
>LNer a liar. I don't agree with them, but they are entitled to their
>opinion.
Most LNT'ers don't call other LNT'ers liars, yet many, if not most of them
indisputably *DO* lie.
>> >Meanwhile, the cause of death is listed as "high velocity
>> >projectiles" by the WCR on page 523. This brings up more questions,
>> >but for now I'll skip them.
>>
>> You should... since you titled this post "Cliff Notes to An Accusation", and
>> this topic has NEVER come up between us.
>
>No it has not, but the official cause of death is by "high velocity
>projectiles". I ask you now, doesn't a fragment traveling at a "fairly
>high velocity" make more sense if it started as a high-velocity
>bullet, rather than a low-to-medium velocity bullet? It does to me.
Just keep right on lying, Rob.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been caused, for
instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full velocity from a rifle, but
merely from a fragment traveling at fairly high velocity which struck the inside
surface of the chrome.
>> >Furthermore, the size of the fragments
>> >indicate it is highly improbable they could cause a major dent in
>> >chrome.
>>
>> With *NO* citation given. Rob doesn't like to admit that Frazier
>> testified that either the 44 grain, OR the 21 grain fragment could
>> have done the damage to the chrome.
>
>Of course he did, but in MY opinion, it is not possible. I never said
>this was said by anyone else by the way as this was "My
>interpretation" of the evidence (I have read several SS agents said it
>was a bullet, but I don't know where those are so I won't use them).
>However, without seeing test results I can't agree with Frazier that a
>fragment the size of either could do it. My main point was more about
>them not being able to say the two fragments came from the same
>bullet.
Without being able to PROVE that the dent was caused by a whole bullet, half of
your argument of missing bullets is gone.
Your opinion is not evidence.
>> Whether or not this is believable is beside the point - as Rob is
>> attempting to use *ONLY* his reading of the WCR to impugn it. Yet
>> consistently fails to do so.
>
>Well I obviously failed with you, and if you really cared about
>showing the WCR to be liars you could have added weight to fill in
>what I may have missed,
Been there, done that... reposted it many times...
Even told you how to find it.
>that is what I would have done for you or any
>other CT person. I would not have called them a liar.
THEN STOP LYING!!!
>> And if Rob doesn't like the 21 or 44 grain size... I gave him a
>> perfectly good 96 grain size.
>
>Yes you did, but the WCR did not mention this so I can't use it can I
>under your insistance of sticking to what they said, can I?
True! Well spoken. I grant your point here...
>> >Ben says I lied.
>>
>> You provably did. You implied another lie immediately above when
>> comparing the MC to Frazier's "fairly high velocity" statement.
>
>It wasn't a lie, it was my thought on the issue.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been caused, for
instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full velocity from a rifle, but
merely from a fragment traveling at fairly high velocity which struck the inside
surface of the chrome.
>If you don't agree
>that is fine with me, but again it is juvenile to keep saying someone
>is lying just because you don't agree.
Frazier never said what you keep stating. It's as simple as that.
>No wonder the CT community has
>trouble advancing ideas due to other CTers attacking them if they
>don't agree.
Polls put the belief in conspiracy as high as 90%. Where are you planning to
"advance?"
>> You lied when you asserted that it's been said that the fragments
>> COULD NOT HAVE COME from the same bullet.
>
>I don't think so as I provided the quote from the report and cited the
>page number.
No, Rob, you have NOT.
Nor did you try to do so again... when I called you a liar right here... it
would be *SOOOOO* easy to prove *me* wrong by simply supplying the citation or
quote.
>They are the ones that said they couldn't say the
>fragments came from the same bullet, not me.
No Rob... saying that the "fragments COULD NOT HAVE COME from the same bullet"
is NOT the same as saying that "they couldn't say the fragments came from the
same bullet."
Each time you try this little trick, I'm just going to shove it right back in
your face.
>> You lied when you asserted that ANYONE AT ALL had ever asserted that those
>> fragments might have come from CE399.
>
>I never said that either
Of course you did.
****************************************************************************
>> >so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of
>> >the fragments.
****************************************************************************
Why bother to lie, Rob? I'm only going to point it out...
>(you like to read your own spin on things
>don't you?), I said they tested the fragments (limo and Parkland) and
>the CE399 to see if they matched. That is all I said.
****************************************************************************
>> >so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of
>> >the fragments.
****************************************************************************
Who is "claiming", Rob? Is that someone an "anyone" as I stated above???
>> You probably told a few more... I'm starting to lose track of them.
>
>Based on the way you read what people write and put your own thoughts
>to it even when it is not what the writer meant, I know see why you
>think so many people are lying.
If this were so, Rob; you'd be able to CITE AND QUOTE when I label something a
lie, to prove otherwise. Yet you never seem to do that.
>> >He of course offers no proof to back up his
>> >*assertions* as usual.
>>
>> Other than quotes from Frazier's testimony, you mean.
>
>You offered nothing to refute the point I made about the FBI saying
>the two fragments found in the limo couldn't be proved to have come
>from the same bullet. Frazier's testimony was a tap dance.
Of course I did. Both Frazier AND Nicol state the same thing, that both
fragments could be part of the same bullet.
Merely putting your opinion up as evidence isn't good enough.
I did indeed offer the proof needed. Expert testimony of the men who actually
studied these fragments.
Your proof? Your opinion...
>> >2) He says I "lied" when I said the fragments could not be linked to
>> >the same bullet.
>>
>> No, I've never stated that.
>
>This is my main point to the whole post. You have to be saying that
>because you keep calling me a liar.
QUOTE ME SAYING THAT, you liar!! Or retract it. That would be the course of an
honest man.
>> Nor can you provide any quote of my doing so.
>
>Then list what you are calling me a liar for, I've lost track as
>everthing I write you say it.
Most of 'em are in this post. You can refute them anytime. A simple quote or
citation would be all that's needed in most cases.
>> Indeed, it's the simple truth that the fragments could *NOT* be
>> provably linked to each other.
>
>Right, and this was my main point for showing more than two bullets
>were used as the magic bullet (at least the one they presented as
>being the magic bullet) only lost 2.4 grains so there is no way a 44
>or 21 grain fragment came from it, so they backed themselves into a
>corner.
No-one, NO-ONE AT ALL, has ever asserted this other than you.
>> >The FBI
>>
>> Who, at the FBI.
>
>The report doesn't name names,
But yes it does... and by reading their actually testimony, you'd know that it
was FRAZIER who did the testing.
So each time you say "FBI", you'd better get used to saying "FRAZIER".
>they just say the fragments and the
>CE399 were tested by them. I would guess it is the same ones that did
>the other ballistic tests however.
Yep... Frazier.
>> For some strange reason, Rob keeps running from this question.
>
>I don't run from it since you haven't asked me it before, at least not
>in the posts I have read and responded to.
I've asked it at *least* twice before.
>> >ran test on all of the fragments and the CE399 to determine if
>> >they matched. They did not, thus the term of being "similar" in
>> >metallic composition (there is only matching or not matching).
>>
>> No, there is *NOT* only "matching or not matching". There are many
>> times when it is simply not possible to "prove" something. I've given
>> you several examples...
>
>This is not what ballistic experts say.
Give me the name of *JUST ONE* ballistics expert that says you can *ALWAYS*
prove whether a fragment belongs to a particular bullet.
But you won't... You can't. This is another lie on your part.
>Even when a mutilated bullet
>or fragement is too marred it is listed as a non-match. There is no
>in between from the experts I have read. If you know of ballistic
>experts that say differently please provide them as I would like to
>read what they say.
NONE of them say what you're trying to assert.
Simply being unable to prove that one base fragment was originally part of the
same bullet as one tip fragment DOES NOT PROVE THAT THEY MUST BE FROM SEPARATE
BULLETS.
You can't come up with a SINGLE citation that would say that.
>> Tell us where that second pencil came from Rob?
>
>Back to the pencil stuff. What does this have to do with anything?
It's quite simple, really... it demonstrates that your logic is deeply flawed.
>> If you can't prove that the sandblasted car was painted yellow, does
>> that prove that it had green racing stripes?
>
>Ben, these are not scientifically the same as ballistic matching.
You're logic is that if it "A" cannot be proved, then "B" is thereby proven.
It's false logic.
Here's an example I've previously given that YOU CAN'T DISPUTE.
Take a Carcano rifle, and fire one bullet into a water tank. Hand me that ONE
SINGLE BULLET, and give me a hacksaw and a hammer.
I will saw the bullet into three sections, throw away the middle section, then
hammer out the hacksaw 'evidence'. The two remaining fragments WILL BE UNABLE
TO BE MATCHED TO EACH OTHER - so by your logic, you must have initially handed
me two bullets.
This is a simple "thought experiment" (Einstein was fond of them) that PROVES
BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT YOUR THESIS IS FALSE.
Unless you can tell anyone here how you could *prove* that the two fragments
came from one bullet.
>I'm
>sure a CSI unit today could tell you what color a car had been painted
>and if it had stripes or not as buffing is not going to remove every
>ounce of paint as there will be trace amounts left.
Presuming that the sandblasting wasn't done carefully enough is not going to
save you, Rob.
>Technology has
>advanced a lot, but in 1963 they probably couldn't. This is not the
>same as testing bullets or fragments however, unless you have a study
>that did match these two different examples to show the WC lied, then
>I'd like to see it.
Just gave you (again) a perfect example that you can't dispute.
>> >They
>> >added a big "But" after this saying they "could not determine whether
>> >two or more of the fragments came from the same bullet" (WCR p.77
>> >first full paragraph). I concluded that based on this they could not
>> >prove their theory.
>>
>> Very poor logic, of course. Tell us where the second pencil came from Rob?
>
>What does a pencil have to do with anything?
In the example above, you gave me *ONE* bullet. Where did the second one come
from Rob?
>My logic is related to
>two bullets, one of which could not bear a loss of 44 or 21 grains
>since it was nearly pristine according to the WC.
Assuming that the two fragments represented two bullets when *that* is what you
are trying to prove is another sad example of your inability to reason.
>The other one could
>bear it but they are saying they can't prove both came form it. You
>don't think the defense would have a field day with this?
Why? Do you suppose lawyers couldn't understand the simple examples I keep
bombarding you with?
Or a Jury?
>> >Ben said this is a "lie" as saying "not possible" is not proof that
>> >they couldn't have come from the same bullet.
>>
>> No-one other than Rob has stated that it's "not possible" that the fragments
>> came from the same bullet.
>
>You're right, "could not determine whether **two or more of the
>fragments came from the same bullet**", this statement means it could
>come from one bullet, not!
Untrue.
>What aren't you getting with this statement?
Because my IQ and God-given brains & education won't allow me.
I've never confused the fact that something cannot be proven to mean that it's
not possible, or even likely.
>The only thing less than two or more is one. One fragment
>leaves one, where did this other one come from according to you?
You're mouthing silliness now...
>> Despite my quoting of Frazier asserting that this is indeed a
>> possibility, Rob keeps lying about it.
>
>It did not assert it, he was tap dancing.
Did he, or did he not state that the two fragments could belong to the same
bullet?
Did Nicol, or did he not state that the two fragments could belong to the same
bullet?
WHERE IS YOUR CITATION ROB???
>He was keeping both
>possibilities open and this is baloney as you have to reach a
>conclusion one way or another.
No, you don't.
PROVE TO ME THAT THE TWO FRAGMENTS I HAND BACK TO YOU CAME FROM TWO SEPARATE
BULLETS!
>The FBI made them not outright lie I
>guess (fear they could be showed to be lying) so they had him act like
>*both* scenarios were viable, of course they are not. It is one or
>the other.
The FBI couldn't make Frazier lie, so they made him lie.
The FBI, who had *NO* operational control over Nicol, had no *power* to make him
lie, but they made him lie...
>> >Again, he offers no
>> >proof for his *assertion*.
>>
>> Other than Frazier's explicit testimony, you mean.
>
>I don't remember him saying explicitly that they were from one bullet,
>you are fibbing if you claim that.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are
portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition
to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together.
However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567,
which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, SO THAT
THEY COULD BE PARTS OF ONE BULLET, and then, of course, they could be parts of
separate bullets.
It really doesn't matter to me how many times I cut & paste this citation - I
have it saved, so it takes mere moments to shove it in your face again...
>He was dancing all over the place
>in his testimony, but in the report ther is no dancing. It says they
>could not be determined to come from one bullet.
That's what his testimony says also. Do you suppose he was "dancing all over
the place" when he said this in his testimony?
>> >To him it is not possible and possible all
>> >at the same time.
>>
>> You're a liar, Rob.
>
>Whatever, but that is what you were saying.
No Rob, I never have. Nor can you QUOTE ME DOING SO!
>> It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the same bullet.
>>
>> It is POSSIBLE that they did. As Frazier testified to.
>
>Ben, I'm surprised by you. I thought you were more on the ball than
>this. In the world of science if you can't prove it than it is not
>so, period.
How silly! Just to give merely *one* example - the "Big Bang" theory. (Or
Steady State, Oscillating, or any other you care to name.) According to you the
Universe doesn't exist, because science cannot "prove" how it started.
Nor, of course, will you be able to provide any authoritative citation for such
a silly understanding of science.
>To say I can't prove it, but it is possible is what you
>shoot people down for all the time, but now you are willing to accept
>it just to make me look bad I guess. I know you aren't supporting the
>WCR
I don't support *liars* and the lies they tell.
>so that is the only conclusion I can reach. It is not POSSIBLE if
>you can't prove it in the world of science, that is just the way it
>is.
Then tell me where the second bullet came from. *YOU* didn't hand it to me,
*YOU* have the rifle that the fragments can be ballistically matched to... where
did the second fragment I hand you come from?
>Also, as I have said before if it really was possible they
>wouldn't have mentioned they couldn't prove it.
Your faulty understanding of "proof" really shows itself.
>> I've never used the terms "possible" and "not possible" to simutaneously
>> refer to the same event.
>
>You did and you just did again right before this.
>
>> It is *NOT POSSIBLE* to prove that the fragments came from the same bullet.
>>
>> It is POSSIBLE that they did. As Frazier testified to.
You really believe that "to prove that the fragments came from the same bullet"
is the same as "that they did?"
Is English your second language?
>> >3) He called me a "liar" to the third power when I said based on the
>> >pronouncement that the two fragments did not come from the same bullet
>>
>> No Rob - *NO-ONE* other than you is saying that CE567 & CE569 "did not
>> come from the same bullet".
>
>Yeah, I know the remark in quotation marks on page 77 of the WCR was
>me, I helped write the report in 1964 even though I wasn't alive yet.
"...but it was not possible to determine whether two or more of the fragments
came from the same bullet."
Sorry Rob - that is NOT the same thing as "CE567 & CE569 did not come from the
same bullet."
Your a liar, Rob... one that can't read, and one that can't cite.
>> You're a liar to suggest that anyone other than you has stated that.
>
>I'm a liar it says this on page 77 of the WCR.
"...but it was not possible to determine whether two or more of the fragments
came from the same bullet."
Doesn't say what you assert it does, Rob... Your a liar. And a poor one at
that.
>> The inability to *PROVE* that they came from the same bullet is not a
>> "pronouncement" that they did not. Indeed, both Frazier and Nicol
>> EXPLICITLY deny any such assumption.
>
>Sorry in the world of ballistics it is.
No liar, it's not. When are you going to provide citations for these fables you
keep trying to foist on everyone?
>If you can't determine they
>came from the same bullet or gun, the defense would not have allowed
>this "evidence" to be allowed into court. It is the same thing.
Garbage. Sheer unadulterated garbage.
>> Where's your second pencil, Rob?
*STILL* can't answer...
>> >there had to more than the 3 shots.
>>
>> Not by any evidence you've cited out of the WCR...
>
>You are just being mean and not even trying to see my point of view,
>it is so important for you to be right and all knowing instead of
>helping someone.
If you aren't willing to try, there's *NOTHING* I can do to "help" you.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him read the eyewitness
testimony.
>> >I made the "mistake" of using Dr. Finck's assertion that JBC had more
>> >in his wrist than was lost from the magic bullet (CE399) AND right
>> >away Ben said this was from the Shaw trial in 1967/68 so it is outside
>> >the WCR.
>>
>> It obviously is.
>>
>> You made the mistake of asserting that based ONLY on your reading of
>> the WCR, that you could prove that there were more than three shots.
>>
>> Can't be done.
>>
>> >Obviously he assumes this was not mentioned to anyone during
>> >the "investigation". To be fair, I am not sure what area it may be
>> >mentioned in the WCR,
>>
>> It wasn't. Don't you think it might be sorta silly for the WCR to say:
>> "we believe that CE399 went through JFK and Connally, and that no other
>> bullet struck Connally - but oh, by the way, there were more bullet
>> fragments left in Connally than were missing out of CE399"
>>
>> I've told you time and time again that you can't impugn the WCR based
>> ONLY on the evidence that the WCR chose to tell you about in it's
>> report. You *MUST* go to the same evidence that they had - then it's
>> relatively trivial to prove the WCR a fraud.
>>
>> Any number of books have done quite well demonstrating this... Walt Brown's
>> book,
(The Warren Omission, by Walt Brown)
>> for example, or some of the books written by a historian, can't
>> recall the title...
(Remington... wrote a couple of books on the topic)
>> that dealt with the problems and misrepresentations of the WCR.
>>
>> >so let's play the game his way. He claims this
>> >puts the magic bullet back into play as the source for one or both of
>> >the fragments.
>>
>> You claim that you're a convicted child molester...
>
>You're an sad person to resort to this. This is a horrible crime that
>ruins someone for life and you make a joke of it. You must be John as
>this is his trick. Any credibilty you had is gone in my book. You
>can't have a civil discussion I guess.
NO-ONE can have a "civil" discussion with someone who lies about what they said.
You lie about what I said, I'm happy to do the same to you.
>See: http://www.geocities.com/justicewell/faq.htm
>
>Check out number 5 and see how John likes to accuse people of being
>child molestors.
Search for my posts on the "6.5mm virtually round object", and see if you can
explain how "I argued with myself."
Most people would say John ran screaming away from this particular post.
>> When you produce my statement where I even *IMPLIED* that CE399 could
>> have been the source of CE567 & CE569 - indeed, when you can provide the
>> quote of ANYONE AT ALL who's made this assertion, I'll be happy to show
>> everyone where Rob claimed that he'd been convicted of child molestation.
>
>You're a brave one through the computer John.
Feel free to drop in anytime... Encino Judo Club - our address is on the net.
I don't hide behind a false name, and anyone is free to come out and visit
anytime.
>You are discounting the
>CE399 bullet, good, now based on the fact the two fragments not being
>able to be determined to have come from one bullet, what other bullet
>do you have loser?
I notice, however, that you've failed to quote me saying what you asserted
above... why is that, Rob?
And why aren't you honest enough to retract it?
>> For of course, both "statements" have in common the fact that they
>> were never said.
>>
>> >Okay. I'm fair unlike him.
>
>WHATEVER, YOU A LIAR AND A LOSER JOHN.
You're responding to your own statement.
>> Difficult to maintain such... when you've just got through lying about
>> what I've said.
>
>No, I don't think so John.
And yet, you've *STILL* failed to quote me saying what you just asserted above.
Don't know how to do routine Google searches? Speak up, I'll be glad to help
you locate anything you want.
>> Tell me Rob - can you QUOTE a single example where I asserted that
>> you'd said something that you didn't say?
>
>He knows what you are talking about as all you mention is pencils.
You're responding to *ME*.
Once again, Rob, can you QUOTE a single example where I asserted that you'd said
something that you didn't say?
>> Yet you keep asserting things that *I'D NEVER SAID*. What's "fair"
>> about that?
>
>Yeah, I just made them up.
Of *course* you did.
>If anyone had the energy to go through all
>the posts they would see you have said them.
You're a gutless liar, Rob. You can't quote me saying what you claim I said.
>> >Explain how a bullet who
>> >only lost 2.4 grains can parcel out a fragment the size of 44 grains
>> >or 21 grains or both? This is truly a magic bullet.
>>
>> When you need to lie to make a point... the only point you've made is that
>> you're a liar.
>
>So no even cold, hard fact is a lie, right?
Once again you're implying that I support or said, OR THAT ANYONE AT ALL
SUPPORTS OR SAID that the two fragments came from CE399.
And yet, you STILL can't quote anyone saying this.
So yes, you lied.
>The bullet presented as CE399 only lost 2.4 grains, and we are sticking
>to what the WC said John.
You can stick to anything you want, Samantha.
>> I have no intention at all of answering a question based on something
>> I never stated.
>
>Nice evasion John. Typical.
You can't quote me saying such, Samantha. It *IS* typical that you lie, and
that I tell the truth.
>> >Ben can't think of this and makes another crazy assertion just like
>> >when he used his "math" to explain the two fragments coming from the
>> >head shot. For those of you who missed this (Can't blame you with this
>> >never ending thread) here it is.
>>
>> >Bullet weight = 161 grains (per WCR)
>> >First fragment = 44 grains
>> >Second fragment = 21 grains
>>
>> >Here is Ben's math problem.
>>
>> >161-44-21=96 grains
>>
>> >He *asserts* the remaining 96 grain fragment also exited (something
>> >the WCR wouldn't even say) and hit the chrome and bounced outside of
>> >the limo.
>>
>> Nope... merely demonstrated that if you didn't like the size of the 21
>> or 44 grain fragment, that there was PROVABLY a larger fragment available
>> to do the job. Rob, you see, hasn't taken the time to review the
>> ballistics studies, which demonstrate that FMJ bullets typically break
>> up into just a few fragments. There was certainly *NOTHING* close to 96
>> grains left in JFK's head... so Rob can't figure out what to do with
>> the missing mass.
>
>Sure it is provable only in your nutty mind John.
Where's the 96 grains, Samantha?
How much does a bullet weigh? Tell us, Samantha ... and be sure you can *CITE*
the source.
>So no fragment
>stayed in the brain, sure.
Untrue, Samantha... only the two larger fragments were pulled out, and you STILL
REFUSE TO DESCRIBE THEM, even though I've asked several times now.
>Haven't read the ballistic studies, you are a fraud John.
You clearly haven't if you keep trying to tell people that FMJ bullets don't
fragment.
>While you were hiding in your university I was serving
>in the militay, Marines, so I think I know how FMJ ammo works loser.
Tell us, Samantha, what the Marine Corps attitude is towards Marines who lie.
>Based on agreements through the Geneva Convention military bullets are
>not designed to fragment to reduce the suffering of soldier. I guess
>sitting on your ass in the States you wouldn't know this.
Tell us, Samantha, what type of bullet did CE567 and CE569 come from?
>> What happened to it, Rob? Where did it go? Is this the "magical
>> fragment?"
>
>Of course not as we had two brain exams and the WC was never clear
>beyond a few small fragments what they found in the brain. Quit trying
>to save face John, you're a jackass.
There where dozens of people at the autopsy, tell us, Samantha, how they all
missed seeing anything larger than the fragment you STILL refuse to describe,
you know, the largest fragment that *WAS* pulled out of JFK's head.
>> It may not have weighed 96 grains... who knows, it might have weighed
>> only 94 grains, it might have broken into *two* 48 grain pieces...
>
>And Santa Claus might visit my house on 12/24 too.
You have a missing fragment, Samantha. It *DID* originally exist. Simply
denying it's existence because you don't know where it is now is silly.
>> But what is *INDISPUTABLE* is that there is the possibility of a much
>> larger fragment, indeed; TWICE THE SIZE, of the 44 grain fragment that
>> you disbelieve could have caused the dented chrome.
>
>Only in your mind, prove it John or quit asserting this junk.
It is ALREADY proven, Samantha... tell us the size of the Carcano bullets.
>> >Somehow it misses the rearview mirror.
>>
>> It also missed the side mirrors, the flags, Greer's head, the steering
>> wheel... well I could go on, but Rob would miss the point.
>
>You're stupid, the rearview mirror was right in near the dent, those
>other things were not.
Oh? So now you know the *trajectory* of an object you deny even exists?
Tell us, Samantha - how do you determine the trajectory of an object that you
deny even existed?
>> >The other two wind
>> >up on the floor and seats of the car. The MAJOR problem with this is
>> >Ben is saying a bullet has fragmented but NONE has stayed in JFK's
>> >head!!
>>
>> I forgot, Rob... was that little boys or little girls that you like to
>> molest?
>
>You are a loser John. A pathetic loser. A sad human being to mock
>this vicious crime.
Why? Are you feeling slighted?
>> For just like your assertion of your gender preference, at no time
>> did I ever state that none of the bullet[s] that struck JFK's head
>> remained in his head.
>
>You did moron, admit it.
All you'd have to do, Samantha, is QUOTE IT. You surely know how to cut &
paste, if you don't, I'm sure someone would be happy to show you how.
>> In fact, it was not long ago that I was asking you about the
>> largest fragment that was pulled out of JFK's head. I don't
>> recall you answering that one.
>
>You did not liar. John you are full of it.
Sorry Samantha, this post was dated from yesterday:
*****************************************************************
>So you are saying Einstein that no fragment was left in the head? All
>that gooey blood, tissue and gel matter, yet no fragment remains. You
>have 96 making a dent and leaving the limo, and the other two on the
>floor. That makes a lot of sense.
Go ahead, Rob... tell us, using the WCR, how many grains of bullet fragments
remained in JFK's head?
In fact, can you even tell us the size of the *LARGEST* fragment pulled out of
JFK's head? (Hint, it was pulled out from the region behind the right eye)
*****************************************************************
So once again, I've told the precise truth, and you've been caught lying. Why
is that, Samantha? Surely you know that I'm just going to keep right on
providing the citations and quotations that prove you're a liar.
Why don't you stop, and *READ* Frazier's testimony? It would be such a simple
thing to do.
Gil Jesus
made by either a bullet or a fragment. But that's just my opinion.
YoHarvey
> For what it's worth, I don't believe that the dent in the chrome was
> made by either a bullet or a fragment. But that's just my opinion.
Your opinion is like shit. It's all over the place and people avoid
it.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>For what it's worth, I don't believe that the dent in the chrome was
>made by either a bullet or a fragment. But that's just my opinion.
I suppose, according to Samantha, that I'm supposed to call you a liar now.
But Samantha can't seem to understand that it's only when people lie about what
I've stated, or about what an eyewitness asserted, or misrepresents the evidence
that the term "lie" comes about.
For merely having an opinion contrary to mine can't be a "lie".
I'm in the "fragment" caused it camp - which puts me contrary to you and Walt.
But I'm heartbroken, I can't label you or Walt "liars", since you haven't lied.
Samantha and the rest of the trolls just can't understand that, so I'll just
have to disappoint them again. :)
YoHarvey
> In article <bb7c30eb-599e-4c9a-b336-73c50b791...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Sure Holmes, we'll do lunch. I enjoy "sleeping with the enemy". Be
sure and bring your copy of the altered ZAP film. It's the ONLY once
in existence :-)